Thoughts on This Writing Don'ts List?

[Jesse Harris]

I wandered across this link and was wondering what everything thoughts of the items on it.
There is so much advice out there, it is hard to know what to listen to and what to tune out.

A Comprehensive and Totally Universal Listing of Every Problem a Story Has Ever Had - Andromeda Spaceways Magazine

How Can We Help? Search < Back FAQs Writing tips and tricks A Comprehensive and Totally Universal Listing of Every Problem a Story Has Ever Had Print PostedNovember 10, 2018…

andromedaspaceways.com

P.S. I had to google the plural of don't for the title.

 

[Toby Frost]

My basic (and not very helpful) answer is that, as far as I can understand the points being made, they're reasonable points and by and large worth taking note of. They aren't hard and fast rules and can be broken if they're broken well enough.

However: I think this is a prime example of the sort of article that I don't want to read in order to become a better writer (no offence meant to you for linking to it). I say this because it is written in that half-amusing style that a lot of internet writing uses, and it isn't clear at points what it's saying because it's too busy being clever. Too much writing about writing is produced to entertain rather than inform. Both 12 and 14 are interesting points, but they're almost lost under whatever metaphors the author has chucked at them.

Have you had a look at the Writing Resources section of this forum? There are some very good books recommended there that might help.

 

[sknox]

>it is hard to know what to listen to and what to tune out.
I sympathize. I've read a metric ton of advice and continue to do so. What I've learned to do is to read all I care to read, then tune it out. Because when I'm actually writing, I can't have those outside voices in my head. If there's a bit of advice that is right, it will resonate. I'll remember it, internalize it. And it'll be there when I'm writing. All the rest is just water off the back.

But here's a curious thing. Something that didn't connect when I was writing my first novel might seem relevant when writing my third. That's one reason wny I keep reading, though I confess I now can recognize redundancies and am getting more and more selective. Anyway, just know that advice isn't a constant because you yourself are in flux as a writer.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I keep reading

This is a very good comment, because it's only by widely reading fiction that you'll see the different tools of writing - ie, rules - being applied, misapplied, and even ignored. That gives you a context to work with.

 

[M. Robert Gibson]

I think this is a prime example of the sort of article that I don't want to read in order to become a better writer (no offence meant to you for linking to it). I say this because it is written in that half-amusing style that a lot of internet writing uses, and it isn't clear at points what it's saying because it's too busy being clever.

Totally agree.

I got to number 7 and had to give up because I'd tuned out by then. I couldn't figure out what the message was. Maybe because I didn't understand the references. Maybe because the author should have taken the advice from 3. Dead dialogue: "It should do things beyond bloating and floating about the bay"

 

[sknox]

I don't disagree with Brian on this, but I hesitate to draw a close correlation. When I read books, I do so as a reader. I admit I notice more writerly things now than I did before I wrote my first book, but for the most part, I'm pretty much all in (I tend not to finish books that I don't find seriously engaging, though I don't give up until well into the book; I like to give the author an even break). I keep telling myself I'll go back to study this or that book, and I have tried a few times, but it's been half-hearted and pretty superficial. Those two adjectives may be related. <g>

I find it easy to spot what is bad. I can point right to it--poor grammar, lazy stereotypes, clumsy phrasing, and in general a lack of command of both language and story. It's much harder to say what is good. Or, rather, to say *why* it's good. I can admire what a good author does, from Tolstoy to Corey (yes, I said that; I really love The Expanse). I can even point to great passages and note what the author has done well. But I can't for the life of me say why just those words in just that order did the trick. What sets them apart from a million other words that makes the difference between good and brilliant. Here as in other arts, it's easy to say what not to do, nearly impossible to say what to do (except in general and generally unhelpful terms).

So, when people say read, read, read, I say sure, but. Don't expect to learn much explicitly or identifiably. Do expect to somehow magically internalize certain tones or flourishes or I dunno what. Reading deeply and widely (get beyond your genre!) will in vague and unpredictable ways improve your writing. *Not* reading is guaranteed to be no damn help at all.

I have lots of servings of sure, but.

 

[.matthew.]

But I can't for the life of me say why just those words in just that order did the trick. What sets them apart from a million other words that makes the difference between good and brilliant. Here as in other arts, it's easy to say what not to do, nearly impossible to say what to do (except in general and generally unhelpful terms).

