Sunday Linkage and Other Things

First off, let me start by apologizing if nothing makes sense this morning. The dog, who happens to think he's a cat, decided it would be a very good thing to get me up at 0430, then at 0500, at which point I gave up and got up. As Sarah will tell you, this is not a good thing. I am NOT a morning person, especially if no one is up before me to have the coffee waiting as I stumble into the kitchen. So, here I am, fumbling to pull this post together and wondering why no one has invented a way to deliver coffee intravenously.

In my travels across -- over? through? -- the internet this week, I came across a blog I hadn't read before Rachelle Gardner's Rants and Ramblings On Life as a Literary Agent. Her June 12th entry, "Books, Books, Books" reminded me of an online discussion I followed some months ago on whether or not a writer should read in the genre he or she wants to write in. One of those commenting said they refused to read the genre they wanted to write in because they didn't want to be contaminated by what others had written. According to this person, they were afraid their ideas might lose their unique qualities if they happened to read what others wrote. Ms. Gardner simply says:

I believe that you, as a writer, should read lots of books in the genre or category in which you are writing. If you write literary fiction, you should read literary fiction. If you write suspense, you should read suspense. It's a great way to learn. I also believe in reading informational, inspirational, and how-to books about writing and publishing.

Another agent, Nathan Bransford, posted his Writing Advice Database this week. Like with any list of rules, it isn't complete nor is it to be followed without variation. It is, however, a good starting point. I do recommend you look at his Ten Commandments for the Happy Writer. Yes, they are common sense. Yes, they are things we should all remember but, hey, we're writers. Common sense is a fickle friend a lot of times. And, if you're like me, when you're in the midst of a writing jag, you tend to forget things like eating and sleeping, much less family and friends.

Finally, a simple reminder. If you have a blog, if you take part in online discussions, if you are part of online fora, think before hitting that enter button. Remember the old saying, "if you can't say anything nice, just say nothing at all." You might ask why. Well, the answer is simple and it is one that has come back to bite many a writer. You get that rejection letter in the mail or in your email and you know the agent or editor didn't take time to read your query or submission materials. How could they? You only sent that email 17 minutes earlier. It is so easy to shoot an email back to them, telling them off. It is even easier to go to your blog and write all about it, venting that frustration eating at you. That temptation to blast the editor who has completely altered your book is even more pervasive. Don't do it. Lucienne Diver has a great post on Blogging Do's and Dont's -- Advice for Writers on her blog.

I've blathered on long enough this morning. Besides, my coffee mug is strangely empty. Judging from the way the cat is bouncing off the wall, I suspect she drank it while my back was turned. So, I leave you with a question. What informational, inspirational, and how-to books about writing and publishing do you like and recommend and why?

Too Much of A Good Thing

Or Rules, Damned Rules, and Formulas.

You've all read them. The books that are so formulaic you know within the first 50 pages how it's all going to end. The characters that make cardboard seem full of depth and texture. The books where you look at how much is left to go and think "It's about time all hell broke loose", turn the page, and right on cue all hell breaks loose.

There's any number of words for them, words like trite, cliche, formulaic - but what they are, based on the examples I've read, is either someone chunking out the wordage on something he, she, or it detests, or someone who's taken the rules to an extreme and sucked all the life out of their story in the process.

I think this might be what John is trying to avoid when he says he doesn't buy into rules of modern story.

It's like everything: all things in moderation, even moderation. Also known as "you've got to know the rules before you can break them effectively".

I can see the skeptical looks and the little superior sniffs, so here's the challenge. Take a look at your favorites, and look at the rules they break. Then look at how they break them. I guarantee you, you won't find a single really good book in the bunch that doesn't break at least one of them.

Not just the rules as espoused by Mark Twain, either. Grammar, spelling, Thou Shalt Not Commit Prologue... They're all fair game.

Since not everyone reading has access to a slush pile I won't suggest picking out random entries and seeing which rules they break and how, but I promise you they will break them, and the results will be painful. They may even include bearded lips (hat tip to Mike at Onyxhawke Agency for burning that little gem into my memory).

