The General Writing Advice Thread!

[Set2Stun]

Not sucking is key! I try my best to not suck. I don't delve into any of the academic/theory stuff - I've just read a lot of books and shorts that I've liked. So what I mostly focus on when writing is, "would I enjoy reading this?" And then I remind myself over and over that surely, there are plenty of readers out there who have similar tastes.

This is consistent with the "recommended" kinds of opening sentences and first chapter. I want to be drawn in right away, in short stories or in novels. If the first page is a long description of the landscape/setting, or an infodump of the world the story takes place in, I'm out. Hook hook hook.

 

[CatrionaGrace]

If I use "to be" verbs a bit too often, but the story is doing a bunch of other good things, no one will care.

As writers, we should focus more on what we should do rather than what we shouldn't.

We should use descriptive verbs.

 

[Tallyfire]

Read a lot, develop a finely tuned ear — that's what all the best have done — practice a lot, experiment, and above all, remain true to your own voice and vision.

I like “rules” in that they are useful “tools.” I followed what amounts to Also’s suggestion for the past two decades and I learned a lot. Primarily I learned what bad writing looks like, which is great, but I often find I’ve hit a wall with a piece once I’ve revised it to the best of my ability and it’s still not good. Then I want tools I can reach to to revise it in a new way - should the pacing be changed, should I amp up the descriptions, should I alter the sentence structure, and so on.

I like the kind of advice Louanne posted about first sentences because, with it, I can end up with an acceptable first sentence while I work on other things and eventually I might think of something better.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I like the kind of advice Louanne posted about first sentences

That's great. It's not really a "rule" - often we see backlash against that word - but it's a guideline that I thought worth sharing.

 

[Rigor Mortis]

I like “rules” in that they are useful “tools.” I followed what amounts to Also’s suggestion for the past two decades and I learned a lot. Primarily I learned what bad writing looks like, which is great, but I often find I’ve hit a wall with a piece once I’ve revised it to the best of my ability and it’s still not good. Then I want tools I can reach to to revise it in a new way - should the pacing be changed, should I amp up the descriptions, should I alter the sentence structure, and so on.

I like the kind of advice Louanne posted about first sentences because, with it, I can end up with an acceptable first sentence while I work on other things and eventually I might think of something better.

That's great. It's not really a "rule" - often we see backlash against that word - but it's a guideline that I thought worth sharing.

I do think it's possible to adopt extremity in either camp. There can certainly be value in finding resources that help to conceptualise, to express the ingredients of a story one might want to tell in a way that it becomes what the author wants it to be. The skills needed for writing well aren't borne of instinct alone and each of us relies on different sources and resources to maximise our efforts. I don't reckon it's best as a passive exercise, but can be done through instruction, feedback groups or some osmotic process when reading. My issue, largely, is the sometime presentation of these things as solutions to something with which they may bear no relevant relationship. Too often, I'd argue, people look to compartmentalise themselves according to genre or influence or style or whatever, hoping to replicate the success of authors they might admire. Some may get what they want that way, but it is a limited ambition with poor chances of success. Change the orientation, redefine what success might mean and who knows? After decades in trying, you might become an overnight success.

The analysis of the opening sentence as presented is interesting to me, someone belaboured with almost no capacity to read like a writer. I read what I enjoy and marvel at the talents of those authors I enjoy. As to excavating what made it great, I'm still of a mind that sorcery is involved.

 

[JLT]

The best advice I've ever heard, and it's something I've repeated often, is that stories are successful more because of what they do well than what they do poorly.

True in any venue... music, sports, personal relationships, and so on. We forgive a lot of mediocre music on an album because it has one or two tracks that are really good. Basketball players miss a lot of baskets, but when they toss that three-pointer when it really counts, that's what they're remembered for.

But consistent mediocracy unrelieved by anything better will generally not get you famous.

As writers, we should focus more on what we should do rather than what we shouldn't. Unfortunately, it's hard to get many people to discuss the craft side of writing. People would rather discuss why rules are bad.

