... so why have rules?You will see time and again on this site, and others dedicated to writing advice, 'you must write this long or this short a novel', 'you can't have characters who do this or that', 'make sure you obey all grammar rules'.
Do you feel rebellious?
Do you wonder why there are rules, and why we insist on telling you them? Do you feel aggrieved that your favourite published authors seem to get away with breaking all of them?!
The most important thing to remember is that it is your writing. You can choose to accept or reject whichever pieces of advice you hear, and it is totally up to you.
If you want to write 400,000 words for your novel, and ignore grammar rules, and have all the characters named the same, that is entirely up to you.
The advice we give is geared towards publication, and publishers like rules for a variety of reasons. Some are practical - such as novel length - and some are based on years of experience at finding what readers like to read.
If you want to break the rules, you're in good company (James Joyce for one) but you're also giving yourself a tougher standard to aim at.
Decide for yourself which rules work for you, and which don't - and give it a go working without some of them, and see what happens to your writing.
What writing rules work for you (and which ones don't)?
Best wishes,
Cressida
(editorial consultant)
Cressida Downing will be joining Jo Herbert, Editor of the Writers' & Artists' Yearbook, to co-host Submitting Your Manuscript - a new two-part evening masterclass for writers, focusing on the all-important covering letter and synopsis. Read the course outline here »
Michael Dakin on May 3, 2010
You are so right. I wrote a book and when I did the planning I reckoned it came out at about 220K words. When I had finished it was 185K words and it felt more or less right, short of some sharp editing. Finally it edited to 160K as I threw out whole sections that I decided were long winded and a bit tedious. Then I found out that it was frowned upon to write such a long first book. But I have to say at the end of the day that for the type of book it is, it feels correct. So I have to go with it even though I know that it will be frowned on when I submit the synopsis and will probably be rejected on that alone. Too long? I am not sure because I’ve read books where the pace gets out of control towards the end and the plot feels like it has been truncated. I can enjoy reading a book and then at the end feel somehow cheated.
Grammar: My proof reader corrects grammar in character conversations. So for example my character says (because he is from south Leeds) “Oi! Wha ya dun to im, yer ******?” and my proof reader corrects it to “Excuse me, what have you done to him, you scallywag?” Luckily she always makes changes with the track changes feature on, so I can then reject the change. I tell her off, but she says that she just cannot resist winding me up. Fair nuff then or Fair enough as my proof reader would suggest.
It’s a great thing to be in this writing business. Succeed or fail, it is a fun journey.Anyway I must go, as I need to get on with my 500K word book "Polite ways to use a toothpick in public."
Tea Maljkovic on May 3, 2010
Honestly, I don't have rules like that.
There's only one rule and it is above all others.
Write well. Write so well that your reader gets almost addicted to your novel.
If the reader likes it, what difference does it make how many words does a novel have? You can always publish in series.
So you purposefully break a couple of grammar rules. Didn't you read Wuthering Heights? I had to actually pronounce all that Joe's (or whatever his name was) lines to understand what he was saying in his Yorkshire accent.
I agree that rules are meant to be broken, but sometimes compromises must be made, compromises from the author's and editor's side.
All best!
Michael Dakin on May 3, 2010
Just a further point. Can you imagine if a genius like Benjamin Zephaniah stuck to rules about poetry construction? He would be dull rather than the exciting poet he is. He writes from a tradition rather than a rule book.
David Storey on May 3, 2010
I'm totally on board with this. I'm a real sinner for putting down "suddenly" and "all of a sudden" so regularly have to go back through and purge these. The vast majority of the time they're quickly replaced with something far more suitable (and original) but there a few occasions where, with the finger lingering over the Delete button, I have to ask myself - but why am I deleting this? No rules are universal. Especially your own.
Cressida Downing on May 3, 2010
michaeldakin - yes, or ee cummings, totally different poems as a result. Mind you, I think there are probably fewer 'rules' with poetry these days, thanks to years of rule-breaking poets.
Cressida