[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 902 KB, 500x750, 1382744573455.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4731970 No.4731970[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

So this is Elmore Leonards: 10 Rules for Good Writing
> 1. Never open a book with weather.
> 2. Avoid prologues.
> 3. Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
> 4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said”…he admonished gravely.
> 5. Keep your exclamation points under control. You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose.
> 6. Never use the words "suddenly" or "all hell broke loose."
> 7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
> 8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
> 9. Don't go into great detail describing places and things.
> 10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

Have any other authors compiled a list of Dos & Donts of writing?
Do you have some rules/tips of your own?
POST 'EM

>> No.4731971

don't be a tryhard

>> No.4731976

>>4731970

>1. Do what works for you
>2. The order of importance is: flow=clarity>rules
>3. Just write. You don't need to follow a list of rules because you'll figure it all out on your own.

>> No.4731977

> 1. Never open a book with weather.
Fuck I was just about to do this with a short story.

Anyway I was thinking of these two short stories by the same narrator but as I analyzed them I realize my characters have no virtues and its just bad things happening to bad people so I concluded that I might write them together as the narrator talks how not to tell a story. What do you think?

>> No.4731979

>>4731970
You're going to write a million words of shit.
Start straining today.

>> No.4731985

>>4731970
Some good points.

> 3. Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
> 4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said”…he admonished gravely.

Stephen King basically complains about the same things in On Writing. Also, he hates an overuse of adverbs (most editors think likewise).

>> No.4731988

>>4731970
>Do you have some rules/tips of your own?
You just killed your own thread OP.

>> No.4732018

>>4731985

Rule 1: Don't take advice from Stephen King.

>> No.4732019

>>4731970

Avoid alliteration, excessive use will make your writing will sound like a news report.

>> No.4732022

>>4731970
>Don't go into great detail describing places and things.

This guy must hate Cormac McCarthy.

>> No.4732027

>>4731970
> 3. Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.

The only one I have a problem with. I know I shouldn't, but I keep falling for the temptation to use "muttered" or "grumbled" or "spat". Guess I lack confidence in my ability to communicate tone and intent through the dialogue itself.

What's wrong with the word suddenly, anyway?

>> No.4732029

>>4731970
The thing is, this list worked well for Leonard's own writing, and is well-fitted to the crime genre, but it doesn't fit all kinds of writing. Even within the crime genre itself, some of the best writers break most of these 'rules' (Chandler especially).

>> No.4732031

>>4732027
It's okay to use something other than said, just don't overdo it. You can't always convey tone with dialogue and context. This rule is really only to put a stop to those people who get out a thesaurus choose a verb every time someone says something.

'Suddenly' is just poor story telling:
>"Suddenly, the bus crashed."

Not appealing, yeah?

>> No.4732037

>>4732031

That's terribly unappealing, but what about, say: "The couple locked eyes with one another, savoring the mutual anticipation. Suddenly, the door crashed open and two men in uniform spilled in."

Hm, no, now that I think about it. There are better ways to describe that event. Thanks!

>> No.4732046

>>4732037
What it comes down to is that as the writer you are in full control of the universe and it's your job to make the passage of time clear. Using 'suddenly' is seen as lazy.

>> No.4732058
File: 71 KB, 867x575, in the beginning.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4732058

Following the rules won't guarantee quality.

>> No.4732059

>4chanville used to not be a town, now it is a town

>It was a beautiful Monday morning in 4chanville.
>Bob was reading his book.

shit, I was so committed to doing this. Now I can't be bothered. Shit.

>> No.4732063

Until you are good enough to place commas as you go, don't until you've finished the paragraph.

>> No.4732069

>Do you have some rules/tips of your own?
1.Rules are better when drawn from personal experience (reading, writing and listening to people as they speak)
2. Rules are better understood as guidelines to improve your writing, not as absolute laws of the proper writer
3. Rules are meant to be broken. Likewise, habits are meant to be changed.
4.Rules are useful in conducting experiments: for any set of rules that seems sensible, try to write at least one story that follow it and one story that breaks one rule. Repeat for each rule, then for the totality of rules.

I agree with Leonards's 4., 5. (to some extent) and 6. 1., 2. and 7. are rather sensible. While 8, 9 and 10 are probably aimed at commercial writers, some of them became famous by breaking them (Balzac for instance).

>> No.4732076

>>4732037

This >>4732046

>> No.4732078

>>4732058

>that picture
>my sides

>> No.4732095

A traumatic backstory is not the same as characterization.

Character development should be a continuous, smooth arc, not a sudden reaction to one dramatic event.

If you have trouble keeping your characters clear to yourself, come up with a few random scenarios and determine how each character would act/react in it.

>> No.4732115

>>4732095
>Character development should be a continuous

MFW caring about this in 2014

>> No.4732121

>>4732115

This could be interesting. Elaborate?

>> No.4732164

>>4732095
I like these tips.

>> No.4732180

>>4731970
>Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.

Didn't grapes of wrath get a nobel prize?
Half the book is in southern dialect.

>> No.4732185

>>4732180

Yeah, and then consider Faulkner.

These tips are total shit apart from #10 which is redundant.

>> No.4732190

Many rules below are breakable, except Rules #1 and #2. That doesn't mean you should break them, it means you can. If you will, add "without good reason" to all of the rules below, except for #1 and #2.

