starting off with the weather

I agree, that really is what I was saying.

I also admire your combination of both hyperbole and generalization. You have a special way with language that I admire.

I'd love to check out your blog, care to link it?

 

Um...you may want to re-read the thread, if that's what you got out of it.

I'm pretty sure nobody, in any post, ever said that you can never start a book by mentioning the weather. In fact, every single post I can remember said that (of course) there are always exceptions, when the weather is in fact relevant to the story (and compelling).

Also? Mentioning weather is different than describing the weather.

 

^This.

 

Yes, I was saying I've had the pleasure of learning from and working with several accomplished writers who are also teachers, and passing on what I learned from those experiences to others that haven't had that luxury.

And your point was?

I think it's more your personal attacking and condescending "oh boy" "You're fighting a battle against a make-believe enemy. Stand down, soldier" sort of response.

One telling point is how often you seem to use the personalized version of "you" in all your responses, as if you're getting more thrill out of 'responding' (didn't want to say attacking, though it's the first word that popped into mind) to me, than responding to the content of posts.

I mean, how many times are you going to go with an argument that first condescendingly tells me what my argument is (well, not really, only as you choose to perceive it) before you then discount an argument I'm not actually making that requires you to claim I'm arguing against arguments nobody is making. It's all very ironic, at best, but at worst is a pretty shallow and petty way to engage someone in discussion.

 

Yes, I was being hyperbolic. As I assumed you were, by calling writing "rules" and guidelines totally useless for new writers.

As I said before, I give aspiring writers with some degree of talent more credit than you do. That's all. I don't think that writing rules and guidelines cripple most writers, or lead them into mindlessly making bad choices for their stories. Not as long as they understand the meaning behind the guidelines. If you know what a guideline aims to address, what folly it's trying to prevent, you should be able to determine when it's applicable and when it's not.

 

I haven't found anything you've said discouraging to me personally. I applaud your brilliance in publishing, great job (have I read any of it, perhaps?) but that doesn't mean you're right. It means you figured out what works for you.

You seem to be missing the point though. If there are myriad exceptions to any rule, one billion instances where you can say well, actually that really doesn't work here, all you're doing is confusing them. For someone with such an obvious command of the language you seem to have a knack for misunderstanding the simplicity of what I'm trying to say here. The fact that you think it's pitiful (and pathetic) if they take the words of a published author as gospel pretty much says it all. That's about as helpful as the rules. They need guidance not confusion. I understand you fine, I just don't agree with you. Is it really so difficult?

 

You probably noticed that my snark appeared in the post responding to your snark. Also, I admit, my snark and general irritation with your posts was probably inspired in part by your condescending responses to Katica early in the thread.

I use the personalized "you" in my responses because I was responding to your posts. And quoting them. That's sort of how these things work.

Frankly, I'm done with this discussion, because you've long since abandoned actually trying to address the points I'm making and have now decided to focus on my style of responding. That tells me you've got nothing more to say.

 

It's basically deteriorated into a hand-bagging match between you and popsicledeath.

If this thread has done anything, it's succeeded in confusing me. Cheers!

 

I officially change the topic to something neutral and harmless.

So what's the weather like in your part of the world?

Oh wait, that was the topic.

Yeah start with the weather if you like. But I'll say one thing. Go to every thread in the novel review section that started their first line with a description of the weather. It's easy to get swept up in a theoretical discussion, but go down to the grass level where all this discussion about the so-called 'novice writers' is being carried out in the flesh. Go to these threads and tell me how many of them have started with the weather and done it correctly.

Maybe then you might think differently about not advising people that it's not always the best idea to begin a story with a description of the weather.

 

What is it that you believe I'm claiming to be "right" about? This is what I've said in this thread:

1. Open with the weather if it's relevant and compelling
2. There are almost always exceptions to any writing "rule" except those that address mechanics (although even in that case, someone like Cormac McCarthy proves an exception)
3. New writers benefit from writing guidelines because they do not yet have the tools or instinct to benefit from the idea that "there are no rules or guidelines"
4. Writing "rules" often address mistakes new writers make
5. An experienced writer will be a lot less reliant on the concept of rules and guidelines than a new writer
6. I don't believe that most new writers will blindly adhere to a writing adage to the point where they completely destroy their story...I give writers with some modicum of talent and common sense more credit than this
7. I didn't notice widespread rule-spouting without explanation on this particular thread

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to write. The entire reason I chimed in on this thread was because there was an argument about whether rules/guidelines are useful, or not. I believe they are useful to new writers in many cases, assuming that you're not just saying "Show don't tell" and leaving it at that. Last I checked, the how-to books that contain much of these rules don't tend to spout rules without providing an explanation or example.

I'm not missing the point. Sure, a rule can be confusing when there are exceptions. "I before E except after C", anyone?

