How to Break the Writing Rules: Part One, Introduction and Adverbs

I’m one of the last people you’d expect to break writing rules.  I studied editing for my Master of Technical and Scientific Education degree, and I was a proofreader for a local newspaper. I favor the Oxford comma, and when I critiqued chapters on for an online workshop, I spent most of my time pointing out punctuation errors. And yes, I admit to being both anal and conscientious. So why am I blogging about breaking the writing rules?

Rules exist for a reason—to make something safer or fairer for everyone. When it comes to writing rules, the punctuation and grammar rules are there to make things clear. For example, knowing how to use semicolons and commas when making lists will help you separate each item correctly, so there’s no confusion. This is also why I use the Oxford comma. This sentence: “He liked my parents, Darth Vader and Yoda,” could mean that my parents are Darth Vader and Yoda. That would definitely cause a disturbance in the Force. Adding a comma after “Darth Vader” makes it clear that this name is a separate item in the list, not a description of my parents. Rules like this are worth following because if your readers become confused, you’ve lost them.

However, there are other writing rules that have less justification for existing. Some of them are based on a misunderstanding of the language, some of them might be applicable in formal speech but less so in fiction, and some of them are rules thoughtlessly passed down from writer to writer because that’s how they were taught or because some writing styles were in fashion when they started writing. When traditional publishing was the only game in town, writers had to follow the rules to have a chance of breaking in. Now, however, you don’t have to please agents and editors, only readers, and their tastes may be broader than gatekeepers give them credit for.  It’s worth re-examining these types of rules to see if they’re still worth following. There are times when breaking a rule will help you achieve a certain effect in your fiction. However, first you have to understand the rule in order to break it effectively.

Let’s start by looking at one of the most well-known rules: don’t use adverbs. (This advice is generally directed at words that end in "ly," but those aren't the only adverbs around.) The reason you’re not supposed to use adverbs is because they can make a sentence seem wordy or redundant. They may also be used to shore up weak verbs to make your writing style seem “pretty.” (Adjectives are also used for this purpose.) In my opinion, a strong verb is more concise and powerful than a weak verb plus an adjective.  For example, why say “walk slowly and deliberately” when you can say “paced” or “plodded”? But removing an entire class of words from your toolbox is extreme. There may be times when you want to use a strong verb but shade its meaning, or even imply the opposite of what the verb normally means. For example, smiling is normally a happy or friendly gesture, but pairing “smiled” with “sadly” or “meanly” puts a new set of emotions behind the upturned lips and in the eyes. Also, if you’re writing historical fiction or steampunk, using florid phrases may help evoke the time period.

When it comes to breaking any writing rule, moderation is key. If there are a lot of adverbs on every page, then they can become tiresome to read. The fewer adverbs you use, the more impact each one will have. However, it’s not worth breaking your writing flow to strip adverbs from your sentences as you write. If adverbs come to you in the heat of the first draft, feel free to include them. You can always strip them out later if you decide deleting them won’t affect your sentence. I deliberately included some adverbs in this essay, but I also removed some that I felt were too wordy.

How do you feel about adverbs, or writing rules in general? Are there other writing rules you’d like me to discuss in this series? Feel free to mention them in the comments.

Lies Writers Tell... To Other Writers (Part Four -- Betas Required)

I don't own a cell phone. I know; go ahead and gasp and ask how I'm able to survive and all of that stuff that everyone always asks me. No, seriously, go ahead and get it out of your system. I know you want to. I can give you answers to all of it, but it all boils down to one thing: I don't need a cell phone. Neither do you, actually.

What?

You can stop with all the reasons about how you need it, right now, because it's all a bunch of excuses. Sure, I get that the cell phone may make some things easier, and they're certainly nice to have in case of an emergency, but you don't need it.

I know. I know! How can I say that? Right?

I can say it because humanity survived without cell phones for, well, thousands of years. In fact, we even survived the 80s without cell phones and, if we can do that, anyone can do that.

It's just the truth.

And do you want to know the real reason why I don't have a cell phone, the reason underneath all the other reasons? I don't want to become dependent on it. I don't want to rely on an electronic extension of my brain. Not in the way that it makes me think I can't live without it and, if something happens to it, I don't know what to do.