#1. Whatever you do, whatever you write, remember that you should be ready and willing to explain why you made that choice and defend it. It's similar to prosody in poetry and songwriting.
#2. Remember: Never say or do anything you are not ready to face the consequences for.
#3. Maintain standard grammatical functions and clarity. Remain as clear as possible.
#4. 1st person to establish opinion. 3rd to tell the story objectively. There is rarely a good time to use 2nd person. Do not change perspectives.
#5. Don't write what you know, research what you write.
#6. Never describe anything the reader doesn't need to know.
#7. Two rules in one. First, what do the character want, why can't they have it, and why do I give a shit? Second, every scene has to develop your characters, develop the plot, or if you're a good write, do both.
#8. Never break your in-universe rules. Get at least one person to read through a story to make sure you didn't leave any loopholes. Suspension of disbelief is a bullshit myth.
#9. Write, Proofread, rewrite, proofread again, ask for critiques, rewrite again, proofread again, ask for critiques, etc.
No.
Don't play video games
Don't watch your television show
Don't make excuses
Write, proofread, and as for critique.
Other things: Forget almost everything school taught you. Poetry doesn't need to rhyme or have meter, but it helps to know when to include or not include both. You shouldn't use a bunch of different forms of "said" but you shouldn't just say "said" either. The list goes on.

A plot twist shouldn't be the entire plot. It should be well-foreshadowed. To put it another way, if your plot is a straight line (a 180 degree angle), the plot twist should make that line no less than 170 or more than 190. Any more will just be trite and cheap.

People will tell you to avoid a lot of words. Among them, "very," "really," "is." Instead, try to note what words you make use of a lot. For example, I wrote a story that had almost as much walking down hallways as it did actually story. Also try not to use suddenly. It's not the end of the world but try not to.

Finally, don't listen to me. I'm not a writer. Chances are, you aren't either. To me, anyway, I'm not a writer. I wouldn't be a writer if I got something published. I won't be a writer until I write at least 500 words every day and get some of that published and have the drive to become a writer. Until then, I'm just me. A guy on the internet who you shouldn't listen to.

>> No.4732199

>The room illuminated suddenly, breaking the illusion, as lightning forked into the churning oceans.

Is the suddenly in this sentence really so bad? How could I rephrase it to capture the sudden nature of lightning?

>> No.4732204

>>4732199
does it need it?

>> No.4732207

>>4731970
>Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

People do this? I can't skip parts of a story that I'm reading, that's a bad habit (not to mention it's lazy). Then again, this Elmore Leonard we're talking about, his audience is primarily made up of dumb fat Americans who would rather be watching a movie than reading a book.

>> No.4732208

>>4732190
nice

>> No.4732212

>>4732185
>consider Faulkner

Rules like these don't apply to geniuses. They do however apply to you.

>>4732199
>Is the suddenly in this sentence really so bad?

Yes, but don't worry -- the rest of the sentence is much, much worse.

>> No.4732213

>>4732199
>The illusion was shattered as barely a heartbeat of lightning unheralded by thunder forked across the sky and into the churning ocean.

>> No.4732216

>>4732204
I'm not sure. I considered getting rid of it. But without it, it seems abrupt. You're probably right though.

>> No.4732221

>>4732207
>this Elmore Leonard we're talking about diarrhea diarrhea diarrhea

Wow, what a tryhard total pleb you are. I can smell your shit taste all the way from over here.

>> No.4732222

>>4732212
>the rest of the sentence is much, much worse.

Please do elaborate.

>> No.4732226

>>4732212

The sentence is fine, actually. What do you think is wrong with it?

>> No.4732231

>>4732190

This is good.

>> No.4732232

>>4732216
Lightning is supposed to be abrupt.

>> No.4732233
File: 1023 KB, 334x161, 1391911431296.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4732233

>>4732213
>as barely a heartbeat of
>unheralded

>> No.4732235

>>4732222

I'm sorry, but it's purple prose at its worst. "Lightning forked into the churning oceans" is someone writing with a thesaurus in hand (or in mind), and badly.

"Lightning struck the ocean, illuminating the room and breaking the silence between them" is better, but still bad.

>> No.4732242

>>4732233
What? He wrote an overly long sentence to describe lightning breaking up a moment, so I thought I'd give him something that would fit right in with his style.

>> No.4732244
File: 2.81 MB, 370x205, 1391911431297.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4732244

>>4732233
I have the slowmo of that

>> No.4732248

>>4732235
Actually, I chose 'forked' and 'churning' for very specific reasons, relating to both one of my characters and the mood.

This is hardly purple.

>> No.4732250

>>4732248
Whatever, it doesn't really matter. What it says above about 'suddenly' being lazy story telling stands. Find another way to say it.

>> No.4732258

>>4732248

It's both needlessly grandiloquent and awkward -- in other words, purple. Of course you're entitled to your own opinion but quite honestly you're unlikely to progress so long as you think that writing in that style has no problems.

>> No.4732269
File: 26 KB, 400x385, 1379316114477.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4732269

>>4732258
>grandiloquent

>> No.4732283

>>4732190
>A guy on the internet who you shouldn't listen to.

A guy on the internet TO WHOM you shouldn't listen.

>> No.4732295

>>4732190
>There is rarely a good time to use 2nd person

Do you mean like having someone tell a story?

>> No.4732298

>>4732295
But isnt 2nd person when the narrator is telling the story about the audience?

>> No.4732300

>>4732298
How would that work?

Maybe it's the narrator talking to someone saying what he did.
"Then you went ... and then you..."

This is hard.

>> No.4732313

>>4732300
Pretty much. 2nd person is pretty much good for choose-your-own-adventure stories aimed at younger children/tweens.

>You walk down the hall, the fluoro light flickering to a nauseating rhythm. Finally you come to the door at the end and put your hand on the handle.

>> No.4732336

>>4731970
> 1. Never open a book with weather.
no the corrections has a great opening fuck off
> 2. Avoid prologues.
sure i guess
> 3. Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
shouldn't be a "never" but generally yes
> 4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said”…he admonished gravely.
sure
> 5. Keep your exclamation points under control. You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose.
yes
> 6. Never use the words "suddenly" or "all hell broke loose."
another thing that shouldn't be a never but is pretty good. never use "all hell broke loose" though.
> 7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
yes
> 8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
not sure what this means but i think no
> 9. Don't go into great detail describing places and things.
nope
> 10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.
well i guess it depends on who your readers are

>> No.4732344

>>4732199
just cut the "suddenly." also change "into" into "through" because lightning doesn't really fork "into" the ocean. consider cutting "churning."

