Rules for Writing Fiction

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Odalisque

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp 4) In dialogue only use the verb 'said'; don't try to vary with 'intoned', 'uttered', etc. In this case, the purpose of repetition is to render the word invisible. When the verb of dialogue becomes visible, it is tiring, and, paradoxically, feels more repetitious. That's one rule by which I don't abide. There's a lot of dialogue in my fiction, and I often use synonyms for "said". Amongst those I use more frequently are "asked", "replied", "added" "conceded" and "agreed". (These are all words relating to the function of the utterance within the conversation.) I seldom use words indicating loudness ("whispered", "shouted", etc.) but do so occasionally. I don't think that I've ever used either "intoned" or "uttered". In two person dialogue, I don't use many words with this meaning after the first couple of speeches. (Although, a reminder of who's saying what can be useful eventually.) In dialogue with three or more speakers, such words become increasingly necessary.

Well, this is exactly why I don't like the idea of rules; everyone writes in their own way which is inevitable or good or both. As I said, it's probably just the way the article was framed, making it sound as if the writers were all being dictatorial (maybe some were), but I can't stand the implication that we should all be writing in the same way. I wasn't giving my own rules (guidelines, actually, since I ignore them at will) in order to say, "This is how they should be, not the others", but just to show that I do understand that guidelines can be useful.

[Evans]

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

Quote Originally Posted by Evans Going over the same old thing all the time is dull but I think people have gone to far the other way. Ah, if only.

I think you be forgetting why people went over the same old thing so much. Namely, because it was effective. Now I don't care wheather an idea is old or new as long as it is effective. The notion we should seek the former over the latter seems very odd to me.

The dates are just speculation but I think that since the advent of people like Morcock and particuarly the whole The New Wave business, people have been encouraged to rush off and seek a sort of artificial "newness" over writing they felt conveyed powerful images or emotions.

[rhysaurus]

Further to the "said" debate, I humbly offer this brief extract from my recently completed Stringent Strange novel:

"I'm afraid they are incapable of learning the arts of war," said Nutloaf as she twirled her trident skilfully.

"Ah well," winked Grkkghj unhappily.
"They are so gentle, they can hardly tolerate the death of a fly," added Tantra, spinning her sword expertly.
"That's unfortunate," said Grkkghj ironically.
The professor sighed. "No more sentences ending with the letters 'ly' if you please!" he pleaded pedantically.

[Nemonymous]

Grkkghj ?
That beats Nietzsche into a cocked hat of consonants.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Evans

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp Quote Originally Posted by Evans Going over the same old thing all the time is dull but I think people have gone to far the other way. Ah, if only. I think you be forgetting why people went over the same old thing so much. Namely, because it was effective. Now I don't care wheather an idea is old or new as long as it is effective. The notion we should seek the former over the latter seems very odd to me. The dates are just speculation but I think that since the advent of people like Morcock and particuarly the whole The New Wave business, people have been encouraged to rush off and seek a sort of artificial "newness" over writing they felt conveyed powerful images or emotions.

Hmmm. Well, this highlights another problem with 'the rules of writing', which I was actually railing against with some minor qualifications added simply to appease the modern mania for 'fairness'.

The 'other problem' is, once somebody spots that, for instance, it's possible to overdo the use of similes, suddenly there's a witchhunt to root out and destroy all similes. Etc.

With cliches, it's a question of degree, perhaps. Personally, I think writers could afford to be much more adventurous than most of them are, and in that sense I don't think cliche needs defending. Where I would agree with what I think you're saying is that so-called 'experimental' fiction is often or usually written by people who have nothing actually to say, but who wish to hide this fact with a masquerade of technical diversionary tactics.

I honestly don't think there are any rules to writing, but this is where my own interest lies: What I personally want to say. I am therefore also attracted to writers who I feel know what they personally want to say. My use of the word 'cliche' in this sense means lazily writing something glib without thinking about whether that is what you really want to say. Then again, maybe that's an inadequate definition of cliche.

In fact, thinking about it, more than cliche of theme etc., I simply meant linguistic cliche. I think I won't bow to obligatory fairness on this point: Linguistic cliche ("She looked like a million dollars and as if butter wouldn't melt in her mouth" etc.) is almost always the mark of a bad writer.

But, as I said, you don't need these rules to tell you if writing is bad or not, just like you don't need to be a musician to know whether a song is great or not. You listen to the song, you experience it. Same with reading. The idea that there's only one way to write seems to come from some blindness to the fact that writing is actually there to express something.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

Where I would agree with what I think you're saying is that so-called 'experimental' fiction is often or usually written by people who have nothing actually to say, but who wish to hide this fact with a masquerade of technical diversionary tactics.

Actually, not having read every book in the world, I don't know the proportion of experimental writers who are like this, but they are at least a significant proportion, I think. Other 'experimental' writers are damned good. I have a lot of time for Burroughs, for instance. Besides which, as Kingsley Amis once said, just about any novel is an experiment (I think he said something like that).

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Evans

... people have been encouraged to rush off and seek a sort of artificial "newness" over writing they felt conveyed powerful images or emotions.

Actually, I'll just add something.

I absolutely was not trying to say everyone should write like I do.

