Rules of Good Fiction... and When to Let Them Slide

As writers, it's important to learn and understand the rules and principles behind what makes good fiction. It's important to apply those rules and principles to our own writing. It's important to be able to recognize those principles when other writers use them (or fail to use them) in their writing.

But it's also important not to let our knowledge of those rules ruin our ability to enjoy a good story.

As we start to really gain some knowledge of how the writing world works and how fiction works, it's easy to start getting a Barney Fife attitude about it. We get all swelled up with confidence and self-importance and next thing you know we're standing at the ready to pronounce judgment and doom on any pleb so foolish as to break one of the sacred laws that form the code of good writing.
We writers have a tendency to get tunnel vision and focus way too much on the rules, however. We often conclude that a book is terrible because the author broke this rule and that rule and how did such doggerel ever get published? If you're still in the frustrating process of trying to get published, such cases are doubly infuriating because you, of course, know much better than to ever commit such literary sins so you should be getting published instead of these buffoons! (That J.R.R. Tolkien--who does he think he is?)

I hear ya, and I feel your pain. Truly I do. But calm down for a second and ask yourself: Did you enjoy the story?

Sit down and pick up your favorite novel--the one you read over and over and never get tired of. Start reading it with nothing in mind but finding writing mistakes and literary sins. It may be a few chapters before you find one, or you may find one a paragraph in. Gasp!

Now pick up one of those enduring classics--you know, that book that's been on the NYT Bestseller list for the last 300 years. Do the same thing: start reading it with finding literary sins as your sole purpose. How long does it take you?

So let me ask you this: have a few broken rules destroyed your ability to enjoy that favorite novel over and over? Have they dampened the success of that enduring classic?
At the end of the day, novel writing is an art, not a science, and what makes a great story is just that: a great story, not a perfect adherence to the rules of good fiction.
Lord of the Rings, Pride and Prejudice, and Sherlock Holmes don't endure and remain popular because their authors followed all of the writing rules flawlessly. (Come to think about it, have you ever heard any work of fiction praised in the media for that reason?) They remain popular because they tell an epic, inspiring story, or because they speak a bold message to the culture, or because they challenge readers to think in new ways.

Once you know and understand the rules of writing, it is hard not to notice them in other people's writing. And I'll admit that once in a while a book does make it to publication that I simply can't stand to finish because the quality is so poor. It happens. But those cases are rare--almost as rare as the book that contains no mistakes of any kind whatsoever.

So chill out, Barney. Alright, so they broke Ordinance 4861 Section a.) Paragraph 3 of the Good Writing Technique Manual. But they told a great story, didn't they?

And isn't that what you read the book for in the first place?

Is your writing too flowery?

"Now ain't that purdy? I don't know what it means, but it sure does sound elegant." ~Cap Rountree, from "The Sacketts"

"That's beautiful... no idea what you just said." ~Riley Poole, from "National Treasure"
*
Ever felt this way while reading? The words all sound so beautiful and rich, and they flow together so perfectly and elegantly... but you have absolutely no idea what the author or speaker is talking about? The meaning is lost in a flourish of fancy wording?
It doesn't happen too often in contemporary fiction any more, for a number of reasons. The average American's vocabulary is shrinking markedly, for one. And, with competition in the writing industry becoming more fierce all the time, writers have less room to get away with literary sins like using over-flowery language.
But in a lot of older fiction, and in much of the work of beginning writers today, flamboyant, flowery language abounds. And while it usually sounds gloriously elegant and beautifully crafted to the ear, a reader trying to follow the meaning of the words can find himself or herself frustrated, irritated, and confused.
So why use flowery, overwrought wording when clear, concise English would do just fine? Well, there's an answer for that, but it's rather complicated.
When it comes to older fiction, it's a tough call. The wording might truly be excessively fancy, or, depending on the age of the book, it might just be the product of a different era with a different and wider vocabulary. English has come a long way in the last 700 years, remember. Words and sentence structure that sound completely archaic and nonsensical to us today were just common household language four or five centuries ago.
As for today, though... well, that's another story.
There are lots of possible reason why a writer might use flowery language in their writing. They might be trying to sound intelligent and intellectual and think using fancy words will help them. They might be trying to paint a vibrant and dramatic word picture and using flamboyant wording is the only way they know to do it. They might be trying to make their prose seem strong and well-crafted when it's actually rather weak and uncertain. They might think it will impress editors looking for some skillful word-use.
I'll talk about each of these briefly in this post, but if anyone has any questions or comments to add, feel free. The comment box is there for a reason. ; )