>> No.4732347

>>4732344
here let me try something:

The room illuminated; the illusion was broken; lightning forked through the ocean.

maybe that works nicely you can try it out

>> No.4732348
File: 350 KB, 720x738, 137658955656.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4732348

>>4732347
>using semi colons ever

>> No.4732350

>>4732347
actually should probably be "the illusion broke" or "the room was illuminated" but eh i can't decide

>> No.4732351

>>4732348
>muh carthy

>> No.4732357

>>4732313
Nah, there are various other ways to go about it.
One time while I was bored in a class, I wrote a 2nd person story about a stalker, since that was the first thing that came to mind that could be used as such.

I've also read a few published 2nd person shore stories, but can't recall any of their names.

>> No.4732359

>>4732357
I meant short, but shore works as well for its silliness.

>> No.4732360

>>4732300
pynchon slips into it in a couple places in gravity's rainbow iirc

>> No.4732361

>>4732344
>also change "into" into "through" because lightning doesn't really fork "into" the ocean

This is a good point, thank you.

>>4732347
I'm not sure I'm confident enough to use two semi colons in a single sentence.

>> No.4732371

>>4732361
then do two sentences like "The room illuminated; the illusion broke. Lightning forked into the ocean"

im trying to maintain the "suddenly" with punctuation you c

>> No.4732375

The only rules i agree with are 2, 5, and 6
And maybe 4

Fuck rule 3

>> No.4732376

>>4732375
show us your dialogue i bet it sounds terrible

>> No.4732383

>>4732019
True dat. I was reading The Past Is A Foreign Country (non-fiction, which I think makes annoying stylistic tics even worse). Started noticing the excessive alliteration around the third time it appeared, and by the sixth I wanted to murder the writer.

>> No.4732385

>>4732376
Cant right now.
Doesnt it get redundant using said over and over again though? Whats the logic behind doing this?

>> No.4732386

>>4732022
Does McCarthy do this much? Seems to me that every now and then he focuses on some really vivid detail, but most things go completely undescribed.

>> No.4732388

Rule 7 also makes no sence to me. What if your character is a ship boat captain, shouldnt you make him talk like a pirate?
Or a character from a foreighn county, shouldnt you write his accent into the dialog?

>> No.4732389

>>4732248
Not that anon, but at least in isolation like that it looks purple as purple can be. Also how is more than one ocean in view at the same time? Does the scene take place on a very narrow strip of land?

>> No.4732392

>>4732385
you don't have to say it over and over again. 90% of the time dialogue begins with a "said" and then is just

"hey man"
"hey"
"what's up"
"not much"

you don't have to repeat anything. you can even omit the initial said if you do it well. obviously it's stupid dialogue but so much better than

"hey!", john exclaimed
"what's up?", bill questioned
"not much," john replied

>> No.4732393

>>4732388
Use sparingly =/= don't use.

Having said that...
>shouldnt you make him talk like a pirate?
>a character from a foreighn county, shouldnt you write his accent into the dialog?
Probably not. Shit gets distracting, yo.

>> No.4732395

>>4732388
only if you're content making your work a comedy

>> No.4732418

>>4732392
What about
"Where are you?" Asked john
"At work." Joe replied
"Oh, want to catch a movie after?"
"Sure, im off at three."

Using said for both of those wouldnt sound right to me.

>> No.4732424

>>4732418
"replied" there is just unnecessary. should be cut completely, no reason to be there. "asked" could be replaced with "said", or alternatively something like:

John called Joe. "Where are you?"
"At work."
etc.

>> No.4732442

I heard a good tip today, all you need to do to finish a book is write two shitty pages a day.

>> No.4732448

>>4731970
That list is fucking retarded OP.
>> 3. Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
Is he trolling? No wonder Leonard was so mediocre.

>> No.4732451

>>4732448
Have you got examples of good writing using other dialogue tags? Would be interesting.

>> No.4732464

>Don't follow 'rules', create a mechanism with each component serving a specific function. As long as the function of your component is adequate then it fits.

>> No.4732474 [DELETED] 

>>4732451
Upon opening a random book by a writer much better than Leonard I found the following passage:

"Really," grins Enzian, flirting. "I can't think of what that would be. Give me a clue."

There's nothing wrong with mostly using "said", but ONLY using it is stupid.

Another example by an author who puts both Leonard and Pynchon to shame:

- Nei, sa (said) hun, jeg visste nok ikke om det; men vil I smake noe som byfolk drikker nu for tiden? Det kalles kaffe, og det varmer godt etter kaldt vær.
- Å - ja, svarte (answered) Ane. Det skal være så bespottelig dyrt.

The day someone the likes of Leonard can point out faults in Gulbranssen's writing is the day I stop reading books.

>> No.4732482

>>4731970
Can't stand Elmore Leonard's rules. Geoff Dyer's are more my style:

1 Never worry about the commercial possibilities of a project. That stuff is for agents and editors to fret over—or not. Conversation with my American publisher. Me: “I’m writing a book so boring, of such limited commercial appeal, that if you publish it, it will probably cost you your job.” Publisher: “That’s exactly what makes me want to stay in my job.”

2 Don’t write in public places. In the early 1990s I went to live in Paris. The usual writerly reasons: back then, if you were caught writing in a pub in England, you could get your head kicked in, whereas in Paris,dans les cafés…Since then I’ve developed an aversion to writing in public. I now think it should be done only in private, like any other lavatorial activity.

