Wednesday, September 23, 2015

On Rules and Breaking Them

Not long ago, I read this article over on io9, appropriately titled "10 Writing 'Rules' We Wish More Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors Would Break".  If you haven't read it, you probably should, else this entry won't mean a great deal.

Back?  Good.  Not a bad article, eh?

I've never been much of a stickler for writing 'rules', aside from basics like "use proper grammar and appropriate formatting unless otherwise necessary" and "words should generally mean what people expect them to mean".  I think the story is what's most important, and while some claim there are rules for how you have to tell a story, a lot of that is bunk.

So, since story rewrites have eaten much of my time and spare brain cells this past week, I thought I'd offer my thoughts on the article.  Feel free to share your own in the comments.

1. No third-person omniscient.
I don't think this should be a rule, though I'd be hard-pressed to use it again.  The first book I wrote was written like this, which led to me developing the horrible habit of dropping into everyone's head and giving them a paragraph's worth of reaction thoughts whenever something major happened.  There's a reason it took me three years to write that thing.  And it was still bad!  But I think if you rule out a storytelling perspective completely, you're just limiting yourself.

2. No prologues.
I go back and forth on this.  I understand why people are hesitant about prologues, and a lot of the complaints I hear are that they're not where the story really starts.  In BoLR, I had a prologue short story written up (even posted it here back in February), but I held off on adding it until I wrote the book, to see if I could fit all the backstory in without it.  As it turned out, I could.  That won't stop me from putting a prologue in another book if I think it's necessary.

3. Avoid infodumps.
I generally agree with this one, but I think it's possible to do it right.  So long as no one says "as you know" or starts lecturing without reason.  Unless the person they're talking to cuts them off and asks why they're telling them something they already know.  I think I'd forgive an infodump in the form of an actual lecture, though, especially if the characters are bored to tears since they already know it and start offering their own commentary.

4. Fantasy novels have to be series instead of standalones.
I think this depends on the story you want to tell.  BoLR is meant to be the first of a trilogy, because that's how it's worked out in my head.  But the crazy dream book is a standalone.  Other stuff I'm plotting could lead into more books, but I haven't thought ahead that far.  I think all that matters is that the individual books stand on their own, whether they have books that come after them or not.

5. No portal fantasy.
Oog.  This is a stupid one.  I understand it's cliched and hard to sell these days, but if your story has to be a portal fantasy, go ahead and make it a portal fantasy.  I agree with what the article says about them being appealing to new readers, that's a really good point.

6. No FTL.
Someday, I'm going to write FTL Fantasy.  You can't stop me.  :P

7. Women can't write "hard" science fiction.
...what.  I think anyone who believes this is a rule is not only sexist, not only ignorant of some great sci-fi, but possibly a goddamn idiot as well.  Moving on.

8. Magic has to be just a minor part of a fantasy world.
Oh, screw that.  There are many ways to make a fantasy world unlike our own, but magic is easily the biggest one.  And while I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Martin and how well he's handled a very low-magic fantasy world, the idea that now everyone has to imitate that is ridiculous. What matters is that you tell the story as it's supposed to be told.  And you can't do that if you think magic - magic, of all things! - is required to be a certain way.

9. No present tense.
This is another one of those "you're just limiting yourself" things.  I haven't read much that's written in present tense, but The Hunger Games comes to mind.  The present tense gave a sense of immediacy to that series that simply could not have been there in past tense.  It's easy to believe that someone really could die at any moment when they're telling their story right now.  Present tense isn't for every story, but ruling it out is just foolish.

10. No "unsympathetic" characters.
In addition to what the article says - which I generally agree with - some of the greatest characters are the ones you're not supposed to sympathize with.  A good writer can make you want to see a character suffer, even die, and make you exult when they do.  (Hopefully it's not a character you're supposed to sympathize with.)  Done right, and done well, this can be the greatest thing about a story.

Next week: no idea!

15 comments:

  1. Looks like a list begging to be broken to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty much, yeah. The article makes some good points, like I said, but there's no way I'd accept those as rules.

      Delete
  2. I agree with Tonja. I hate rules that limit the way an author can tell a story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same here. I can see writing with self-imposed limits, but that's the writer's choice.

      Delete
  3. Too late, I already wrote an unsympathetic character. And one of my books has a prologue.
    I appreciate stand alone books now and then. Fantasy books can be long anyway, but string it out over five - seven books and it will take you a lifetime to read the whole thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think a long series works as long as the author has a plan. One of my favorite series (The Dresden Files) is like that - the author had the whole thing planned before he was done with the first book. But when a series starts to feel like it's going nowhere, yeah, that's a problem.

      Delete
  4. Rules like that really irk me. It promotes stereotypes and assumptions of quality based on uninformed judgments. I like your take on them and found myself agreeing with what you said. Saying these are rules can make a person look downright foolish. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, and I saw your tweet today. Sorry I'm so late. My email is loni at lonitownsend dot com, if you're still up for me beta-reading.

      Delete
    2. Much as I believe in freedom, if there was a way to get the whole world to stop making uninformed judgments, I'd do it. :P

      Delete
  5. Bah. Lots of the fantasies I love flout those rules. Or at least a couple of them. The only one I agree with is NO INFO DUMPS!!! It's boring for the reader. Seriously. Can I add: PLEASE SHOW A MODICUM OF ORIGINALITY. I quit reading high fantasy because the dang stories were all too similar. A human with unexpected importance going on an quest with an elf, a dwarf and some kind of halfling to save the world. Ahem. Stepping off my soapbox.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eeyup. What I said about Mr. Martin above also goes for Mr. Tolkien - he's worthy of much respect, but I don't think anyone should seek to imitate him.

      Delete
  6. My agent has things she's picky about--she doesn't like foreshadowing, for one thing. If the character can't know it presently, it shouldn't be mentioned, so no, "Little did she know, her life was about to change!" That's too omniscient, I guess. Of course, I write girly kids' books, so foreshadowing isn't really as important as in adult books!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm... I'm not sure if that's foreshadowing so much as an omniscient narrator trying to build tension. I agree with your agent, though - being directly told something about what's about to happen in a way that's outside of what the characters could possibly know seems like a pretty weak narrative device.

      Delete
  7. I don't like omniscient unless it's done very, very well. I prefer deep POV. Most plot/info issues can be handled by switching between multiple POVs.

    One way around prologues is to put setting/year orientations at the beginning of the first two chapters and just let your prologue be the first chapter.

    Chapter One
    New York City, 1963

    Chapter Two
    Macon, Georgia, fifty years later

    Re: #7... I'd love to see their faces when they learn the female identities behind some of those pen names.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like that solution - I've read books that did things like that, though I did find myself often checking chapter headings to be sure of when events were taking place. And I'm with you about omniscient; most if not all of the books I really enjoy are told from limited POVs.

      And yes, I've heard of people having conniptions over finding out that authors they liked were women using male pen names. *eyeroll*

      Delete