Archives
Categories:
- Business announcements
- Ask the Editors
- Best First Line Contest
- Books/Reading
- Contests
- Editing
- New Releases/Excerpts
- FAQs
- Life
- Miscellaneous
- Round Robin
- TV/Movies
- Writing
Recent Comments
- Imogen Howson (Hazards of working from home)
- Eve Langlais (Hazards of working from home)
- Sharon (New Release : Pride & Passion)
- Maria Zannini (Hazards of working from home)
- Lainey Reese (Hazards of working from home)
- Immi Howson (Hazards of working from home)
- Carolan Ivey (Hazards of working from home)
- Zahir shamsery (Long Distance Letters)
- Tina (Hazards of working from home)
- Zahir shamsery (Hazards of working from home)
Breaking all the Rules
I had an interesting conversation at my day job the other day that became a great launching point for this post. In that job, we edit to four style guides, and they don’t always agree with each other. (and that isn’t at all confusing. grin)
In this specific instance, I suggested changes that were completely the opposite to another editor’s markups, and when the writer came back, confused, I had to tread a very fine line in saying one or the other of us was wrong. In fact, the reality was, we were both right. In the original edit, the editor cited one of our guides as her reasoning for the change. The thing is, while her change followed the rule, the change made the sentence clunky and awkward and hard to read. And when what’s being read is a how-to manual about installing a very sensitive piece of electronic equipment, the last thing you want to be is clunky and awkward.
And that’s what makes me mad about all of these “rules” we see all over the Internet. Never headhop. Never use words ending in -ing. Never use words ending in -ly. Always format your manuscript like this. Always do this, always do that. I’ll say it here. I think a lot of these rules are a load of crap. In writing, there is no always or never, there just is what works.
Do you really think editors who get paper subs pull out their rulers and say Oh! this is the best manuscript I’ve ever read, but it has 0.75-inch margins, and not 1.25-inch margins. I’ll have to reject it. Ha. You know what I do when I get an e-sub in a font I don’t like? I change it. Cuz it’s all about the story, baby. (hm, where have you heard that before? :) )
Now, I’m not saying we need to throw the basic rules of grammar out the window. Not at all. (Actually, I think it’s the law that editors aren’t allowed to say stuff like that) But in the right circumstances, and in the right places, breaking the rules can make for even better prose.
That being said, you’ve got to know the rules to break the rules. It needs to be intentional and deliberate, not oh, I was lazy or oh, yeah, it was easier to do it that way. And if you’re going to do it, don’t hold back, go all the way with it.
I’m sure you can name a couple of really big-selling authors who break the headhopping rule. And they do it well. Do you really think, after all these years, they don’t know the rules? They don’t know they’re headhopping all over the world and people hate that? Doubt it. I think after knowing how to do it right, they said, well, I’m gonna do it my way, cuz that’s how I roll. And it works for them. It makes their writing richer.
Because I really think that if done well, writing that doesn’t follow every rule to the letter is often vastly more interesting to read than something technically perfect, but bland or clunky.
What do you think? Agree/disagree? What rules do you hate and wish you’d never hear again? What rule do you wish people would pay a bit more attention to?
I love Laurie! :-) Great post.
The ‘rule’ I deeply dislike is ‘don’t use any form of the verb to be‘. I absolutely agree that a manuscript full of sentences like ‘He was tall. His hair was dark. His eyes were piercing. Amaryllis’s heart was thumping. She was sure he was going to kiss her’ is not the ideal use of the English language.
But, as long as it’s not used so repetitively that it becomes wearing, ‘was’ is a perfectly good, perfectly useful, discreet little verb that need not be cut out of anyone’s writing.
I think people are so anti-‘was’ because they mistakenly think any sentence using ‘was’ is automatically in ‘passive voice’.
The only rules I wish people would remember are rules to do with grammar—those which, if ignored, mean sentences don’t make sense. Dangling participles, for instance. I can’t think of any situation in which it would be okay to use a dangling participle.
A true master is someone who learns the rules, absorbs the rules, embodies the rules to the point where the rules no longer matter and then . . . bends them her way any way she wants and people don’t care.
Or even when they care, they still like it. ;)
Isn’t there a saying about Rules are made to be broken?
Loved this post. Have been waiting for an editor to come out and say this, because it needed to be said. I talk to a lot of people on a daily basis—a lot of wanna-be authors and they fret over word count and how to figure it out. They fret over font and spacing and the little things that don’t mean jack. And I repeatedly tell them to not sweat the small stuff—to write the best damned story they can and let the rest work itself out.
Fantastic post, Laurie. And I’m going to agree with Imogen 100% – the use of ‘was’ is not as evil as everyone seems to think.
I do wonder if it’s a trait peculiar to British writers, as I’ve always used it as a stylistic device – not as a passive but as a definitive – and since I started working with American editors, it’s the one thing that crops up a lot (apart from the weird difference in comma usage, LOL).
Because I try to incorporate all the advice I’m given in new projects, I tend to notice the things my editors have mentioned in other books. And the other day, I made a count of the number of times any form of ‘to be’ appeared on a page as opposed to other verbs. Fourteen times out of nineteen! Granted, that’s probably an extreme example, but the writer (Iain Pears) is not the only British author to use a form of ‘to be’ as a stylistic choice.
To me, it’s a bit like ‘said’ – it’s a word so ingrained in daily use that the eye skips it on the page. It can be used too much and it can be used passively (I am guilty of doing both, at times), but it’s not a bad word!
Ooh, I can answer the last question “What rule do you never want to hear again?”
Sometimes I WANT to have a persons’ eyes dart back and forth scanning a situation. I really get tired of changing my moving eyes to ‘gaze’ instead.