Maybe the flow? A rhythm? A jumbled word order in a sentence can make sense yet some sentences 'feel' better having been rearranged purely because the vocalisation of the words becomes more like music than speech.

To make an example off the top of my head, "A mold encrusted railing" sounds better to me than "A railing encrusted with mold" ... Maybe that's the loss of 'with' but I'm sure there's a science behind it that smarter people than me could understand.

 

[The Big Peat]

Opened, looked closed it. I mean, the first one - lost count of the good books I've read that do clearly start at the beginning, lost number of the books that thought I'd be hooked by their In Media Res and I wasn't. There's a big old grain of truth to what they say, but it's not all truth and that makes it misleading. One of the best bits of writing advice I've been given is the more certain they sound, the more wrong they're likely to be. This writer sounds very certain. He will be very wrong for a lot of people (although right on some scores for others too).

Tried again, got to 3, given up again. The internet is filled with advice from better writers. I try not to dismiss stuff people want opinions on here, but this is asking for it.

What I will say though in terms of filtering through the noise - don't act or believe in every bit of writing advice you read. Just try to remember it and read more. If you keep coming across the same thing, it's probably got something to it. Also, if something strikes you as brilliant, it probably is for you, and if you want to throw rocks at it, it probably won't work for you. Although it's quite possible the same ideas will strike you differently when proposed by people in different formats.

 

[Jesse Harris]

Thank you all for taking the time to check out the link. I found quite a bit of value in the content. The message of the content seemed to echo many of the other resources I have found, but presented with a unique style that is not exactly to my personal taste.

I want to gain a level of skill necessary to tell a story without making blunders than make readers stop reading. I would rather someone stop reading my book because they do not like the premise rather than stop because of my liberal use of adverbs and split infinitives, or because my characters are presented poorly. I will be reviewing more of the resources in the Writing Resources section in the upcoming weeks.

 

[-K2-]

...It's much harder to say what is good. Or, rather, to say *why* it's good. I can admire what a good author does, from Tolstoy to Corey (yes, I said that; I really love The Expanse). I can even point to great passages and note what the author has done well. But I can't for the life of me say why just those words in just that order did the trick. What sets them apart from a million other words that makes the difference between good and brilliant. Here as in other arts, it's easy to say what not to do, nearly impossible to say what to do (except in general and generally unhelpful terms)...

Just a guess on my part, but could it be what makes any story stand out and perhaps cause you to forgive its flaws, boils down to one of two factors? The first and most obvious being, something touches on a subject you dwell on, or have dwelled on and perhaps even forgotten, that meant something to you. The second perhaps, some aspect of the story which is a new idea to you, possibly contrary to your usual line of thinking, but causes you to have an 'ah-ha' moment as you relate to what is presented in its entirety.

Granted, that would (to me) make sense for this individual or that, yet when the subject is perhaps generic enough to touch a number of people, yet different enough and simple enough to make the idea 'ah-ha' for all of them, then there's your popular story.

As said, just guessing and speculating.

As to the article... I'll abide by the advice of Thumper's mom--or--add Item No.26: Don't make an effort to be cute, funny or vulgar.
It's a gift, not a job.

K2

 

[sknox]

I'll try to give a better example. Some writers seem to have a knack for coming up not merely with a metaphor but with one that is unexpected, that feels original. At the end of the book I will say "I liked this book." I can point to the fact that the author was good at coming up with memorable imagery.

That's all fine, but how does that translate to making me a better writer? I should be clever! Geez, thanks, brain.

I'm sort of with the OP on this. Learn the mistakes that are readily avoided. Learn to know the split infinitive so you can avoid it when that feels right and use it when that feels right. And so on, for a very long list.

But when it comes to doing something right, that's much much harder to do. The only advice that has consistently felt right is to be close to your characters as you write them. The more real and visceral I can make a scene feel to myself, the more satisfied I am with it once its written. As for how readers will react, that's whole other ball game in an entirely different league.

 

[Karn's Return]

My basic (and not very helpful) answer is that, as far as I can understand the points being made, they're reasonable points and by and large worth taking note of. They aren't hard and fast rules and can be broken if they're broken well enough.

