Searching on this topic recently, I came upon two thought-provoking lists (doubtless two among many). The general message of both is that aspiring writers shouldn't unreflectively accept any rigid "do" or "don't" as absolute and universal. As one might expect, I agree with many of the items, disagree with a few others, and have a "yes, maybe, but. . ." reaction to some.
On the Wordling Website:
Writing Tips to Disregard
On the Squibler website:
19 Pieces of Terrible Writing Advice
Not surprisingly, both lists object to the once-common decree, "Write what you know." The better version of this advice I've come across is, "Know what you write." In other words, if youre inspired by a story idea that includes elements you're not familiar with, research them in depth. As has often been remarked, if we could write about only things we know firsthand, fantasy and science fiction wouldn't exist. Historical fiction would be severely hampered, too.
To the advice that an author must write from experience, Henry James in "The Art of Fiction" explores what's meant by "experience." Does that maxim restrict writers only to their own personal experiences? James refutes this claim with the famous remark, "Try to be one of the people on whom nothing is lost!” His detailed explanation of that point can be found on page 5 of this PDF:
The Art of Fiction
One item on Squibler's list that I agree is terrible advice: "Don't use adverbs." That's almost as silly as the admonition I once read somewhere, "Avoid prepositions." What parts of speech should we ban next? Adjectives? Pronouns? Definite articles?
The Wordling list includes "Good writing is rewriting" as a fallacy; the Squibler page lists "Avoid rewriting." It seems obvious neither maxim qualifies as an unbreakable rule. It depends on the work and the experience level of the writer. I'd say rewriting is sometimes desirable, even necessary. Obsessively rewriting the same piece over and over, however, I'd usually advise against. A bestselling author, one of my own favorites, warns aspiring writers that they'll have to go through multiple drafts of their first novel, maybe ten or more. If I'd been told that at the age of twenty and believed it, I would have given up in despair. On the other hand, I wouldn't wholeheartedly embrace Heinlein's famous "rule" to "never rewrite except at editorial order." Suppose you love that character or story idea and won't feel satisfied until it's brought to life on the page or screen? Having become a dedicated outliner, I revise thoroughly but never actually rewrite in the sense of overhauling the whole thing. That part of the process happens in the outlining stage. Likewise, I agree with Wordling that it's counter-productive to PLAN on producing bad first drafts.
I completely agree with Wordling's position that "Write first thing in the morning" would be an absurd burden to take on as an inflexible "rule." Writing mavens who promulgate that notion are either morning people (a species alien to me) or under the influence of the venerable American belief that getting up early is a sign of virtue and sleeping late but staying awake long into the night is, if not quite evil, somehow a sign of disorganization or laziness. Write at whatever time of day you can fit it in and summon up the most enthusiasm.
The one item on that blog I heartily disagree with: The author's skepticism about critique groups. Of course, no writers MUST join a critique group if it doesn't work for them. However, I've consistently found such groups more helpful than not. Sure, it's best to participate with other people whose proficiency level fairly closely matches your own, rather than very more or less advanced. But no matter the other members' level of experience and knowledge, they can provide the valuable function of "another pair of eyes." We know what we meant to convey in a certain passage, but will the reader understand it that way? Any comments can show us where we've missed our target.
Until I read the paragraph under the heading, "Keep submitting until they publish you," I wasn't sure what Wordling meant by citing it as bad advice. Their message turns out to be a recommendation to try self-publishing if traditional publishers keep rejecting a particular work. What I'd expected, though, was the equivalent of some professionals' negative comments on selling or giving stories to low-paying or nonpaying markets. This version of "know your own value" (which I assume it to mean) strikes me as misplaced pride. If you've tried every possible pro market for a short story without success, and you still believe it reflects your best work, which is preferable? Hide it in a file -- paper or electronic -- never to be seen by anyone, or get it published for nominal or no pay where at least it will be read? I'm strongly in favor of the latter. Some readers of that niche market might seek out your other fiction, earning money for you in the long run, or, if nothing else, that publication will grant you the pleasure of knowing people have enjoyed your work.
Margaret L. Carter
Please explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt.
Posts
