Rules of the Game -- No Whine, Just Champagne Writing Discussion #187

Again, I'll try, Pat. Great discussion topic.

So, what are the rules of your game? The only rules I really follow is: To make my story believable(Even though it's fiction, it still has to have a great amount of facts and truth to back up the historical elements) Two: Always be true to what my main goal is. And, three: Make a story that tons of people love to read, even myself. If I don't like it, how do I expect others to do so?
What traditional rules do you follow? I'm not really a traditional type of person. I like to have the basics down pat. But, be able to be flexible when possible
What rules do you make up? That would be none. I just go where the story tells me to go. I have no control over it. It just comes to me, and I follow
If you create your own rules, how do you make your story work.? Like I said, I just go with the flow. And, what comes, comes.

If we write a boring story when we promised a thriller, if we don’t furnish a satisfying ending, if the book is riddled with typos and inconsistencies, then we have not fulfilled reader expectations.

In this anything goes publishing world, readers’ expectations seem at an all time low, otherwise why would they put up with the unedited, poorly constructed books that are downloaded every day by the hundreds of thousands? Still, most of us want more for our books than to be today’s free download fad. We want our books to have a life of their own, a life for which people are willing to pay a fair price. And for that, we need to know how to write, communicate, and tell a story.

I couldn't agree more, Pat. I'm disgusted when I spend time reading a book which is in sad need of a proof reader, and editor, an English teacher....

To me, the saddest thing is that people have come to accept substandard ebooks as the norm, when in fact, standards should be greater than for the traditional publishers, because, to be honest, the major publishing standards aren't that high. I used to love reading. Anything. Everything. Now? Not much at all. I get tired of the search for a readable book with a bit of depth.

I can deal with mistakes, ebooks seem to be plagued with them (at least some of the ones I downloaded have and I haven't gone through many yet), but its the stories where the author gets too lost in coming up with rediculous names and a story that bounces more than a superball and is entirely un-followable. (yes, I'm sure that's not a word, but it fits).

I love what everyone had to say in follow-up to Pat's comment, which I so agree with.

I don't do ebooks. I like to read a good old-fashioned turn the pages Novel that I can hold in my hand and put on my bookshelf. [With no typos].

I'm still reading the thread here...

Certain aspects of story telling never change — you need a beginning that hooks people, a middle that makes them want to keep reading, and an ending that satisfies. The writing has to be comprehensible. No reader wants to read the same sentence over and over again, trying to make sense of it. They want to find out what happens to the character. Which brings us to an important “must.” You must have a character who wants something desperately enough to drive the action of the story. Even if the character is unwilling to take action at the beginning, somewhere along the line she needs to take things into her own hands. A character who is unwilling to participant in her own story gets boring after awhile, and no matter how things change, that first commandment of writing will always hold true — though shalt not bore thy reader.

An EXCELLENT first commandment too Pat. I follow that one when I write

New writers often talk about changing the rules of the game, and their enthusiasm makes it seem as if their way is better than the established style of writing put out by the major publishers. I used to get excited thinking that finally books would burst out of the high level of mediocrity espoused by the publishing houses, and we'd see some stellar books, and we do, but so often the so-called changed rules only mean the author didn't take the time to learn the elements of storytelling. Storytelling is the key -- and the only rule is "everything in service to the story."

I started to read books about writing and getting published when I began writing. I wanted to know how to write a good book and how to get it published. I think (I hope) I managed the first, but it took many rewrites and edits to hone the story. I also managed to get published despite the 200 rejections I got.

If I had heeded one primary rule -- stick to a recognizable genre -- then I would have had an easier time of getting published, but I wanted to write the stories I wanted to write. I don't like genres. I like wide-ranging stories, but now I understand why publishers stick to recognizable genres -- it gives you a targeted audience.

My daughter and I were discussing this recently. She observes that Dickens' writing violates many of the "modern rules", such as to never have long descriptive passages; descriptions must be woven into action and dialogue and there must never be a sentence, much less (heaven forbid) a paragraph of description. But how many people currently read Dickens?

That's the point of modern rules --- to reflect the modern way of writing. A lot of writers have taken this new DIY "no rules" publishing world to mean they can bring back some of the old ways. Which they can, if they have the talent, and almost no one does, or if they could get readers, but how do you read a Dickens-like tome on a phone? Most people are reading on kindles now, but gradually the move is toward phone apps.

There's another reason for the new rules --- it used to be that long descriptions were necessary because few people traveled or knew about the places described. Today, there is almost no place on earth that is so unknown that long descriptions are called for. We see images of faraway places every day online, in movies, on television, in photos, in magazines. So long descriptions of places are boring because they aren't telling us anything new.

Boring to "the average modern reader", if there is such a thing.

True. But so often lengthy descriptions are boring because they are written by long-winded writers in love with their own prose. Otherwise, they would have known how to use significant details to give readers the feeling of being there without the verbiage.

Even some of our favorite authors are guilty of the lengthy description syndrome.

I've always liked Stephen King, but have skimmed through many an over-long description to get to the meat of the story.

My daughter likes Dickens in part because of his long descriptive passages.