3 Don’t be one of those writers who sentence themselves to a lifetime of sucking up to Nabokov.

4 If you use a computer, constantly refine and expand your autocorrect settings. The only reason I stay loyal to my piece-of-shit computer is that I have invested so much ingenuity into building one of the great auto-correct files in literary history. Perfectly formed and spelt words emerge from a few brief keystrokes: “Niet” becomes “Nietzsche,” “phoy” becomes “photography” and so on. Genius!

5 Keep a diary. The biggest regret of my writing life is that I have never kept a journal or a diary.

6 Have regrets. They are fuel. On the page they flare into desire.

7 Have more than one idea on the go at any one time. If it’s a choice between writing a book and doing nothing I will always choose the latter. It’s only if I have an idea for two books that I choose one rather than the other. I always have to feel that I’m bunking off from something.

8 Beware of clichés. Not just the clichés that Martin Amis is at war with. There are clichés of response as well as expression. There are clichés of observation and of thought—even of conception. Many novels, even quite a few adequately written ones, are clichés of form which conform to clichés of expectation.

9 Do it every day. Make a habit of putting your observations into words and gradually this will become instinct. This is the most important rule of all and, naturally, I don’t follow it.

10 Never ride a bike with the brakes on. If something is proving too difficult, give up and do something else. Try to live without resort to perseverance. But writing is all about perseverance. You’ve got to stick at it. In my 30s I used to go to the gym even though I hated it. The purpose of going to the gym was to postpone the day when I would stop going. That’s what writing is to me: a way of postponing the day when I won’t do it any more, the day when I will sink into a depression so profound it will be indistinguishable from perfect bliss.

>> No.4732485

>>4732482
Except for #2. I do 90% of my writing in public. Overhearing people is the best.

But especially #6. Fueled by frustration, motherfuckers.

>> No.4732486
File: 121 KB, 703x1024, maestro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4732486

>>4732451
Upon opening a random book written by a writer much better than Leonard I found the following passage:

"Really," grins Enzian, flirting. "I can't think of what that would be. Give me a clue."

There's nothing wrong with mostly using "said", but ONLY using it is stupid.
Another example by an author who puts both Leonard and Pynchon to shame:

- Nei, sa (said) hun, jeg visste nok ikke om det; men vil I smake noe som byfolk drikker nu for tiden? Det kalles kaffe, og det varmer godt etter kaldt vær.
- Å - ja, svarte (replied) Ane. Det skal være så bespottelig dyrt.

The day someone the likes of Leonard can point out faults in Gulbranssen's writing is the day I stop reading books

>> No.4732522

>>4732486
That example is sort of skirting around the point. 'Grins' is an action accompanying the dialogue, unlike a verb dialogue tag. Though I have seen some autists complain that a person can't 'grin' their speech and the like.

What the rule is saying is that not every dialogue tag has to be... "interesting". It's attempting to preclude the use of things like
>"Feminism is dumb." He verbalised.
>"Yes, you are so right!" She exclaimed.
>"I see we agree on this matter. Would you be interested in getting coffee?" He inquired.

Basically: don't use a thesaurus for everything.

>> No.4732545

>> 3. Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
never understood this. dialogue is so dependent on how you say it, context isn't simply enough. this isn't a screenplay. it's a novel, you don't have the benefit of an actor to give voice to your dialogue.

>> No.4732549

>>4731970
>10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip
Who the hell skips parts while reading a book and why would I target my work toward them

>> No.4732558

>>4732549
I skipped a large number of clothing descriptions when reading The Wheel of Time.

>> No.4732559

>>4732522
Read Leonard's "rule" again:
>Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
>carry
Doesn't necessarily need to be a dialogue tag as long as it carries the dialogue, which "grins" does in the example.

>> No.4732567

>>4732559
To be fair, OP missed the introduction.

>These are rules I've picked up along the way to help me remain invisible when I'm writing a book, to help me show rather than tell what's taking place in the story. If you have a facility for language and imagery and the sound of your voice pleases you, invisibility is not what you are after, and you can skip the rules. Still, you might look them over.

>> No.4732929
File: 1.27 MB, 1920x1080, 1383207897054.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4732929

>>4732046
>Suddenly.

Opened up American psycho and hit Shift+Ctrl+F. "Suddenly" = 70 instances.

>> No.4732952

In high school SAT prep they taught us that any answer with the words "always" or "never" in it was the wrong answer, so I'm gonna go with that here for the most part.

>> No.4732962

>>4732952
As long as there has been life has there been death?
Yes, always.

>wrong

>> No.4732968

>>4732962
There was that one brief time, OP

>> No.4732978

I feel like writing is like cooking, words are like spices. It's so easy to fuck up a dish by using just a tad more of one spice than the recipe calls for. Does that mean we shouldn't use any spices while cooking? Of course not! How bland would the food taste. Curry for instance, not many people like it bc not many people know how to cook with it, ad frequently if you use too much of it your dish will taste like shit. But if you've ever had halal food from someone who knew what they were doing, oh my god it's life alteringly good. But to tell people to "never" cook with curry just because it is a difficult spice to utilize is like erasing an entire culinary civilization from history. So I feel it is with words. At one point in time, we had these words for a reason, and they suited the works they were used in well, but as time went on people forgot proper usage and forms, making their own writing sound contrite and bloated. So teachers told students just simply not to use things like adverbs at all, effectively erasing an entire sect of work from literary history. The key is not to "never" use certain words, but to use them correctly, the way and method in which they were intended to be used. THAT is the difference between gourmet and take-out.

>> No.4732980

>>4732968
anon*

>> No.4733020

>tfw you excessively use "all hell broke loose"

>> No.4733033

For everyone loathing semicolons, there are uses for them. Shirley Jackson uses them for her character's thoughts. Example:
-I am foolish, she told herself early every summer, I am very foolish; I am grown up now and know the value of things.
The semicolon clarifies where a period could not. If it was a period, rather than a semicolon, we'd wonder whether or not the next sentence was being narrated or thought. With a semicolon, this is clarified without cluttering the page with qualifiers.