My original comments were a reaction against a load of smug, middling writers of the kind the Guardian can comfortably approach, self-importantly spouting rules for others to follow, as if you'd even want to write like Elmore Leonard, Esther Freud, etc. Then I thought perhaps I was being harsh towards these writers, so mentioned rules I use, to show that I sympathise with the idea of having rules, or at least guidelines, and I know that if someone asked advice, that would be the kind of advice I'd give for what it's worth (I'll never be asked for rules by the Guardian, but if I were, I wouldn't give any).

I'm just saying this because I really don't want to be misunderstood on this point.

However, I agree that good writing comes not from artificial newness but from powerful feelings and images. Perhaps this was why, half-consciously I began to get tired with my own reasonableness partway through one of my previous comments.

It may make for tedious pub conversation, but writing is what I am passionate about. In my case, that passion and fascination takes the form of a very strong urge to explore new ideas. I've no idea if this is artificial or not. Arguably, the urge is not artificial, although since it is the urge to explore new things, and new things are often seen as involving artificiality, then perhaps the urge itself is tainted with artificiality. I don't know. In any case, for me, part of what makes writing a passionate pursuit is the exploration of the new.

This has nothing to do with rules, however. At the end of the day, if I like something, I like it, and I give my reasons for liking it after the fact. What's more, I know people who think that in many ways I am old-fashioned, and I probably am.

[Odalisque]

A small snippet of dialogue from "Tuerqui" Chapter 18 that illustrates my not sticking with the word "said". It seems OK to me.

“This morning there was an official messenger in the livery of the Nine,” she said.

“Yeah, I saw her, too,” Spanqumi agreed. “Got any idea what it was about?”

“I didn’t catch much,” Switi admitted. “Seemed to be something about the Nine quarrelling, but I heard Lady Isobel say that it looked like big trouble.”

“Still, I don’t suppose it’s anything to bother us,” Spanqumi said. “I’ve seen the Nine at work. Their slaves will suffer, I dare say, but Lady Isobel’s not one to take her temper out on us – thank the goddess.”

“Yes,” Passibelle sounded doubtful, “but all the same, if there’s real trouble it’ll affect us one way or another.”

“Only indirectly,” Honeyminge said. “Of course, our mistress’ loss is our loss, and all that. But, for us, things should carry on as normal. Why wouldn’t they?”

“I don’t know…” Passibelle sounded more concerned than ever.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Odalisque

A small snippet of dialogue from "Tuerqui" Chapter 18 that illustrates my not sticking with the word "said". It seems OK to me. “This morning there was an official messenger in the livery of the Nine,” she said. “Yeah, I saw her, too,” Spanqumi agreed. “Got any idea what it was about?” “I didn’t catch much,” Switi admitted. “Seemed to be something about the Nine quarrelling, but I heard Lady Isobel say that it looked like big trouble.” “Still, I don’t suppose it’s anything to bother us,” Spanqumi said. “I’ve seen the Nine at work. Their slaves will suffer, I dare say, but Lady Isobel’s not one to take her temper out on us – thank the goddess.” “Yes,” Passibelle sounded doubtful, “but all the same, if there’s real trouble it’ll affect us one way or another.” “Only indirectly,” Honeyminge said. “Of course, our mistress’ loss is our loss, and all that. But, for us, things should carry on as normal. Why wouldn’t they?” “I don’t know…” Passibelle sounded more concerned than ever.

Seems okay to me, too.

It is very obvious to me that my comments have been misunderstood. Please see my above explanation, if it matters.

[Evans]

Quentin, I'm sorry if I went into a bit of rant back there. I have a bit of a thing about when trends sweep over a genre or art form and seek to retrospectively class the past as "bad".

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

Hmmm. Well, this highlights another problem with 'the rules of writing', which I was actually railing against with some minor qualifications added simply to appease the modern mania for 'fairness'. The 'other problem' is, once somebody spots that, for instance, it's possible to overdo the use of similes, suddenly there's a witchhunt to root out and destroy all similes. Etc. With cliches, it's a question of degree, perhaps. Personally, I think writers could afford to be much more adventurous than most of them are, and in that sense I don't think cliche needs defending. Where I would agree with what I think you're saying is that so-called 'experimental' fiction is often or usually written by people who have nothing actually to say, but who wish to hide this fact with a masquerade of technical diversionary tactics.

Hmmm my problem isn't with experimental writing in itself more the idea of putting presure on people to be self consciencely experamental. Since you mentioned Burroughs above I'll use him as an example. (sorry if it sounds a little over the top)

If someone like Burroughs is sucessful with a radicaly new tecnique and becomes popular/imfamous then that's fine.
It is when the self styled "up and coming" suddenly start saying every writer must now start experamenting with devices like cut up sequences and non-linear time (in short trying to be the next new thing, the next "Burroughs" as it were) or risk being considered boring and old fashioned.

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

I honestly don't think there are any rules to writing, but this is where my own interest lies: What I personally want to say. I am therefore also attracted to writers who I feel know what they personally want to say. My use of the word 'cliche' in this sense means lazily writing something glib without thinking about whether that is what you really want to say. Then again, maybe that's an inadequate definition of cliche. In fact, thinking about it, more than cliche of theme etc., I simply meant linguistic cliche. I think I won't bow to obligatory fairness on this point: Linguistic cliche ("She looked like a million dollars and as if butter wouldn't melt in her mouth" etc.) is almost always the mark of a bad writer.

I agree with you about the that point (though to play devil's advocate I suspose you have to be careful hear to seperate a character in a narrative's dialogue based description of somethingwith the actual writer's. I can't imagine any writer describing some one in direct prose as looking like a million dollars with a straight face.)