Is over-breaking rules a concern for unpublished authors?

[Wiglaf]

How much do authors, who have not been previously published, have to worry about excessive rule breaking. I am thinking primarily of dubious or minor grammar rules: further/farther, split infinitives, sneaked/snuck, leaped/leapt, beginning with conjunctions, etc. Is there a point where to many ignorings of these rules could harm the odds of getting published?

For example, would violating one be acceptable, but violating six of these type rules would be problematic? If I already split infinitives and started with conjunctions, would using snuck, till, and further be a mark against me due to the shear amount of times I ignore the so-called rules?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think it comes down to confidence, more than an exact number you could follow. Provided it works, it's fine to break any rule. But first the rules need to be known. Provided it doesn't lift anyone out of the story, it's fine.

Btw, there's nothing wrong with further - both it and farther are equally valid.

 

[Wiglaf]

My only worry is that I seem to break the prescriptions more than I actually follow them. My grammar checker (set for university essays) is going nuts; three quarters of my current writing has wavy, green under-lining.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The main thing is not to break so many rules of grammar, misspell so many words, and leave in so many typos, that you look either ignorant or careless, because that is not going to make a manuscript look promising to the agent or editor who is reading the first few pages in order to decide whether it is worth reading the entire manuscript. Writers who are careless about this kind of thing (or so arrogant that they think it doesn't matter in their case because their writing is so superior) are usually careless in terms of how they put together their plot, develop their characters, and everything else that matters. So these mistakes can put them off very quickly.

But keep in mind that the rules for fiction are somewhat different from those of non-fiction. You can start sentences with conjunctions, write one-sentence paragraphs, and a lot of other things that are frowned on in more formal fiction. It depends on whether what you are doing makes the reading experience better or worse.

Don't depend on grammar checkers. They are mindless and certainly do not help you learn to write. They can be good for flagging things that you might want to think about before going ahead with them, but you shouldn't use a grammar checker as a crutch (because it will certainly fail you).

 

[FibonacciEddie]

as an unpublished author I have to say that my biggest fear is criticism of my adherence to 'creative writing rules' because these are things that you should be able to mend with sufficient attention to detail

 

[The Judge]

The rules of grammar aren't rules in the sense of Thou-shalt-not-or-else, though the more formal the writing required the better it is to adhere to them since they can give a more elevated/superior tone to the work, whereas using eg split infinitives and lots of sentences beginning with conjunctions and ending with prepositions can give a more demotic feel. When it comes to fiction, the latter may well be what you want -- the writing for the POV of a stevedore with not even elementary education ought to be different from that for a highly educated professorial type.

As for sneaked/snuck and leaped/leapt, I'm English so to me snuck is wrong unless I'm writing an American POV, but I'm pretty sure it's widely accepted in the US, so use it if it comes naturally to you and it fits the character and POV; conversely leapt and other -t words (there was a thread about them recently) are fine over here but not so acceptable in the US, so perhaps use them with care.

Have you looked at The Toolbox -- it's worth a read for things like this. Basically, the one big rule is know what you are doing viz-a-viz adhering or breaking the rules, and why you are doing it.

 

[HareBrain]

Btw, there's nothing wrong with further - both it and farther are equally valid.

Strictly, farther = physical distance, further = metaphorical distance (e.g. the further back in time). In case anyone cares.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Most grammar checkers are for formal writing, not fiction. Especially not dialogue. I have now read articles on Dialogue and a Penguin book. The Grammar checker was no help at all.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

In my view the question you should be asking is "Is this voice, or is this a mistake?" It's your job as a writer to decide what is voice - what it is that makes your writing yours - and therefore that which you shouldn't change, versus what is just a simple mistake. And the problem for all newbies when being edited, (and the rest of us), is finding the confidence to say "That's what I wanted to write - like it or lump it."

Cheers, Greg.

 

[tinkerdan]

I leave the grammar checker on but don't allow any auto correction. That way I can look back and say keep it or try to figure out a better way to say what I want to say.

I know some successful traditional publishers who say they will never self publish because they have too many problems like that in their writing and they don't have time to go back and fix them all and would rather the publisher worry about it.

If you are the publisher: then you should worry a bit about it. I'm not sure that one person can catch it all so there 'will' be errors until you have some other eyes look at it and even then there will be more later on so you probably shouldn't sweat it until you are ready to release the book, novel, novella or short story.

 

[ZombieWife]

Here it is:

#1: Will you come across as a writer who knows what they're doing (e.g. you know when to break the rules and what's okay)?

Or

#2: Do you come across like an amateur who doesn't know WTF you're doing?