One of the big ideas in writing these days is the need for beta readers. The need. Like you don't have the ability to write a book without them. It's actually more pervasive than the one about needing to hire an editor. You have to have beta readers and you have to have critique partners and you have to have all of these other people to tell you how to write the book that you're writing.

Well, um, no.

This whole "beta reader" idea is pretty new, like the cell phone, so for hundreds of years authors got by just fine without them. In fact, the greatest works of literature were done without beta readers. Or critique partners. Or, actually, editors other than the authors themselves. Can you imagine anyone telling Dickens he needed an editor? What all this tells me is that beta readers are kind of like cell phones, something that we, as a writing culture, have come to depend on when, maybe, we shouldn't.

Let me put it another way:
Culturally, we have adopted this view that work done by groups is better than work done by individuals. The more heads the better and all of that. This idea is everywhere. It's in our businesses, it's in our government, it's in our schools. Gone is the day of the student sitting at his desk; now it's all table groups and teams. More and more businesses are switching away from individual space to group space. And, right now, I see some of you out there saying, "Yeah, that's how it should be." Except, well, it shouldn't.

All of the studies being done in relation to this new collaborative process and groupthink idea are showing that the more people you have involved in the process of creating something, the worse that creation is. Rarely is there a central idea guiding the process and, even if there is, there is a... pressure... to include ideas from everyone in the group. They've been done some studies about this relating to writing, and they show the same thing. The more people you have giving advice to the author, the more muddled the story becomes. The author loses the ability to evaluate what people are saying in relation to his original idea and starts trying to incorporate every idea.

And, right now, you're saying, "Yeah, but..."

Look, I hear it all the time, and I'm sure you have, too. People saying on their blogs, "I just got my manuscript back from my betas and, now, I have all these changes I have to make!" And they're excited about making them. And most of them are just grabbing every idea every beta reader had and trying to figure out how to make them all work.

And that doesn't even get to the part where we try to use betas and CPs (critique partners) as editors. Which, in one sense, is fine, because sometimes they catch mistakes. However, sometimes, they make mistakes out of things that are correct. Peer editing is becoming a big thing in schools, evidently. Both of my boys have been involved in peer editing groups. Of course, what has ended up happening is everyone in their classes trying to have them edit their papers, because my boys are better with the grammars than other kids their age. By a lot. The younger boy, when he's paying attention, can write with close to zero errors. My oldest boy was recognized in his senior AP Literature class this year for outstanding achievement; he was the only recipient of the award, and he was frequently the only one in the class to make an A on any given assignment. The point there is that for either of my boys to hand their papers to someone else to edit is, well, to invite disaster. And my point for you is that you shouldn't depend on someone who is no more well versed in grammar than you to catch your mistakes. Even if they say they are.

Look, I'm not trying to tell you to not use your beta readers. I am telling you that you need to learn that you don't need them. If you can't write a good story without them, you also can't write a good story with them. Learn how to do that story stuff on your own. It's kind of like how we used to get together with other people back in the 80s. "Hey, I'll meet you outside of the arcade at the mall at 8:00, okay?" And, then, you did that. Or you didn't, but, for me, mostly whatever plan was made was carried through. Why? Because you couldn't decide to be somewhere else without standing someone up, so you went where you were supposed to go. If, you know, you wanted to keep your friend. Writing needs to be kind of like that, with a plan, even if you're a pantser. Mostly, though, you just have to be confident enough in your story so that every suggestion that comes your way doesn't make you doubt yourself. It's your story!

I think the best way to use beta readers is to set firm ground rules about their function. My top three would be:
1. Do not make story suggestions.
2. Tell me if there is something that you don't understand. That includes asking the question "why?" as often as it happens while you're reading.
3. Let me know if you find my missing words and point out any homophones.

Basically, allow the beta reader to be a luxury, not a need. When you feel that you need a beta reader, there's somewhere that you're failing on your end.



[Note: I am out of town at the moment. I'll respond to comments as soon as I return. Okay, well, not as soon, but sometime after that.]

Are You Ready?

The great myth out there about indie publishing is of people (mostly women, I think, although I could be wrong about that), not quite dressed, feverishly pounding out a manuscript and immediately uploading it to Amazon. These manuscripts are full of plot holes and are only half-baked, besides, and are unedited messes. "Messes" is a euphemism in this instance. In short, they, the manuscripts and the authors, were not ready for publication.

