Rules for Writing Fiction

[rhysaurus]

If you are going to have rules for writing, then try at least to make them precise. Most so-called 'rules' for writing fiction are more in the nature of retroactively applied strategic aims...

By setting yourself certain precise (and arbritary) rules, it's possible sometimes to break the familiar rhythmic patterns that writers usually fall into when they have total liberty to write what they wish. And when those patterns are broken through such constraints, the results can be startlingly original and liberated works that probably could not be produced under normal circumstances of freedom. It's a paradox, a nice one!

The reason I mention this is to help promote (as periodically I do) the principles of

OuLiPo

Oulipo

and to glorify the loose federation of writers who have operated under its wondrous banner.

OuLiPo I salute you; OuLiPo I tickle you lightly under your chin!

Two OuLiPoean Limericks:

#1.
There was a young man from Peru
whose limericks stopped at line two...

#2.
There was a young man from Verdun...


Yes, yes, yes, we all love content. But let's not forget form. Cavalry and infantry working together to smash the Cities of the Bland!

[qcrisp]

I think the key is discipline. Some people may not need it. If so, they are the lucky ones.

I certainly think, for myself, that writing requires discipline, and to improve as a writer especially requires discipline.

Talking of paradox, the paradox for me is that in order to acheive freedom, one needs discipline, which is the mastery of self. Put another way, one needs discipline to arrive at the means and power of expressing what one truly wishes to express. To think of this process in terms of 'the Rules' (definite article) seems to me an inversion of all that writing should be about. (These kinds of inversions happen easily in human nature, which, as we all know, is the problem with religion. (Interestingly, whichever side of a religious divide you stand on, you can probably find someone on the other side who'll say you have perverted the truth.))

But yes, I certainly agree about self-imposed restrictions such as used by OuLiPo being creative restrictions.

[dr. locrian]

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

In specific relation to Neil Gaiman, I liked his graphic novels, but found myself allergic to the extremely little prose fiction of his that I sampled.

Interesting. I think we're both (generally) on the same page here. I admire Gaiman's Sandman run very much, but I've felt pretty lukewarm about any of his post-comic-book-prose I've stumbled upon.

Hope you took no offense at the query. I was simply curious since you are also a writer whose work I admire. Many thanks for the clarification.

[Mr. D.]

Dear qcrisp,I don't see why you would think that acheiving freedom through discipline is a paradox. All activities involving the artts art intentional and when we apply our will to an activity we start forming something new in the world. The discipline is necessary to act as a servant of the will. Any act of creation call for disciplined intention, well-formulated vision and endurance. All of these qualities grow out of discipline and develop over time. If this is a paradox then it is one that follows the "rule" of paradox: all paradoxes follow a non-obvious form of logic. The key idea is intention. If someone doesn't have an aim or purpose than no discipline is necessary, nor wanted.Creative people, even ones like me who haven't been sucessful, find joy and fulfillment in the craft itself. The growth of the skills necessary to bring a vision to fruition cause benificial changes to ourselves and that makes the effort worthwhile. Rules, arbitray or otherwise help give substance to an otherwise nebulous existence.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. D.

Dear qcrisp,I don't see why you would think that acheiving freedom through discipline is a paradox. All activities involving the artts art intentional and when we apply our will to an activity we start forming something new in the world. The discipline is necessary to act as a servant of the will. Any act of creation call for disciplined intention, well-formulated vision and endurance. All of these qualities grow out of discipline and develop over time. If this is a paradox then it is one that follows the "rule" of paradox: all paradoxes follow a non-obvious form of logic. The key idea is intention. If someone doesn't have an aim or purpose than no discipline is necessary, nor wanted.Creative people, even ones like me who haven't been sucessful, find joy and fulfillment in the craft itself. The growth of the skills necessary to bring a vision to fruition cause benificial changes to ourselves and that makes the effort worthwhile. Rules, arbitray or otherwise help give substance to an otherwise nebulous existence.

Perhaps it isn't really much of a paradox. It might sound more paradoxical if I put it this way: Finding 'your own voice' as an artist means discovering what it most obvious for you. What is most obvious for you is often extremely difficult to find.

[qcrisp]

In the interests of fairness, perhaps I should note that I do observe some stylistic and editorial guidelines when I write, and, if specifically asked for my advice, wouldn't see any problem in passing those guidelines on. They include:

1) Avoid cliches.

The best way to find out what you really want to say is to discard the cliches and find what's left.

Exceptions: One example of an exception is The Martian Chronicles, which I am currently reading. Ray Bradbury has an uncanny ability to make cliches effective. There are always exceptions and I'll try and give one example of each.

2) Avoid unintentional repetition.

Using the same word a number of times in one passage can be jarring.

Exceptions: Intentional repetition can have a poetic, rhythmic effect. Japanese writers are less sensitive to repetition. For some reason it is not so jarring in Japanese. I'm sure there are all kinds of other exceptions.

3) Make sure the reader always knows who or what a pronoun is referring to.

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.

Exceptions: Well, you know, you can actually do what the hell you like here.

5) Don't be too abstract.

If you can give the reader an image, do so. This conflicts, as far as I'm concerned, with Esther Freud's advice (which I hate more than any of the other advice on offer in that article) never to use similes or metaphors. What is literature, anyway, if it is not metaphor?

Then again, perhaps this rule is something I use because I write very introspectively, anyway. My guess is that EF has no introspection in her writing. If she cannot use similes and metaphors, her only means of being introspective would be through abstraction.

Exceptions: In Temple of Dawn (for instance) Mishima goes on at great length about yuishiki (consciousness only) Buddhism. I've heard at least one person complain it was like reading someone's essay in the middle of a story, but personally I enjoyed it. Abstraction can be dramatic, too.

I'm not going to go for the whole ten.

I'm also, personally, very concerned about sentence rhythm and other things. These are the guidelines by which I write, but I don't see them as the only way to write. I think it's fine to have guidelines - good, even - but some people become really puritanical and anal and fundamentalist about it.

If you can't tell whether a piece of writing is good or not without checking whether someone has used adverbs then you don't have a clue what good writing really is. That is my opinion.

[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.

[Evans]

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

In the interests of fairness, perhaps I should note that I do observe some stylistic and editorial guidelines when I write, and, if specifically asked for my advice, wouldn't see any problem in passing those guidelines on. They include: 1) Avoid cliches. The best way to find out what you really want to say is to discard the cliches and find what's left.

Sorry here Quentin but this is one thing I can't stand. If people
should have to spend every moment looking over their writing and altering their ideas; completely changing the original notions and feelings, destroying beautiful images and deeply felt emotions, just because it might be cliché, then I would rather they didn't write at all. The whole manic cult of the "new and original"* seems a poisonous, mean-spirited thing.

Going over the same old thing all the time is dull but I think people have gone to far the other way.

[MadsPLP]

Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Locrian

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp In specific relation to Neil Gaiman, I liked his graphic novels, but found myself allergic to the extremely little prose fiction of his that I sampled. Interesting. I think we're both (generally) on the same page here. I admire Gaiman's Sandman run very much, but I've felt pretty lukewarm about any of his post-comic-book-prose I've stumbled upon. Hope you took no offense at the query. I was simply curious since you are also a writer whose work I admire. Many thanks for the clarification.

May I add myself to the page you are inhabiting?

I like a lot of his comic book writings (and dislike the term "graphic novel", but that's a very different discussion), and I like some of it very much. But his prose when writing fiction is excessively tedious. It's not that I dislike his style: it's that there doesn't seem to be any style at all.

[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.