So what, I hear you mutter, is the difference? You've got to understand the rules before you break them, and that means the painful phase of following the formula. If you should by chance find yourself writing for one romance house which shall not be named, that includes instructions that the first kiss will happen no later than page 84, the book will be exactly 180 pages long (I think - I'm going from the stainless steel lint trap memory enhanced by nearly a week on a quarter-dose of my narcolepsy meds here), and many, many more equally hard (no, not that way) rules. It takes a lot of skill to write a story where the actions flow naturally from the characters and the setting in that kind of framework - which, perhaps paradoxically, can make you a better writer.

The reason a tight structure improves writing is that it forces the rules - and the rules are actually an expression of our natural sense of story. We might know buggerall about plotting or character or world-building, but we know when something violates the rules of Story. It feels wrong, or slow, or we throw it at the cat because it pissed us off (okay, maybe you don't do that, but I do. Fortunately for the cats I'm a lousy shot).

If you don't believe me, try telling young kids a story. They know what's supposed to happen. The good guy wins, the bad guy either dies or is fixed so he's not a threat any more, people who do the right things get rewarded and people who don't get punished. What's more, there's a proper time and place for all these things to happen. If you fail to meet all of these, you'll get the same complaint as the grandfather in The Princess Bride.

"You're telling it wrong, Grandpa!"

So... who tells it right, what rules do they break - and which ones do they keep?

A Proper Recipe for a Story?

One of the best things about the internet is how you can find anything, absolutely anything, on it if you look hard enough. Sometimes, you find it even if you aren't looking for it. That's what happened today as I was trolling the blogs in search of a link or two that might connect back to our discussion about characterization and plot.

There's not a student who makes it through the American educational system without reading Mark Twain or James Fenimore Cooper or both. My thanks to The Happiness Project (and to Nathan Bransford for the initial link) for reminding me of what Twain had to say about "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses". I'll leave it to you to read the essay and will borrow from Gretchen Rubin at The Happiness Project her synopsis of what Twain had to say about the 19 rules of fiction:

Mark Twain divides his rules into large rules and little rules—all violated by James Fenimore Cooper:

Large rules:
1. A tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere.

2. The episodes of a tale shall be necessary parts of the tale, and shall help develop it.

3. The personages in a tale shall be alive, except in the case of corpses, and that always the reader shall be able to tell the corpses from the others.

4. The personages in a tale, both dead and alive, shall exhibit a sufficient excuse for being there.

5. When the personages of a tale deal in conversation, the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human beings would be likely to talk in the given circumstances, and have a discoverable meaning, also a discoverable purpose, and a show of relevancy, and remain in the neighborhood of the subject in hand, and be interesting to the reader, and help out the tale, and stop when the people cannot think of anything more to say.

6. The personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities and let miracles alone; or, if they venture a miracle, the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable.

Little rules:
7. An author should say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.

8. Use the right word, not its second cousin.

9. Eschew surplusage.

10. Not omit necessary details.

My favorites, when it comes to characterization and plot, are #2 and #4. Very little irks me more about a book than to have a scene, or set of scenes, that has nothing to do with the actual plot. They've been put there to simply pad the word count and impress the reader with the author's grasp of the English language. Sorry, but it if it isn't necessary to the story, leave it out. The same goes with characters. If they don't have a purpose in the story, if they don't advance the plot, get rid of them. Sure, you'll have some window dressing characters. Those who simply act as part of the set to help establish atmosphere, etc. But even that makes them important to the story. When an author throws in that character they really love, the drunk that reminds them of Uncle Billy or the little girl who reminds them of Susie next door when they were kids, but doesn't tie them to the story, I feel cheated, especially if I begin to care about that character only to learn later they were nothing but a throw-away.

I also have a fondness for those rules Twain classifies as the "little rules". They are rules that, as a reader, I want the author to follow and rules that, as a writer, I do my best to follow. Say what you mean. Use the right word. Don't pad your word count with things not necessary to the plot. And my all-time-favorite: Don't omit necessary details.

These rules might be over 100 years old, but they apply now, just as they did then. So, of these rules -- or any of the others listed in the original essay -- what is your favorite? Which one do you think Twain is wrong about? The floor is now yours.

I leave you with one last thought, courtesy of Paperback Writer, and Anthony Bourdain: "Given a choice between being trapped on a desert island with a group of writers or a family of howler monkeys, I think I'd pick the monkeys. At least I could eat them." -- Anthony Bourdain, The Nasty Bits