I think you're missing my point. What's the alternative? Yes, rules are a shorthand, and they don't address the vast complexities of writing. If someone is presenting a new writer with rules/guidelines and telling them that they must follow those rules ALWAYS or else their writing will suck, then that's obviously dumb. I didn't see anyone doing that on this thread. But to say that rules/guidelines are therefore useless? I just don't agree. In the absence of rules/guidelines, how do new writers learn how to write? What do you tell them?

That's not "missing the point". That's having an opinion. I'm entitled to it, as you are entitled to yours.

Why is it so terrible to say that I would find it pathetic if someone took the opinion of another person (even a published author) as gospel? I would. A good writer needs to learn to think critically about their work and decide what methods work best for them. If you can't do that, you're never going to reach your potential. Stephen King may be an awesome author, but do I take his admonishments to never outline a story as gospel? Actually, I don't. Because he's not the writing authority...nobody is.

 

You're just going to continue to say the same thing over and over. While it's mildly entertaining, and it most certainly has given me a giggle or two, it's really not worth it to keep running in circles with you. Interesting though how you think I need the right to an opinion explained to me. I thought I explained that to you when you so kindly told someone to find a coversation that wasn't too shallow for them. I respect your opinion and you're welcome to it, I just don't agree with you. It's not the end of the world. (and FYI I didn't say you thought you were right, I said that being published doesn't mean you are right. Those are two very different things.)

You still haven't said what you've written? I'm genuinely curious.

 

My repetition was the result of wishing that certain people would actually read what I'd written, since I was getting responses that seemed to attribute actions or opinions to me that I'd never actually expressed.

My suggestion to popsicledeath to find deeper and more meaningful discussions was a direct response to his complaint that he always sees writing conversations that involve only mindless recitation of writing rules, and defenses and rationalization of those rules, rather than an actual discussion of the craft. Because that hasn't been my experience, I suggested he seek out new places to have deeper writing conversations, because they do exist.

While I'm sadly aware of how you will take this, the fact is that this is my "anonymous" online handle and I'm not about to link it to my real-life writing for the purpose of proving some point to you. It's anonymous simply because I'm using it in conjunction with efforts to begin self-publishing in a new genre, under a pseudonym, and I'm not planning on linking my two writing personas publicly. I will say that I'm going to assume you probably haven't read my work, as I am published in a fairly niche genre. Within that genre, I do quite nicely, though. I am not a NY Times bestseller, and I'm not claiming to be the best writer around. I am, however, very satisfied with my accomplishments, pleased to have acquired a nice reader base, and confident in my skills.

 

Of course she thinks she's right, why else would she say it? What she was asking you which you chose to ignore was which one of those 7 points she listed is wrong.

And what's your response to this:

I'd really like to know how you can defend this statement against the above:

This is interesting.

 

If I paid attention to Y'all I would get such a headache I would never came up with my 437 perverted additions to the 1925 classic tea for two....wait I broke a rule I plagarized and porned out a song written by a dead dude....for shame ...I will never earn the writers sportcoat with the leather patched elbows or a pipe...god forbid my life is over....OMG I hip hopped Juliet and Romeo I will get invited to a brunch honoring those great overlooked authors

 

Actually, and maybe I'm just not reading again, according to her she doesn't think she's right. So maybe you should argue with her that she is. I've already pointed out what about the "rules" I think is wrong. I stand by what I've said and I'm not repeating it all again.

I think Pops has dicussed the alternatives, I have discussed the alternatives, digitig discussed the alternatives, other people have discussed the alternatives, all in the last few pages in fact, though there's more further back. I'm not spending all day quoting myself and them

I already have. Read my posts again.

Yes it is, truly. My fascination knows no bounds.

 

Clearly I believe the things I'm saying. I never said I didn't (mostly because it's generally assumed that when a person voices their opinion, they believe it). However, because much of what I've said is opinion, and stated as such, it's not really a matter of me being right or wrong. I haven't made many definitive statements beyond "rules/guidelines are useful for new writers, especially because most of them were created to specifically address newbie mistakes" and "there are exceptions to every rule, usually demonstrated successfully by writers who know what they're doing".

You still haven't answered the question about what I said that you believe is wrong.

The only alternative I read was popsicledeath's suggestion that writers come up with rules that cannot be broken, or wouldn't need any exceptions, like: "Always be interesting". In my opinion, that's not a good alternative, because it's generic and meaningless, and not at all instructive.

Beyond that, I don't recall reading a whole lot of alternatives to offering basic guidelines and suggestions to new writers. Clearly you can't come up with any now. For someone who has had no problem "spending all day" participating in this discussion before now, it's interesting that your desire to respond disappears once you're actually challenged to explain and defend your opinions and statements.

 

I have no idea what this thread is about any more.

 

Whenever an argument gets to solely defending your previous statements, I think it's toast.

 

This thread is closed. Certain members have failed to "work and play well with others."