However: I think this is a prime example of the sort of article that I don't want to read in order to become a better writer (no offence meant to you for linking to it). I say this because it is written in that half-amusing style that a lot of internet writing uses, and it isn't clear at points what it's saying because it's too busy being clever. Too much writing about writing is produced to entertain rather than inform. Both 12 and 14 are interesting points, but they're almost lost under whatever metaphors the author has chucked at them.

Have you had a look at the Writing Resources section of this forum? There are some very good books recommended there that might help.

Toby pretty much took the words out of my mouth with this one. The trouble with some of it is...there's no such thing as an original idea anymore. Personalities are limited; character interactions are limited. At some point you're going to be putting down something that someone else had already done before.

All you can really do, ultimately, is make your own version of ______ be interesting enough to be worth looking at.

 

[The Judge]

I managed to skim-read through to the end of the article, and thought there were some good points buried in the look-at-me-aren't-I-f***ing-witty style of writing, but personally I don't have patience enough to carry out the necessary exhumation to disinter the good from the tedious.

However, I can point you towards general advice which is much more helpful and useful (mainly because I wrote some of it... ) and in the form of Peter Graham's posts, far wittier too The Toolbox -- The Important Bits

 

[The Big Peat]

I want to gain a level of skill necessary to tell a story without making blunders than make readers stop reading. I would rather someone stop reading my book because they do not like the premise rather than stop because of my liberal use of adverbs and split infinitives, or because my characters are presented poorly. I will be reviewing more of the resources in the Writing Resources section in the upcoming weeks.

This is a wise approach, but you've got to remember that pretty much any rule of "don't do this" that can be presented can be countered by a great writer breaking it. And that great art is made from breaking the rules. And while some people will tell you that you've got to know the rules to break them, it's noticeable that a lot of great art comes from people deciding "that's what I want to do" and finding a way, and then looking back and thinking "That was crazy, I'm glad I was too stupid to know what I was doing when I did that or I'd have never done it and it's excellent".

I'm not saying what you're doing is wrong, if this is what works for you then great, but it's not the only way, and some trial and error on what really are your blunders will be necessary.

 

[Steve Harrison]

I'm not saying what you're doing is wrong, if this is what works for you then great, but it's not the only way, and some trial and error on what really are your blunders will be necessary.

Absolutely. In my opinion, the very best reaction for a writer when someone tells you what and what not to do, is to try to prove them wrong. You might or might not end up agreeing with them, but either way at least you will know why.

My writing improved in leaps an bounds when I started doing this. Very slow leaps and bounds, as it meant no more short cuts, but this all-writing-advice-is-opinion approach made me a much better writer.

 

[The Big Peat]

Okay, trying again (as I don't want to do my own writing tonight it seems...)

1. Wrong starting place - Okay, people do sometimes start at the wrong place, although few places are the wrong place if you sell it with enough panache. And starting in the middle? Whut? Look, I think the best piece of advice I heard for starts came from a song:

"Something's happening here,
and what is ain't exactly clear"

Something should be happening, and there should be a question about it. You've got to go some as an author to sell a reader without that, and readers will probably read something into it. Is that starting in the Middle? Maybe, but I think that's a misleading way of putting it. Plenty of good books start pretty slow at the beginning of something. Short story-centric, then yes you've got less time, but I still feel there's some starts out there not doing what they describe. And as for:

"Readers should feel like they have been dumped in the middle of a car chase." - As an absolute, this is very wrong.

2. Telling instead of showing - This is a whole article in its own right, but every reader uses telling from time to time. It's inevitable. The trick is knowing what's important and should be shown, and what just needs to be told to keep the story going and should be told.

3. Dead dialogue - Obvious. "Most of the sentences you put between quotes should equal at least three sentences outside of them." They should have got to this sentence earlier as a lot of the rest is waffle. I'm not sure this rule is true, but it's at least a fun rule to play around with. Things that might be exceptions to that - humour, which often rests on repetition and the banal; interrogation scenes, which are back and forth heavy and where the slightest variations of speech and response can indicate a shift of power. I would add that for me at least, writing realistic dialogue and writing dialogue that gets to the point and is dramatically punchy aren't the same thing, and if you're similar, then their suggested rule could be pretty helpful - although its maybe a better editing rule than writing rule.