>> No.4733042

>>4733020
It's a great phrase but I can see why it's advised against. Still great for day to day conversation.

>> No.4733156

>>4731970
“In writing, you must kill all your darlings.” - Faulkner

I believe he meant "strike out writerly phrases." That passages included only for their rhetorical or poetic show-off-iness should always be avoided. He was out in front of the modern movement toward author "invisibility." In that sense, Leonard is his grandson.

>> No.4733162

>>4731970
Mark Twain was also a thought leader of the modern non-intrusive author:

"Use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English--it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don't let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in."

>> No.4733167

>>4731970
Norman Mailer believed that style was forged in the furnace of time. That is ccannot be forced:

"A really good style comes only when a man has become as good as he can be. Style is character. A good style cannot come from a bad, undisciplined character. . . . I think good style is a matter of rendering out of oneself all the cupidities, all the cripplings, all velleities."

>> No.4733171

>>4731970
Vonnegut, too, agrees:

Keep it simple.
Have the guts to cut.
Sound like yourself.
Say what you mean to say.
Pity the readers.

"The audience requires us to be sympathetic and patient teachers, ever willing to simplify and clarify--whereas we would rather soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales."

>> No.4733182

>>4731970
And also George Orwell:

Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

Never use a long word where a short one will do.

If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

Never use the passive where you can use the active.

Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

>> No.4733200

But Elmore Leonards writing is terrible! His sentences makes Hemingway feel long-winded.

>> No.4733208

>>4733171
Of course he does. He's a late-century American prose writer. Most of them give this advice because it's the fundamental underpinning of the biggest tendency in late-century American prosewriting. Of course someone who's writing in basically a similar style to Leonard with the same fundamental beliefs gives similar advice. Good grief.

>> No.4733215 [DELETED] 

Advice from a bunch of writers whose writing I don't like. Ha. No thanks. I think I'll read books from competent writers and pay attention to what works. Some of the greatest works of fiction (hell, probably most of them) wouldn't exist had the authors followed these rules.

>> No.4733221

Advice from a bunch of writers whose writing I don't like. Ha. No thanks. I think I'll read books from more exceptional writers and pay attention to what works. Some of the greatest works of fiction (hell, probably most of them) wouldn't exist had the authors followed these rules.

>> No.4733225

>>4733221
That's true. What a pity it would have been if Faulkner tried to use "short words and brief sentences".

>> No.4733230

>>4733200
I think the distinction has been made several times above, that for writers who strive for style, and whose toes lack the blisters of having dipped into form rejection notices, Leonard may be dismissed with a derisive snort.

It is his sales success that supports any value carried in his advice, for those that care about such crass details. He is describing how he reaches an audience that pays to keep reading him.

>> No.4733233

1. Never blindly accept what other writers do.

2. There are no absolute rules in writing.


And that's it. You should seriously try to kill yourself (or your writing career) if you take what someone else thinks and try to apply it 100%, because writers tend to give horrible advice. Just write until you can't write anymore and if your shit is published, great, if not, too bad.

>> No.4733242
File: 995 KB, 500x271, truly.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4733242

>>4733200
>>4733208
>>4733221
>>4733225

also:
>>4733156

>> No.4733283

>>4732336
The first paragraph of Corrections closes on Alfred smelling gasoline, revealing, and confirming in the subsequent paragraphs, that the opening lines are Alfred's thoughts, as he surveys the neighborhood after his nap. "Open a book with weather" is subsumed under its characterization of Alfred. Since Alfred's brain is about to become central to the developing family tension, I would argue that Corrections opens with an imageraic MRI of Alfred's state of mind, one portion of which involves weather.

>> No.4733296

>>4732386
his description, to me, just seems really factual and emotionless, which i like. it seems like a collection of necessary statements rather than scenesetting somehow.

>> No.4733685

>>4732283
You are 100% correct. I apologize for my misconduct.

>> No.4733693

>>4732295
>>4732298
>>4732300
(nice dubs)
>>4732313
>>4732357
Last person is correct. It's hard to do second person correctly but it's possible

>> No.4733699
File: 46 KB, 500x375, 94272.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4733699

>>4731970

“The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel.”

i lol'd.

Every one and single rule you've not diy is bs.

Literaly : bs.

Nobody can help you.

That's what writing is all about ? No ?

>> No.4733727

>>4732482
>It’s only if I have an idea for two books that I choose one rather than the other. I always have to feel that I’m bunking off from something.

2true

>Keep a diary. The biggest regret of my writing life is that I have never kept a journal or a diary.

Whenever I do it makes me really insecure and self loathing because there's always this thought in the back of my mind that I'm really writing it to eventually be read and not just to get my thoughts down.

> the day when I will sink into a depression so profound it will be indistinguishable from perfect bliss.

what is this? it sounds scary

Overall those are some pretty good rules, thanks.

>> No.4733728

>>4733699
"'It's not like I'm using,' Case heard someone say. as he shouldered his way through the crowd around the door of the Chat."

The sky simile is a thought, chosen to characterise Case. Case is the kind of character who would think of the sky in terms of a dead screen. That opening is characterization. It is not "It was a dark and stormy night." Observe strict compliance with 3rd limited POV in text which follows.

>> No.4733751

>>4733699
is the same shallow misreading as:
>>4732336
which is corrected here:
>>4733283

Since Neuromancer's whole deal is about jacking in to an alternate reality, it doesn't seem so strange for the first sentence to be jacking the reader into Case's brain as he expresses his first dismal thought, does it?

>> No.4733795

>>4733233
>Just write until you can't write anymore and if your shit is published, great, if not, too bad
That makes it seem like writing is some magical thing and not a skill like any other. Of course, practice is good. But you have to be able to reflect on what it is you're doing when you practice, and other people's opinions can be useful for that.

