Printer-friendly version
Forums:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
Here's some rules of storytelling from some guys who are real good at it: http://io9.com/5916970/the-22-rules-of-storytelling-accordin...
Most of those apply at least a little bit in any kind of storytelling.
Donna Lamb
My Kind Of Writer
This from one of the comments beneath that article:
And yet Raymond Chandler worked exactly the opposite - in fact, while publishing THE BIG SLEEP as a serial the editor telephoned Chandler to ask how the writing was going and who the killer was; Chandler replied " How the Hell should I know - I still have three chapters and two bottles of whiskey to go!"
Chandler also famously told an editor that when he split an infinitive, it damn well stayed split - or words to that effect.
My kind of writer.
Yeah...
There's really only one TRUE rule to writing:
Write.
That's it. After that you can come up with all your own personal rules that work for you, and even borrow from authors who write the same way... But in the end? There's always going to be someone else who writes differently.
Abigail Drew.
The First Rule of Creative Writing
1. Other than spelling and acceptable grammar there are no rules. (Note: That's why it's called creative writing.)
Now I expect I shall be pilloried for having said the above, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
Nancy Cole
"You may be what you resolve to be."
T.J. Jackson
Of course! Still, there's knowing how and when
Knowing how and when to break the rules is artistry. Picasso, famous for abstract and expressionistic drawings was quite accomplished at all the traditional painterly techniques and maxims, the rules as it were. Same for Salvador Dali, M.C. Escher and many others. Even someone like Norman Rockwell, famed for near photographic realism, knew how and when to break a rule because he knew what all the rules were. The same is true for any art form.
Breaking the rules is how new genres are formed, new styles, new idioms. But knowing the rules helps you to know how and when, and which ones, to break.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Not exactly...
I've seen several exceptional books written with poor grammar and spelling. Rereading one of those right now :-)
In some cases it's to provide insight into how different could be insides of someone's head. In some cases it's poor grammar and spelling but still great storytelling and great story.
And I've seen great number of books with perfect spelling and grammar where I can't get through second page as everything else about book is just awfull.
PS: just can't pass opportunity to mention old joke: Aspiring writer comes to show new novel to editor. Editor after reading asks: "Have you ever read anything by Tekkerey?" "No". "Heave you ever read anything by Shakespeare?" "No." "Have you ever read anything by Twain?" "No. But I'm not reader. I'm writer!"
I like a lot of these
Though I do take umbrage to, if not the rules themselves as I've seen Pixar handle them, then the way that they are stated in her twitter-fied points.
For instance, the idea of always throwing the polar opposite of what the hero can handle at them, or always stacking the odds against them. In theory, this is a good idea, because it gives your audience a sense of striving for something grander than they themselves are capable of.
On the other hand, this idea is abused in fiction in the worst way, resulting in outcomes like Schlock Mercenary, where any sense of choice or character is taken away from the cast all so they can fit into the oh-so-tightly-molded direction of the all-powerful villain less than halfway through.
It's one thing to challenge your protagonist, but I strongly believe that it should always be a challenge that they are in some way suited for, even if they themselves don't realize it yet. A protagonist's biggest advantage in a story is never their one defining characteristic as set out in initial creation; if it were, then every protagonist ever would be a flat caricature rather than a fleshed-out character. No, a protagonist's greatest advantage, and one shared by almost every good protagonist ever, is their ability to adapt. Not only adaptability, but great luck -- not coincidence, but luck.
If you can easily assign an activity for the hero to tackle that is the polar opposite of what they are capable of, then your hero is not fleshed out enough. If the odds are truly stacked against the hero to the point they are insurmountable, then your story is relying on artificial tension to try and drive events, and can quickly lose focus on the main character's action and instead focus on what events force them to do, and where's the fun in that?
Every evil wizard should have a Mount Doom, every space station a thermal vent, every dragon a missing scale that the hero can learn to take advantage of. More to the point, the hero should in some small way at least be aware that their victory is even capable, because stories shouldn't be about oppression, or suffering, or denial, or any other negative feeling.
They should be about hope, however small, winning out.
Melanie E.
Hope, however small...