But rules are part of the craft side of writing, along with accuracy and clarity. (For me, the guiding rule is clarity. As Quintilian wrote: “We should not write so that it is possible for the reader to understand us, but so that it is impossible for him to misunderstand us.”)

Don't suck is the only rule that matters. Very often, the reason somebody's writing sucks is they've broken one or many of the other traditional rules. I think of it more of a trouble shooting checklist than a list of rules. Why does this suck? Start checking the "rules."

But that's the writer's dilemma, isn't it? We don't always know when something sucks, because we know perfectly well what we want to express, and it sounds good to us. The ability to discern suckiness (and that's a word now, folks*) is something we develop over time, paying attention to some rules and comparing it with our text. That's why I don't have a lot of respect for writers who don't do much reading. You've got to absorb the ability to discern suckiness over a long period of exposure to writing that doesn't suck, and compare it dispassionately to your writing.

*Although the word "suckitude" has an appeal for me as well.

 

[Homer Potvin]

The skills needed for writing well aren't borne of instinct alone

I agree with the caveat that there's still X amount of innate talent needed to reach the Y amount of ability needed to be a good writer. The "good" part can be defined any way one chooses. That X amount of innate talent cannot be learned or improved upon. You either have it or you don't, and that goes for anything in life. Beyond the X amount of innate talent, there is the Y level of ability that can be learned, studied, refined, optimized, etc. I'm not sure how much is X and how much is Y, but I think X is probably to larger slice of the pie. You can only learn so much. It's like being an athlete. You can't learn to hit a 100mph fastball, run a sub four minute mile, or knock 300lb lineman out of their cleats if you don't have the inherent prerequisite. You will certainly need to study your ass off to get the last few percentage points, but if you don't come out of the womb most of the way there, it ain't going to happen.

 

[Sandor]

The best advice I've every gotten about writing is from one of my dad's friends: "Don't chase trends. By the time you've written your story or made your movie, the trends already over."

 

[Rath Darkblade]

The best advice I've every gotten about writing is from one of my dad's friends: "Don't chase trends. By the time you've written your story or made your movie, the trends already over."

Absolutely. Also, don't try to "write like X" (or Y, or whoever), hoping to be just as successful. Every author has their own style, worldview, etc. (So don't write like Doug Adams, or Terry Pratchett, or Sappho -- whatever! -- just because they were massively successful).

No. Write like yourself. You have your own style, your own experiences, your own views of the world. Be yourself, don't be anyone else. What's the old line from Hamlet? "To thine own self be true".

On the other hand: read widely. See if you can find what made a successful author so quotable and successful. Learn from them. Then adapt it to your uses. Imitation, the best form of flattery - no, I said imitation, not plagiarism...! ;-P

You know what? Write whatever you like. Some people say "write at least 2,000 words a day", but I disagree: if you can't find the inspiration and/or time, don't wrack your brains over it. Don't bash your head against the wall. Get up, away from the screen, and go for a walk. Clear your head. Listen to music - whatever helps you relax and tune out the pressure. Usually inspiration will hit you while you're relaxing, so then come back to it.

And if inspiration doesn't strike you ... then the hell with it. Do something else until it does.

Give you an example? For weeks, I'd been wracking my brains over a problematic chapter, and especially a new fight scene. All I had was: "They fight, and so-and-so can't win and runs away". But how to write it? I'm not good at fight scenes ... aggghh.

Then, I was driving, and the radio started playing the beginning of Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" ... and I almost screamed. THERE IT WAS!!! THE INSPIRATION!!! AAAAAAH. So I went home (late evening) and worked like crazy for 3-4 hours, and pumped in another 3-4 hours the next day, and the day after, and ... it was done. Done, done, done. YEAH!! *fist pump*

So, yeah. Inspirations are great when they hit. But inspirations are one thing: you have to be ready to put in the hard work. And when you do, one inspiration turns into another, into another, and then you have that breakthrough.

Um. *shuffles feet* Sorry, didn't mean to rant like that. I'm sure you all know what I mean. *blush* Carry on ...