You wouldn't tell a guy wanting to learn guitar "just strum until you can't strum anymore and if that makes a hit song, great, if not, too bad"

>> No.4733813
File: 1.18 MB, 209x180, acceptable.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4733813

>>4733795
you. you are ok.

>> No.4733934

>>4733795

Ye olde ditto.

The problem with all these rules are that they are not.

Guidelines, yes.

If you follow these rules inflexibly, you probably can get something published somewhere, published and then forgotten.

Breaking these rules for the sake of contempt might net you the satisfaction of a rebel, but not the warm glow of a review.

Writing is unforgiving in this respect, you must know not just what you are doing, but why you are doing, and you must own up to the consequences of your doings across the page.

I hate these lists of rules as well, though not from some entitled appeal to artistic license. They need to expand into why. Brevity is not always a virtue.

If you can not take each rule and write something in kind, and in counter example, then that rule is worthless to you.

And so, very likely, is your work.

>> No.4733968

>>4731970
>Never open a book with weather
I'd add to this, "Never open a story with your protagonist's morning routine." We all know what it's like to wake up, take a shower, and eat a bowl of cereal. We get it, the character is an everyman, the day was a normal day like any other, the morning seems like a natural starting place in a story because that's where you start every day. Those are the precise reasons why that isn't a good way to start a story that interests readers and invests them in the narrative.

>> No.4733982

>>4732180
Brilliance is knowing how to break the rules effectively. Greg Maddux struck out 3,371 batters but hardly ever pitched in the strike zone.

>> No.4733986
File: 21 KB, 460x276, BH.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4733986

>>4733968
>mfw describing character by having char perform morning routine in bathroom mirror.

>> No.4733999

>>4732300
There's a reason it's rare. Bright Lights, Big City is probably the best known major English work actually told in the second person.

>> No.4734007

>>4733999
Though you would have to read it in translation, Please Look After Mom is a great example of second person narration.

Unless you know Korean.

>> No.4734011

>>4732482
>3 Don’t be one of those writers who sentence themselves to a lifetime of sucking up to Nabokov.

What's this supposed to mean?

>> No.4734013

>>4733986

Ask yourself why you are doing this. Hopefully you are setting something up in the reader's mind for later, in an effort to drop something big into the story.

Normalcy established, next scene he exits the door and drops thirty stories onto the waiting back of his screeching pterodactyl skyster, and off to face the scraggly bearded Islamofacist conformity of the skyways of tomorrow.

You're leading in to something like this, right?

>> No.4734028

>>4734013
>bearded Islamofacist conformity of the skyways of tomorrow.
Now I'm picturing a Jetsons-style 1950s futureworld except for some reason everyone is hardcore Taliban and all the women are in futuristic shiny burkhas. It's pretty cool.

>> No.4734031

>>4732095
>a traumatic back story is not the same as characterization
Modern anime writers are so very guilty of this shit, even worse, they show it in a flashback instead of dialogue

>> No.4734041

>>4734028

Glad you enjoyed it, I'll keep that one on the back burner for possible expansion, maybe a short story.

Over the top example it may be, but you see my point?

>> No.4734049

>>4734013
in pic from >>4733986 , Benny Hill was not impressed with standard over-exposed lazy pulp device of using bathroom mirror.

>> No.4734194

Rule #1: There are no rules that you can follow to guarantee writing good literature

>> No.4734219
File: 10 KB, 225x225, 2postpostmodern4u.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4734219

>>4731970
>> 7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.

disregard this. Make sure to write multiple pages of dense, unpunctuated african american slang that even you understand poorly.

>> No.4734223

>>4734219
so embarassing

dig up the essay he wrote about rap music in the late 80s if you want the ultimate dorky dave cringe

>> No.4734233

>>4732018

>Don't take advice from one of the best-selling authors of the 20th century

Get the fuck over yourself.

>> No.4734249

>>4734219
Implying ebonics isn't near impossible to understand irl.

>> No.4734257

>>4734249
>implying AAVE isn't a legitimate dialect with its own internally consistent grammar

prescriptivist pls go

>> No.4734259
File: 892 KB, 1000x1000, socrates.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4734259

>>4734249
>anglis minus barbara increatum
>faciem meam

>> No.4734261
File: 131 KB, 720x172, 1396571596081.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4734261

>>4731970
>narcissistic rule
>unimaginative rule
>offensively stupid rule
>good rule
>narcissistic rule
>damn good rule
>supremacist rule
>WHAT rule
>WHAT WHAT WHAT rule
>literally nobody needs to be told this rule

my rules for good writing (that aren't obvious):
>1. on word choice: pay as much attention to mouthfeel, appearance, and sound as you do connotation
>2. on dialogue: aim for realism, not readability.
>2, p.2. focus on the physicality; humans make and make note of mispronunciations, pacing, breathing, et al.
>3. on narration: unless le narrateur is god, let him be human. humans make mistakes. the notion that there is first-person realistic fiction told by someone who is not classified as 'unrealiable' makes me want to puke.
>4. on characterization: mental illness is much closer to normality than you think. write a wonky person, then diagnose them; don't start from a condition and work backwards.
>5. on world-creation: write what matters, not what you've decided upon. to you, a location-laden description of historic interstellar combat is engaging and satisfying. to me, it's a hunk o' garbage.

>> No.4734264

>>4731985
I try to avoid "said", though I don't use adverbs, as much I just describe what the character is doing as they talk.

I have never been published

>> No.4734271

>>4734261
>>supremacist rule

nah, I think the argument isn't to be always in favor of prestige dialect, just that most people do an awful butcher job when they try to write in an unfamiliar dialect and you should just stick to what you know.

>> No.4734273

>>4732027
What is the reasoning behind not using "muttered, grumbled, or spat"?