I am sorry, but I must disagree with your entire stance.
Yes. A story CAN be about hope, however small. But a story CAN ALSO be about oppression, suffering, denial, or any other negative feeling. Or any other feeling at all really.
A story should be emotive... But what sort of emotive expression that actually is entirely depends on the author and what they are trying to get across.
Grave of the Fireflies was an extremely potent movie. And it would have been a complete flop if the characters didn't die. And that's a Japanese animated film, not even Pixar!
The point and purpose of Grave was to paint a picture, a true picture, of what war is really like. And that's exactly what it did. And it did so beautifully, poetically, and powerfully. No one who has ever seen Grave can deny the moving power of it's story.
But from the very beginning we knew the protagonist was destined to fail. It was never about hope. Not in any form. It was about the desolation of war.
EDIT:
And yes. I highly recommend the film. It is depressing. It will make you ball your eyes out from the very beginning to at least a half hour after the ending scene. But it's very much worth it. And anyone who isn't moved by the movie either isn't paying attention when they watch it, or some sort of sociopath.
Honestly I think the movie should be used as an official and required psychological assessment for military personnel. If they don't start balling their eyes out, they shouldn't be in the military. You don't go bombing the crap out of someone without batting an eye. That's inhuman.
Abigail Drew.
I guess neither applies in every situation
My post was, of course, coming from the viewpoint of an individual who reads for positive emotional reinforcement, so it is undoubtedly biased.
So, every story being about hope is opinion. I still stand by my stance that insurmountable odds are overused, though, and that considering them an inherent part of "good" writing is like saying all "good" music has to have guitar in it, or any other equally silly and short sighted idea of taste (which, I will admit, my own post was as well.)
Melanie E.
22 Handy Hints Might Have Been A Better Title
I'd be tempted to think of these as 'handy hints' rather than 'rules'.
Nancy is correct, the one thing guaranteed to stifle creative writing is to wonder whether or not you're doing it in the right way. There's no such thing. All you need to worry about is that the ideas you want to put across are expressed clearly, so that the audience knows what you're trying to say.
Two things I always bear in mind when I'm writing fiction.
The first came from a review of the series Star Trek: Voyager that appeared in a magazine to which I was once a regular contributor. It went something like 'what is the point of victory when there is no serious possibility of defeat?'
The other was written by the best-selling author Stephen Donaldson. He said that in a melodrama you have three typical characters: hero/heroine, villain and victim. Drama has the same three, but they are interchangeable.
Do You Want to be NEAT . . .
Back in the late sixties people wanted to be "neat", as in "wouldn't it be neat if. . .."
Writers can be neat as all get out. Louise Erdrich probably thought it would be "neat" to leave out all the quotation marks in her latest novel The Round House. Some critics say it made the conversations more intimate.
I think it was tedious.
The book won the National Book Award -- so there you have it.
I believe there are rules that shouldn't be broken . . . unless they have to be.
Respect your readers is the only rule that should apply universally.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Absolutely
Absolutely, Angela.
Never read the book, but that sounds suspiciously like a gimmick. Or maybe it's post-modernism rearing its ugly head again?
'Oh I agree, quotation marks are so intrinsically patriarchal, aren't they? Don't you think they privilege the speaker over equally rhizomatic culturally creative oppositions?'
But I mustn't let my cynicism get the better of me.
The most challenging novels I've read during the past decade have been 'Vellum' and its sequel 'Ink' by Scottish writer Hal Duncan. Here's a link to a review of the former.
http://www.sfsite.com/07a/vl227.htm
They come a poor second to Michael Moorcock's 'Jerry Cornelius' quartet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Cornelius
Trailer for the 1973 movie 'The Final Programme', released in the USA as 'Last Days Of Man On Earth' http://youtu.be/NKNrL3sRV4o
That is breaking rules, Louise.
Sir Edwin has a take on this as well...
Ah, well, I don't want you to get the impression it's just a question of the number of words... um... I mean, getting them in the right order is just as important. Old Peter Hall used to say to me, 'They're all there Eddie, now we've got to get them in the right order.'
Love, Andrea Lena