"Dialogue is inherently superior to prose. If you can replace three sentences of narrative with a single line of dialogue, you are morally obligated to do so." - As an absolute, this is very wrong.

4. Undead dialogue - They've got a point but finding examples of the mundane things being featured in fantastic stories is super, super easy. I prefer this take on it from Rossio - "#36. Every single line must either advance the plot, get a laugh, reveal a character trait, or do a combination of two -- or in the best case, all three -- at once." I've used it once on this forum today, but it doesn't get any less true.

5. Impersonal dialogue: - It's true there's a great chance to improve a story here, but there's a bunch of really big stories that blow right past this one. Realistically I think you can have every character speak the same and if you get the rest right, it won't kill the story. But then... that's true of everything so far.

6. Impersonal narrative - See above. And "Narrators that are characters in and of themselves should probably only be used if your target audience is people who can’t wait for their next colonoscopy." Uhm... yeah, this is wrong. If anything, the fact it's out of fashion (but still features in some big successes) arguably makes it a great place for writers to go. Plus isn't this just 1st PoV in general?

7. Point of view is like a box of condoms: - True enough, although I'm pretty sure the number of non-writer readers who care that much as long as its clear is small. I feel like I'll see the PoV slip a little in most books at some point or another.

8. Fairydancing the point of view: - My eyes are glazing over again... *skips to the bottom* Okay, yes, consistency good. Are they going to mention conciseness at any point?

10. Chronicling: - "If his choice between walking, driving or riding the bus isn’t critical to the story, why in the hell am I reading about it?" - Mostly true, but the less plot-driven and more character-driven a story is, the more the accretion of those small choices is critical to the story, even if none by themselves are. And even in the Dresden Files, which is plot-driven and actiony as hell, I know how Dresden gets from A to B a lot of the time.

11. Mistaking motion for movement - Mostly right.

... okay, I'm done again. Not least because when you come down to it, most of these things are just... not really problems. Because you can commit these problems, often a lot of them, and still be a famous author. Should you? Probably not. But it's not a big issue if you're getting the major things right.

And fiction with glaring issues that get major things right sells far, far more than fiction that doesn't really get anything wrong but doesn't get major things right.

 

[Jesse Harris]

I just read the entire Toolbox - The Important Bits thread, and I have to say there is a lot of gold in there. I have only touched the tip of the iceberg of the value on this forum. I will continue my quest for knowledge.

 

[ckatt]

I remember reading this list some time ago but I think you guys are looking at it all wrong.
It’s not intended as universal writing advice. What this is, is a list of top 25 reasons why Andromeda Spaceways rejects submissions.
"Readers should feel like they have been dumped in the middle of a car chase." is, in this case, great advice if you want to have your short story published by them.
As @The Big Peat says "Plenty of good books start pretty slow," but Andromeda Spaceways doesn’t publish books, so for their context it's irrelevant.
Lost of publications have these kinds of lists on their sites in hopes of reducing the size of their slush piles. If your submission breaks any of the rules you won't likely sell them a story.

 

[The Big Peat]

It reads like universal writing advice though. The tone - probably meant to be playfully hyperbolic - reads as absolute certainty. And the opening three words of the list is "Most Good Fiction". Yes, the paragraph at the top covers why they did it, and also mentions there are great stories that break every single one of these rules. But yet halfway down the list again, the fact it reads as universal writing advice causes the paragraph at the top to be forgotten. Communication that relies on a contradictory caveat written at the beginning or the end often struggles.

Which is the point of my criticisms. Their intentions are not as relevant as how people will read it. Since people are likely to read it as universal and absolute, it should be pointed out that it doesn't work that way and it needs a pinch of salt - at which point there's plenty of good advice there. I particularly like "characters are relationships".

 

[ckatt]

You're absolutely right. One of the tenants, I think, of nonfiction is to write with authority. With good reason, I suppose, most of us don't want to read something where the author is caveating every one of their points and constantly noting that there are other opinions. So, in the end, it's up to us readers to be aware of a writer's bias.
Still "Most Good Fiction" would be more accurate if it said Most Good Fiction published in English sci-fi periodicals. But that would take some of the bites out of it. And in this article, they want to entertain and inform, though most of their readers (not the magazine, just the blog) just need the information.