Excuse #1: Trying to sound intellectual.
Bottom line: It's about what you have to say, not about how you say it. Any goober can learn a bunch of fancy words, affect a stuffy accent, and act like they're smarter than everyone else. The real intellectuals with something meaningful to say don't have to use fancy words to get their point across. The best communicators in the world get their messages across in clear, concise, understandable words that anyone can follow.

Excuse #2: Trying to paint a vibrant and dramatic picture.
Bottom line: I'm a writer, so I understand the need and the desire to paint dramatic pictures with words. It's part of what makes our writing interesting, right? Right. However, f what you're describing isn't really all that dramatic, no amount of flowery language will help that. For example: don't describe sunsets. Just don't, okay? Unless you're describing the strange effects a nuclear explosion is having on the appearance of the sunset, or your character has been blind his entire life and is miraculously able to witness a sunset for the first time, or something equally astounding, just save yourself the trouble and don't describe it (and that goes for sunrises too). The sun has been rising and setting every day for the last 6,000 years, which to comes to roughly 2,190,000 sunsets and sunrises since the dawn of time. No offense, but I doubt very seriously that you have anything original to say in describing it. Now, you speculative writers out there, if you're describing some new aspect of a fictional world you've created, and it's something the readers have never seen before, by all means describe it for them! But don't think you need flowery language to do it. If you're describing something new, original, interesting, and important to the story, the readers will find it interesting. Even without the use of a hundred four-syllable adjectives.

Excuse #3: Trying to shore up weak prose.
Bottom line: I've said it before--Don't put a Band-Aid on a wound that needs stitches. If your writing is weak, deal with the problem at its source. Study grammar and sentence structure. Read some good books on the craft and skill of fiction writing. Learn to write tight, clear, and concise prose that stands on its own feet without the aid of crutches like flowery words.

Excuse #4: Trying to impress editors.
Bottom line: It won't work. Period. They'll see right through it. Trust me.

Why do you think so many writers are tempted to use flowery language? Do you struggle with the temptation? If so, what do you do about it?

Wine and Fiction - Have we turned art into science?

Several months ago I was home sick on a Sunday and was flipping through television channels (since putting in a DVD would have required getting off of the couch). I came across a documentary about wine making and, since it was the only thing on that struck me as remotely interesting, I watched a few minutes of it.
Up to that point, I had considered wine-making to be a relatively simple process:
- Pick the grapes.
- Smash the grapes.
- Let the grape juice ferment.
- Put fermented grape juice in barrels and let it age for a few years.
- Voila. Wine.
Okay, so there has always been a little more to it than that, but you get the idea. As I watched the documentary on it, though, I was blown away by how complex and delicate the wine-making process has become over time.
The vineyards are monitored constantly as harvest time approaches, waiting for the exact moment when their internal sugar content is just right. When the sugar content level hits that perfect magic number the supervisors are looking for, they start picking and pick around the clock until the harvest is complete. The grapes are rushed straight into the processing facility where they are pressed and the juice is poured into vats. The sugar content of the juice in the vats is also monitored with pinpoint accuracy. If the sugar level falls below the desired number by even a single percentage point, the supervisors may call off the harvesting process until the grapes ripen further.
The entire process is that way--monitored with painstaking precision, start to finish. I understand that wine-making is an art that's been around for millennia, but I can't help wondering if the craft and skill in the art has been carried too far. Has an art been forced into becoming a science?
Now, maybe the precision of the modern process makes modern wine taste far better than vintage. I've never tasted wine, so I wouldn't know.
What I do know is that I see hints of a similar trend in the art and craft of fiction writing.
In the days of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and L.M.Montgomery (all of whom are considered masters of their craft), good characters, a good plot, and a good feel for storytelling were enough to make a novel an international hit. In spite of literary 'sins' such as the use of omniscient point of view and long passages of author narrative, The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Anne of Green Gables were successes in their hay day and are still popular today.
Writing was simpler then. Today, story narrative has to be embedded so deeply into the main character's psyche that the readers think they are that character. Every little action, every feeling, every thought, has to grab the readers in a choke hold or else risk being 'distant'. Every scene and every plot point has to be highly calculated for effect and possible repercussions, as though the writer is about to launch a missile rather than just tell a story.
I believe there are a lot of contributing factors behind this trend--too many to discuss in this post. And while I agree whole-heartedly that fiction writing is an art that requires skill and hard work to master, I worry that the art itself is slowly being lost to the science we've made of the skills.
Underneath the science, the formulas, the step-by-step processes, and the calculations, storytelling is an art. A gift. An ability and style as unique as the storyteller.
It was an art before we made it into a science. Let's not lose sight of that.