>> No.4734274

>>4734249
>implying what DFW wrote was meant to be modern ebonics

>> No.4734295
File: 421 KB, 616x654, 1396572212609.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4734295

>>4734271
that's not what he said, though. if he'd said "Use regional dialect adeptly," that'd be different. what if all i know is AAVE? what if all one of my characters speaks is AAVE?

i maintain my position.

>> No.4734304

>>4732244
What happened? Did the impact jar his spine so that he blacked out?

>> No.4734309

>>4732258
>using the "grandiloquent" to critique purple prose

>> No.4734311
File: 192 KB, 820x1184, Longinus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4734311

>>4734309
>using the term "purple prose" to describe what is properly known as Turgidity

>> No.4734384

>>4732347
As far as I know you should remove at least one semicolon from that sentence.

>> No.4734418

>>4733727
>> the day when I will sink into a depression so profound it will be indistinguishable from perfect bliss.

>what is this? it sounds scary
Bipolar disorder.

>> No.4734683

>>4732482
>if you were caught writing in a pub in England, you could get your head kicked in.

EN-GER-LAND!

>> No.4734690

>>4732978
>Curry for instance, not many people like it bc not many people know how to cook with it

>cook with it
>with it
>it

LOL

>> No.4734694

>>4733167

His books are terrible too.

>> No.4734698

>>4733182

Shit writer.

>> No.4734699

>>4734264
>I try to avoid "said"

Look up said bookisms and stop avoiding the use of the word said.

>> No.4734719

>>4732180
Rules aren't universal (see the Cormac McCarthy thing above) but if you don't know what you're doing you shouldn't do these things.

Are you Steinbeck? Are you Twain? Do you hae a good reason to use vernacular? If not, maybe don't use it.

>> No.4734726

>>4734264
>>4734699
The wave of the future is to use a form of the verb 'jump' instead of 'say'.

>> No.4734934

Read a book on technical/scientific writing. Be concise, be clear, everything should have a purpose, and everything should flow.

>> No.4734939

> 6. Never use the words "suddenly" or "all hell broke loose."
"Haze suddenly spoiled everything by turning to me and asking me for a light, and starting a make-believe conversation about a fake book by some popular fraud."
-Lolita, Nabokov.

"Suddenly there was a growing murmur of voices and a great tramping of feet. A caravan had come in. A violent babble of uncouth sounds burst out on the other side of the planks."
-Conrad, Heard of Darkness.

"Suddenly, in the absolute darkness, he understood with a hopeless nostalgia that he was completely disoriented."
-Marquez, One hundred years of solitude.

"the weather suddenly clears. There's a wind, a lot of wind, but the sky is almost blue; some clouds are scudding rapidly east."
- Houellebecq, Whatever.

"And suddenly there was a terrible roar all around us and the sky was full of what looked like huge bats, all swooping and screeching and diving around the car, which was going about a hundred miles an hour with the top down to Las Vegas. And a voice was screaming: "Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
- Thompson, Fear and Loathing.

>> No.4735008

How do I learn to write like Raymond Carver or Tobias Wolff?

>> No.4735047

>>4735008
>How do I learn to write like Raymond Carver
Get an editor to cut your stuff down to 25%- 50% of its original length.

>> No.4735053

Anyone else have problems with consistency? I feel like my writing is vastly different everyday and it makes my characters seem too dynamic.

>> No.4735064

>>4735053
is that a bad thing?

>> No.4735070

>>4735053
You just need to write more. The more practiced you are the more consistently you'll write.

>> No.4735072

>>4735064
I don't know to be honest. It just seems awkward how my main character can go from casual observations to deep introspection in two paragraphs.

>> No.4735078

>>4731970
Follow the rules of the writer you most admire. Following King's rules will most likely put you at odds with DFWs rules, which will most likely put you at odds with Borges' rules.

>> No.4735095

>>4732199
It isn't necessary and, because of that, immediately signals to me a writer who lacks confidence, making me want to put the piece down and forget about it.

>> No.4735101

>>4732222
Well, for starters, and purely in technical terms, it is passive.

On aesthetics, out is ugly and clumsy.

>> No.4735118

>>4732295
>>4732313
I've seen it work well in certain personal stories. It needs to ease the reader in.

And some times it can technically second but practically first, like a guy on a bat stool telling you a tale. Or epistolary, which can also be second.

>> No.4735128

>>4733156
Misquote. Alan Ginsburg.

>> No.4735136

I like to read a lot of lists of different author's rules and just choose the ones that fit well together and seem either most strikingly good and useful, good, or unique/interesting (one rule I remember mentioned writing at least 3 stories at a time to avoid writing the problem of ultimately writing the same story over which is something I realized I was doing). It's nice reading these rules and lists because it gives a nice insight into how other write.

>> No.4735314

>>4733182
>>4733182
>Never use the passive where you can use the active.

Can someone explain this whole "passive voice" thing?

Is this about "he was strapped to the cross" vs "they strapped him to the cross"?

Or something else?
Because I don't think the second option in this case is better than the first at all.

>> No.4735325

>>4735314

Pretty much that, yes. The difference between "JC threw the gas grenade across the room" and "the gas grenade was thrown across the room". The importance may not be immediately obvious, but most readers tire very quickly of the passive voice.

>> No.4735335

>>4735325
Well I agree that it makes sense to keep it active if you're describing what known main characters are doing, but if you're describing the actions of a faceless crowd for instance the passive voice works very well, being less cumbersome.

>> No.4735340

>>4733986
>>4733968
Isn't that how American psycho starts?

>> No.4735347

>>4732095
>A traumatic backstory is not the same as characterization.
This applies in life also.

>> No.4735348

>>4735335

Depends. In the case of a faceless mob strapping some poor bastard to a cross, I'd probably use the passive if the events are told through the eyes of a character watching from a distance. All they can see is the victim appearing on the cross. If in omniscient narrator mode, I might still go for active like so:

A ragged, scraggly man grabbed his feet and pressed them against the wood, one on top of the other. Another burst forth from the throng with leather straps in his hands.

