Rules and a Twist of Something New?
Hey.
I haven’t been writing for a while. I suppose it’s because I was reading another how-to-write site and I actually had to stop reading because all I could think was:
Wow. If everybody wrote like that, then nothing would be new anymore.
So I stayed away. At one point I almost deleted this blog because I don’t want to constrict the creative reflex. I struggle on a fine line. In some ways, I am against How-To-Write rules because who says people have to write like that? Published authors? Well, I think it’s pretty much assurred that the publishing companies don’t always know what’s good. Or else there wouldn’t be crap like the Eregon novels on the market.
I never said I wasn’t biased.
But when are rules appropriate in writing? When are they not? Do people really need rules to write?
I think that the most needed rules for writing are mainly grammatical ones and even that is more of a guideline now*. Grammar is pretty integral — it helps us formulate our thoughts clearly. Yet at the same time, the human language has evolved (or de-evolved?) so that the earth really won’t end if you end a sentence with a proposition or use a split infinitive.
I am not a english major by any means. I still have trouble with Grammar. There are conceps to it that I cannot wrap my head around (around which I cannot wrap my head?). But I have studied Latin (five or more years — see, I’m already suppressing the memories), Greek (briefly), French (briefly), and German (haben sie gehort das deutsches band?). I can honestly say that in the Latin grammar was important — horrifically, stifingly, hold-my-head-and-scream important. In German the grammar was also important and, unlike English, clearly labeled so that we knew what was what no strings attached.
English seems to have more leeway. Have a subject, have an object. Everything else is allowed to give, sometimes.
Bad/good grammar can be used in dialogue to illustrate a person’s character. I made it a point to make sure that Jubrin in my story Fiction Murdered spoke with perfect grammar — or as perfect as I could make it since I was trying to write 1600 words a day for a month — which didn’t leave a lot of time to double check the grammar books which I left half way across the country.
Bad grammar can be used to create a mood. Nothing can quite inspire dread, I think, when there’s a well timed incomplete sentence. Mostly, incomplete sentences are a no-no, but again…they have their place.
And I strongly suspect that split infinitives have their place as well.
To boldly go where no man has gone before.
It just doesn’t sound right any other way. To go boldly where no man has gone before. Boldly, to go where no man has gone before. It doesn’t have the same ring, does it?
So to sum up my inexpert opinion: Grammar is important. It is not God, however. I know it probably wants to be God and the end-all but it is not. It can be bent. Grammar is a tool to help us write — as a tool, it serves the writer not the other way around. But like all tools, the user must know how to use it and to use it well.
To help illustrate my point, I was once at a function where I watched a man play the violin. He was very good at what he did, he probably had his wrist just so and his fingers just right. But then, he proceeded to play it badly on purpose. It was amazing comparing his bad playing to a person who really didn’t know how to play a violin. The difference was that he was still skilled at what he did — and he played badly well, and it was hilarious. But importantly — it had its place, it still served its purpose. It was still good. Just a different kind of good.
What about the other rules out there? Like the one about how not to write with adverbs and stuff like that?
Well, in my experience too much of a good thing is usually bad. Too much of anything is bad. We have adverbs for a reason. We use adverbs in our every day speech. There is a place for them and the writer has to determine that for themselves. Personally, if there is a word out there that accurately depicts an adverb + verb description, but it’s a word rarely used and most people would have to crack open a dictionary to find out what it means then I recommend against it — one of the worst things I can experience when reading is being head over heels in the story and being abruptly wrenched** from it when I encounter a word I can’t even pronounce.
But even that guideline has an exception — would the character talk like that? Does the rarely used word fit the tone of the story? I mean there are so many words, so many tones — it is impossible to write a “rule” for all of them.
The trouble with rules is that they can very quickly become: It’s the way it is because that’s how people always write. It’s just how it’s done.
Well, who says so?
Writing is always creating. How can you create if there are “rules”? It’s one of the reasons why I admire poetry — people can create rhythms, pictures in the mind’s eye clearly and consistently. Sometimes they even use the words to create shapes on the page — it’s truly amazing.
My problem with poetry is also the fact that there are so many rules to remember — so many syllables for this kind of poem etc.
But I suppose that rules also provide a structure and that it takes even more creativity to make something new. It’s like a challenge to be overcome.
Almost like sex, kinda.
Maybe rules are like a corset — you can make it as tight as you wish or as loose as you want. But what really matters isn’t the corset but the person who is wearing it.
* Thank you, Barbossa
** Crap.