Do you storytelling is in danger of becoming a science rather than an art? Or do you see today's formulas and calculations as simply refining the art?

Dialogue Puctuation 101

Hands down, the most common mistake I see in writing is in the way people use punctuation and capitalization in dialogue. As an editor, it bugs me. As a writer, I want to make sure my writing is as good as I can get it, and that includes proper punctuation. So in this post I'm going to outline the proper use of punctuation and capitalization in dialogue based on the mistakes I see most often. And to make it fun, I've used real-life quotes from things my family and friends have said.

Dialogue Tags
Incorrect: "I think Lady Luck is my arch enemy." Caleb said.
Correct: "I think Lady Luck is my arch enemy," Caleb said.

Incorrect: "I'll be right back," Mom said, "Don't let anything interesting happen while I'm gone!"
Correct: "I'll be right back," Mom said. "Don't let anything interesting happen while I'm gone!"
- or - "I'll be right back," Mom said, "don't let anything interesting happen while I'm gone!"

Incorrect: "What is that purple monstrosity on the ironing board," Caleb asked.
Incorrect: "What is that purple monstrosity on the ironing board," Caleb asked?
Correct: "What is that purple monstrosity on the ironing board?" Caleb asked.

Beats
Incorrect: LoriAnn peeked through the door, "It sounds like tribal chaos in there."
Correct: LoriAnn peeked through the door. "It sounds like tribal chaos in there."

Incorrect: "You can't plan these things, you have to be spontaneous," Dad raised an eyebrow, "I am a beacon of spontaneity."
Correct: "You can't plan these things, you have to be spontaneous." Dad raised an eyebrow. "I am a beacon of spontaneity."

Incorrect: "Never trust a man who wears a bow tie of his own free will," James shook a finger at me.
Correct: "Never trust a man who wears a bow tie of his own free will." James shook a finger at me.

More Beats, Breaks, and Pauses
Note: An em dash (—) signifies that someone has been interrupted, stopped speaking abruptly, or paused clearly mid-sentence. It can also be used to mark a break in the character's speaking to insert an action beat, as in the first example below. There should not be spaces between the em dash and the words before and after it. Ellipses (...) [only three dots, no more, no less] signify a less defined pause, or that someone has trailed off in their speaking.

Incorrect: "I know this is a very touching and teachable moment," —Katrina shook her head— "But it makes me laugh."
Correct: "I know this is a very touching and teachable moment—" Katrina shook her head. "—but it makes me laugh."

Incorrect: "My name has now been changed," Karri paused for effect... "to Kenneth Rogers."
Correct: "My name has now been changed..." Karri paused for effect. "...to Kenneth Rogers." (assuming a superhero persona at age 5)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you struggle with dialogue punctuation?