Every rule out there on writing is in direct violation of another rule on writing. I've come to the conclusion that there is no right or wrong answers.

Writing is a form of art. As such it is entirely open to the opinion of the person experiencing it.

My rules are 1. if you don't enjoy writing it, then don't write it.

2. write something I would want to read. I've read good books, ok books, mediocre books, and books I forced myself to finish out of pure stubbornness. If I wouldn't chose to read it, why would anyone else?

And, the hardest rule that I've struggled constantly with:
3. forget what others think. This is hard on so many levels. From worrying about what close family and friends will think to those hard nosed posters in the dark world of the internet who so piously rant about how they absolutely abhor anything that is in any way not written literally to the last crossed t and dotted i. No room for literary license or metaphors or symbolism because those are nastily reviled - all the things that made the literary classics great. And, of course, worrying if anyone besides yourself will like what you wrote or think its utter crap.

Great rules!! I follow all of them, as a matter of fact. Since I haven't been enjoying writing, I don't do it, but when I did, I wrote what I wanted to read. It seems silly to do otherwise, since as you say, if we wouldn't choose to read it, why would anyone else?

Your number three is an important one. If we're not writing for ourselves, why are we writing? And if we are writing for ourselves, why should we care what anyone thinks?

In this ballooning publishing world, it's particularly important to forget what others think, since there's a chance few people will read what we wrote. Most people assume by your number three that they can write any crap they want, and if that's what they want to do, well . . . a lot of people do. But the main thing is "everything in service to the story," and writing that is so full of typos and mangled sentences is not in service to the story.

I only have one rule and that is, as I stated above, Everything in service to the story. If it doesn't advance the story, develop the characters, give information necessary to understand the stakes of the story, then it doesn't belong.

Yes, #3 definately isn't about writing crap. That's what personal diaries are for. it's about not worrying that your dad will be shocked by this scene, your friend will poke fun at you for that, and 500 people online will use you as an example of what they hate because you dared to do like so many of the "greats" and write using metaphors or symbolism instead of abject literalness. Yes, your eyes cannot physically jump across the room. It's a funny thing called metaphor or symbolism, all depending how its used, and all the so called "great" writers used it in spades. If written well, only someone looking for a reason to hate will pick if off and rant about it. Unfortunately, after reading a few of those rants a person will want to avoid all literary licence and - as it has been put so famously - "stick to the facts, ma'am".

Actually, "eyes jumping across the room" is one of those things that take me out of a story, because I have a literal mind and see the eyeballs jumping across the room. I've learned to use "gaze" instead of eyes. But I know what you mean. Luckily for me, I have no interest in writing literarily. I have so many levels of understanding in my books, that anything but a simple style gets in the way. Publishers didn't understand this -- Literary publishers rejected me for being too commercial, but commercial publishers thought I was not commercial enough. A good reason to be satisfied with our own writing because so few others will be.

That was just an example that came quick to mind. I've seem people rant about the most minor of things, things that most people would read and automatically convert from the figurative to the literal and know what is meant. People don't think in the strictest literal way, so it only makes sense to me that writing also uses a mix. But some (too many) people do seem to love to hate online anything that is not absolutely literal.

I know it was just an example, one that made me smile.

The problem with the internet is that everyone has an opinion. Opinion has supplanted intellect, knowlege and wisdom in our society because it doesn't take any special skill to have an opinion, so everyone can talk about anything whether they know what they are talking about or not. And along with opinion comes entitlement, a feeling that they are entitled to spew their opinion without counting the cost.

Which is why my rule and your rule number three are so important. You have to write to fulfill your needs and your story's needs without getting caught up in other people's opinions,

having major internet issues here. don't know how long it will last.

There seems to be problems everywhere tonight. I'm glad you stopped by if only for a few minutes.

My rules are 1. must be entertaining. I am not out to scare anyone with my writing. i want them to enjoy what they are reading and want more. That said there must be a compelling yet quirky plot. The characters likeable or despicable will catch readers attention

And yet I want to scare, just as I want to be scared. Always loved the horror. Unfortunately, you get used to it and it stops being scary.

That's part of what made Alfred Hitchcock movies so great. He used comic relief so effectively that the scary parts were shocking.

I'm sorry I missed it again.

i agree especially Frenzy

Hi Everyone!

Pat ~ I really enjoy these discussions. I've missed so many of them not being here on Gather for a long while, but I'm glad to have made it over here to this one to read the thread.

On to the questions you had for us...

"So, what are the rules of your game? What traditional rules do you follow? What rules do you make up? If you create your own rules, how do you make your story work?"

The rules of my game? To write as if I'm living in the story; make it exciting; believable; enjoyable; and so good you don't want it to end -- and at the finish, the Reader will read it over and over and get something more out of it with each read. Not one boring page to be turned...

What traditional rules do you follow? The first commandment that Pat mentioned above in this discussion ~ "Thou shalt not bore the Reader." -- I changed one word, and added a cap ~ lol.

What rules do you make up? If you create your own rules, how do you make your story work?

I don't really create rules, I just live, feel, and breathe the story as it rolls out. And after I'm done, I'm so very satisfied with the FINISH...because my Readers love my stories, and they never end...

LOVE,
René