>> No.4736773

>>4735340

No.

>> No.4736822

>>4735340
"ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE is scrawled in blood red lettering on the side of the Chemical Bank near the corner of eleventh and first and is in print large enough to be seen from the back seat of the cab as it lurches forward in the traffic leaving Wall Street and just as Timothy Price notices the words a bus pulls up, the advertisement for Les Miserables on its side blocking his view, but Price, who is with Pierce and Pierce, and twenty-six doesn't seem to care because he tells the driver he will give him five dollars to turn up the radio, 'Be My Baby' on WYNN, and the driver, black, not American, does so."

The movie is not the book.

>> No.4736844

>>4736822
God I miss reading that book. Such a wonderful satire of American culture

>> No.4736868

>>4736773
>>4736822
Well the movie does anyway. And it was pretty glorious.

>> No.4736870

>>4736844
There should be a special icon posters can activate in case they want to use sarcasm.

>> No.4737113
File: 158 KB, 600x669, cea05b93e792.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4737113

I like W. G. Sebald's writing tips:

Fiction should have a ghostlike presence in it somewhere, something omniscient. It makes it a different reality.
Writing is about discovering things hitherto unseen. Otherwise there’s no point to the process.
By all means be experimental, but let the reader be part of the experiment.
Write about obscure things but don’t write obscurely.
There is a certain merit in leaving some parts of your writing obscure.
It’s hard to write something original about Napoleon, but one of his minor aides is another matter.
You need to set things very thoroughly in time and place unless you have good reasons [not to].
A sense of place distinguishes a piece of writing. There must be a very good reason for not describing place.
Meteorology is not superfluous to the story. Don’t have an aversion to noticing the weather.
It’s very difficult, not to say impossible, to get physical movement right when writing. The important thing is that it should work for the reader, even if it is not accurate. You can use ellipsis, abbreviate a sequence of actions; you needn’t laboriously describe each one.
‘Significant detail’ enlivens otherwise mundane situations. You need acute, merciless observation.
Oddities are interesting.
Characters need details that will anchor themselves in your mind.
It’s always gratifying to learn something when one reads fiction. But we should not perhaps trust ‘facts’ in fiction.
Exaggeration is the stuff of comedy.
It’s good to have undeclared, unrecognized pathologies and mental illnesses in your stories.
You mustn’t do all the work yourself. That is, you should ask other people for information, and steal ruthlessly from what they provide.
None of the things you make up will be as hair-raising as the things people tell you.
I can only encourage you to steal as much as you can. No one will ever notice. You should keep a notebook of tidbits, but don’t write down the attributions, and then after a couple of years you can come back to the notebook and treat the stuff as your own without guilt.
Don’t be afraid to bring in strange, eloquent quotations and graft them into your story. It enriches the prose. Quotations are like yeast.
A tight structural form opens possibilities. Take a pattern, an established model or sub-genre, and write to it. In writing, limitation gives freedom.
Every sentence taken by itself should mean something.
Writing should not create the impression that the writer is trying to be ‘poetic’.
It’s easy to write rhythmical prose. It carries you along. After a while it gets tedious.
Long sentences prevent you from having continually to name the subject.
Avoid sentences that serve only to set up later sentences.
Don’t revise too much or it turns into patchwork.
Lots of things resolve themselves just by being in the drawer a while.
Don’t listen to anyone. Not us, either. It’s fatal.

>> No.4737127

>>4737113
Wow, now these are some tips worth heeding. Thanks for sharing. I'm saving this.

>> No.4737260

>>4734939
#rekt

>> No.4737265

>>4737260
>>4734939
I don't know why you would take a list of writing "rules" seriously. They're never intended to be dogmatic or final, they're just a writer's personal suggestions.

>> No.4737382

>>4734273

The idea is that one should avoid words that tell the reader how someone said something. The context, situation and dialogue itself should be enough to paint the picture. Same thing goes for all adverbs, in the "show, don't tell" sense.

I personally don't subscribe to this 100%, but prose usually turns out cleaner if adverbs and descriptive dialogue attribution is trimmed, at least. You want to paint a picture, but you don't want to paint it on the reader's nose.

>> No.4737546

Why such prologue hate? Is it really so bad?

>> No.4737584

>>4737546

No. Very few things are inherently bad when it comes to writing, and anyone who takes these rules as gospel is likely to be a worse writer than someone who habitually violates them.

Concerning prologues, it's supposed to make you question whether that prologue to your story actually belongs there. Writers of fantasy and sci-fi often seem to rely on prologues (that often don't make any sense until halfway through the book) to set up drama and mystery.

>> No.4738268
File: 196 KB, 700x875, wk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4738268

I've cornered myself and have to tell a story with flashbacks and exposition.
What do?

>> No.4738280

>>4734031
>>4738268
Is the idea of a flash back so bad? I find it preferable for the way it lets you control the way characters development can be revealed to the reader. Then again, I'm switching between three different segments in time within a life time, so that's not technically a flash back.

>> No.4738299

What's the problem with using "suddenly"?

>> No.4738301

>>4731970
>setting out absolute rules for writing
1. write what sounds good to you
2. read everything you can

>> No.4738396

>>4738299
It's like when a shark attacks and it, supposedly, shows its dorsal fin.

You are told that something it's coming, now the surprise is dead.

>> No.4738402

>>4734690
?

>> No.4738706

>>4738301
>reader =/= writer

>> No.4738710

>>4738396
No. Thats not it at all.

>> No.4738962

>>4737113
>I can only encourage you to steal as much as you can. No one will ever notice. You should keep a notebook of tidbits, but don’t write down the attributions, and then after a couple of years you can come back to the notebook and treat the stuff as your own without guilt.

I'm guilty of this.

>Lots of things resolve themselves just by being in the drawer a while.

This comforts me about projects I have been developing over a few months and years.