I don’t think using “was” is the kiss of death for a manuscript, but I’ll definitely notice if an author tends to use it repeatedly. Often, I think sentences can be better worded without it, and sometimes it seems as though authors are simply lazy in relying on it too much.
Also, I’m not crazy about head hopping, because I think it’s confusing for the reader. When I first started reading Nora Roberts, I couldn’t believe how many POV changes she had in a single chapter! I still don’t really like it when I have to interrupt my reading, shift my thinking and wonder “whose POV am I in now??”
Great post!
I don’t like to think of them as rules at all, but as tools. And just like a carpenter needs to know when to use a hammer and when to use a drill, a writer needs to know when and how to apply these tools. You can do anything as long as you do it well.
In addition to the “to be” rule, I really hate the “don’t use -ing or -ly words” rule. I try not to overuse them, but sometimes it’s just the word that fits. Period.
Ooooh, great post! I know I’m going to love working with you, Laurie. :-)
As someone who worked as an editor in a previous life, it was wonderful to shuck it all when I started writing fiction. I think you write the best story you can write and definitely don’t sweat the little stuff. And if that means starting sentences with “and” or “but,” using “-ly” adverbs and writing “was,” then go for it. We all second-guess ourselves as we put words on the paper, but worrying over every little comma and word choice is likely to drive you insane and make it impossible for you to ever reach The End.
Patrizia
writing as Gabriella Hewitt
Fantastic post, Laurie. But then, I’m one of the lucky ones who you work magic for.
Love the post Laurie!
However, I have to say something about headhopping. I DID headhop (until Jessica put me straight) and I must say that now I know about that rule, I now see it everywhere! I mean, what is the deal with that? However, this not headhopping that advances the story, but actually distracts you from it. The funny part is I loved the story of this one particular book I read recently, but the headhopping was throughout and it totally drove me up the wall. First paragraph in was in the heroines POV, then the next was in the heros, then back to the heroine’s and then suddenly, two sentences were in a secondary character which was just introduced and never mentioned again for the rest of the book!
Sorry, I hate to say it, but I’m now passionate about not headhopping… LOL
However, I do agree, you should know the rules first before you break them. I do start sentences with ing but I try to make sure they are not true dangling participles, and I do use words that end with ly… Hey, sometimes you just can’t do without them. I’m self taught and didn’t take any courses what-so-ever, so basically all the rules I have learned have come from my sweet, wonderful editor (thanks Jess — nope, I’m not trying to butter her up LOL) and pay close attention to them when editing my stories, but at the same time I make sure the words flow smoothly…
Great post.
I try not to headhop, but I do have both the hero’s and heroine’s POV in the one scene. I just make very certain I don’t have the changes too close together and more importantly, make certain the change isn’t jarring but flows smoothly. Thank God Angie lets me get away with it because I’m not certain I could write any other way. I just feel it makes the story richer. But that’s me and I know it doesn’t work for everyone.
My God, I’ve been so ingrained with The Rules that I find it’s hard to read a book nowadays without “self-editing” it. I can only imagine how much harder it is for an editor to read for pleasure.
It is frustrating to read a book by someone who’s breaking the rules when I have to live by them. Not saying I want to head hop up and down the wall, but still…
I’ve had editors who were adamantly against “ly” words and had me edit them and I hated it. Sometimes it’s the word you gotta use, folks. :P I’ve had editors who absolutely hated certain words. looks at Immi lol
Personally what really irks me in “Big Name Books” is the use of “garbage words” that I’ve been taught to edit out. Useless “that“s and “of“s, etc.
The books that I love are the ones I can lose myself in and not even think about self-editing. When an author can impress me enough to read for reading’s sake, then they’ve hooked me as a fan. :P Sadly, it’s hard to do…
~~Becka
Ooh, I have lists of words I hate. When I’m a big powerful editing guru I shall make them into rules and then everyone will have to keep them no matter how much they resent me. ...evil laughter…
I agree with most of what’s been said. I am being hit with the rules on two fronts though: I am not only a wannabe writer, but a journalism major. So…I pour over books on writing, then go to school and learn similar skills. Here’s my big problem: now that I use AP style for school, I write my fiction in the same format (practice as well as habit) and most literature is MLA.
As to “had”, “-ing”, “-ly”, and “was”: here’s what I learned in journalism: first, try to rework the sentence, but sometimes you HAVE to use passive voice or use those pesky endings. An example is the difference between “Jon was killed when Toby shot him” and “Toby shot Jon”. The only time the former is better is is Jon is much more important than Toby OR if you don’t know who shot Jon. “Had” pretty much applies the same rule, but I can’t think of anythign right now.
Dialogue according to journalism: You use the word said—always. You can’t attribute emotion. In fact according to Ball State, said is the strongest word for quotes because is undeniably accurate. In fiction, you can fudge that on occasion.
Here’s what you don’t learn in journalism: POV issues. They don’t exist! And the books are pointless. AND—immitate those you admire—only if you are using the same agent (and I detest the entire concept of agents). Stephen King, as an example, breaks EVERY rule in the book—and he always has. Head hopping, omniscient POV, second person interuptions (You’ve been here before…) Passive voice, repeating himself every other chapter, etc. And V.C. Andrews is another one—constant rule breaker…..
So—I guess that’s the rule I want to throw out the window: if you want to write, study your favorite author and emmulate him or her until you find your voice. JMO
Given I write with a co-author, head hopping is something we do quite often. It clicks for us to have the feelings of both characters within a scene.
That’s because the characters are so strong in two heads instead of one head.
It’s just the way we write. If something isn’t clear as to who’s thinking, feeling what then we prefer to clarify. For us, it’s so damn hard not to write both characters fully.