I honestly don't read self-published works anymore because rarely do I see a grammatical/syntax/spelling/craft error that falls under #1 above. It's usually just, "Wow, there's a reason this person isn't traditionally published."

I know there are good self-pubbed titles out there, but until they magically find a system to sort out utter crap, I just don't have the time to wade through a sea of weeds to find one flower.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

There's a difference between technique and literary rules. You should learn a fabulous technique first, because to break the rules of technique - which all authors should do - you first have to know what and how to subvert. That's one of the differences between a writer and an author.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

You should learn a fabulous technique first, because to break the rules of technique - which all authors should do - you first have to know what and how to subvert.

Well said.

If a writer adheres too strictly to the "rules" the writing is going to look sterile. If he or she decides to abandon any attempt to learn the craft of writing (which is the foundation of the art of writing) the result is likely to be a big confused mess, lacking clarity. There is a difference between ignoring the rules and deliberately breaking or subverting them in order to achieve a specific effect or because it suits your style, or ... well, there can be many reasons, but whatever the reason it should be done with a purpose (conscious in some cases, instinctive* in others) and not just be a mistake.

Although, just because something is done for a reason, it may turn out, when you look at the overall effect or consider the gymnastics you had to go through to make it sort of work, that the reason wasn't good enough. Our clever ideas about subverting the rules don't always work out the way we thought they would and we may have to reconsider those decisions during revisions.


_______

*This is why we learn the rules and then write and write and write and write: to develop our instincts as writers.

 

[Wiglaf]

Partially because of what I've read, I'm thinking that instead of breaking a so-called rule and not caring because I consider it a bogus rule, it would be better if I only broke them if I can prove it is actually better to break it. For example, the rule against split-infinitives is BS. However, of the three times that I split them in one section, I can unsplit two without harming anything. Therefore, it would be better if I unsplit them.

I also intend to adjust my grammar checker; having every contraction flagged is driving me batty.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Don't adjust your grammar checker. (Though someone here said that some of them can auto-correct and that needs to be turned off.) Yes, they do drive you batty. Yes you will want to throw your computer against a wall. And yes it takes forever to edit using them. But use them on full noise, hypersensitivity all the time when you edit. Nine times out of ten what they pick up is crap. But even when the answer they give is complete crap, they make you think about the sentence, and that's priceless.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Wiglaf]

Hi,

Don't adjust your grammar checker. (Though someone here said that some of them can auto-correct and that needs to be turned off.) Yes, they do drive you batty. Yes you will want to throw your computer against a wall. And yes it takes forever to edit using them. But use them on full noise, hypersensitivity all the time when you edit. Nine times out of ten what they pick up is crap. But even when the answer they give is complete crap, they make you think about the sentence, and that's priceless.

Cheers, Greg.

Actually, I'm just removing the flagging of contractions. As far as I know, they're acceptable in fiction, and for dialogue, I would prefer it to flag when I didn't use an available contraction. I had it on because at university, the use of contractions resulted in the loss of one letter grade.

 

[tinkerdan]

The problem with contractions is that if you do not control them they can get annoying::

Actually, I'm just removing the flagging of contractions. As far as I know, they're acceptable in fiction, and for dialogue, I would prefer it to flag when I didn't use an available contraction. I had it on because at university, the use of contractions resulted in the loss of one letter grade.

::I recently read a piece that used them as I will demonstrate-but I also exaggerate a bit.

we are where we are, which is where you are. = We're where we're, which is where you're.

or to be ridiculous::
If I would not have done so; you would not have had to leave.
If I wouldn't've done so;you wouldn't've had to leave.
If I wouldn't've done so; you wouldn't've'd to leave.

There really do not seem to be clear rules that I can find anywhere.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Excessive anything, by definition, is not going to work.

You have to pick your battles, and if you are sending your editor or agent around the bend with stupid grammar mistakes you could have avoided, they are less likely to listen to you about more important things. Or they will decide your book is going to be too much trouble, and pass, even though they see potential.

And with things that are tricky -- like tinkerdan's contractions -- you have to be careful how you use them. Use such things sparingly, and for a deliberate effect, and they will have more impact. Used thoughtlessly, or too often, they can just be a muddle -- and look like you are careless and don't think things through, which does not go over well with agents and editors either.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

With contractions you just have to say the sentence out loud and you'll know if it's too much. For example, I can't actually speak the sentence of contractions used above. Contractions are not a universal find & replace. When they sound more natural than the two or three words, use a contraction.

 

[ZombieWife]

Firefox hates contractions. It always tells me it's spelled wrong.

We need these now and then, else a dialogue can sound super stilted.