But what is ready? I've certainly read some (a lot) traditionally published books that I would describe the same way, but someone, somewhere, thought those books were "ready." Which is not to say that I think it's okay to just throw your crap against a Kindle to see if it sticks.

So let's go to the sports box for an analogy. You know, for someone who is not sporty at all, I use an awful lot of sports analogies.

Let's say you want to run a marathon. No, I don't want to run a marathon, but let's say that you do. You fool.
Anyway... so you want to run a marathon. Probably, you are not just going to decide the day before to do that or, even, the week before. You are going to decide months before and, then, you're going to train. Let's call it practice. You're going to practice running.

But you already know how to run? You don't need any practice. Sure... I can run, too, but I can't run a marathon. If I decided to do that (which I won't. ever), I'd practice.

So you spend months doing this running practice and the marathon is coming up, and you're sure you can't win it. In fact, you're not sure you can actually finish it. You think you might be able to, but you're not sure. So, the question is, do you run the marathon? Are you ready?

It's one of those questions with no correct answer. Well, if you know you're not going to get more than five miles in, you probably should choose the "I'm not ready" option. However, if you think you can make 20 miles, you might want to go for it.

The issue with being ready is that you have to be ready in comparison to yourself and what you want to achieve, not ready in comparison to some other runner out there, like Wilson Kipsang (the current holder of the fastest time for running a marathon). Not being able to run a marathon in two hours is not a reason not to do it. However, I would suggest that not being able to go more than five miles might be a reason to wait on entering a marathon.

Publishing and self-publishing are kind of the same way. The question to ask yourself is, "Have I done everything I can do to make this manuscript the best it can be?" Let me say that again with emphasis, "Have I done everything I can do to make this manuscript the best it can be?"

Let me be clear about why I say it that way.
Also, let me be clear that this is one of those things with which a lot of people will disagree.

Unless you are already making money off of your writing, you should never pay for editing or cover art or, well, anything. Money that you spend on getting you book into "better" shape or making it look "more professional" or whatever will almost always be money, basically, flushed down the toilet. Let me put it another way: You have almost no chance of making that money back. Well more than 90% of people out there self-publishing never make any real money from it, and, every year, almost as many small publishers go out of business as go into business. This is not a money-making career move for most people. To make money, you have to do one of two things: stick with it a long time or get incredibly lucky.

So... Don't waste your money on "professional" services. Just don't do it. It's not going to help you sell your first book. [What will help you sell your first book, though, is a second book and, actually, a third book.]

And, see, I'm saying all of this as someone who will be turned off by your misspellings and grammar errors. However, I'm also looking at the very practical side of things: Most people don't care about your misspellings and grammar errors. Most people won't even notice them. So, as much as I would like to say, "Make sure your book is well-edited before you throw it out there," I also know that it doesn't matter to at least 80% of the people out there that are your potential readers. The only important thing is the story.

Also, sometimes, it's the going for it when you can't actually finish that will help you finish the next time, but, if you don't take that first leap, you may never do it. For instance:

When I finished writing The House on the Corner, I didn't have any cover art for the book. I knew I had a good story, but I had no way to make a cover or pay for art. Basically, I had done everything I could do at that time to make my book ready, so I published it. It was only by doing that that I met Rusty and ended up with the awesome cover art that House now has. [I would provide you a pic of the cover, but, for some reason, blogger is not letting me do that, so you'll have to click the link to check it out.] Sometimes, it's joining the race that allows you to go farther than you could have on your own.

None of this is to say that you should just throw your manuscript out there as soon you finish with it. I've talked to too many people that have said things like, "No, I didn't edit it; I just wanted to get out there. I didn't want to waste time on that." There's really no excuse for that kind of behavior. Like I said, do everything you can do before you go forward and publish your book. If you have people that can help you out (like trading services or out of generosity or whatever--anything that's not paying people), take advantage of that, but never, NEVER endanger yourself or your family financially to pay someone to edit your manuscript or make a cover for you. Not unless you happen to just have extra money lying around and you're not actually trying to make writing your livelihood.

Seriously, if you look at some of the stuff out there that's popular (or has been popular), you'll see that the public at large is rather forgiving. I'm not, but they are; and they're the people you want to buy your book. If you can make your readers happy, don't worry about the rest. I mean, if the story's good, even I'll overlook some grammar issues.

So... are you ready?