
Rules for Writers - fanf2
https://locusmag.com/2020/05/cory-doctorow-rules-for-writers/
======
mortenjorck
_> It took me an admittedly very long time to reach this conclusion, and I
think it’s because the standard wisdom goes something like, “In order to break
the rules, you must first master them.” That threw me off. If, instead, the
writers and books I’d learned from had said, “These things are much harder to
get right, so if your story goes wrong, try replacing them with something
easier,” I’d have come to my epiphany far earlier._

This really is a much better way of framing the classic "master the rules
before you break them" principle. It certainly applies to other creative
disciplines outside of writing, as well.

------
kens
The Turkey City Lexicon described in the article can be found here:
[https://www.sfwa.org/2009/06/18/turkey-city-lexicon-a-
primer...](https://www.sfwa.org/2009/06/18/turkey-city-lexicon-a-primer-for-
sf-workshops/) It is an interesting collection of problems that can arise in
science fiction writing.

------
WalterBright
> “Call a Rabbit a Smeerp“

Game of Thrones is famously full of that.

> "Idiot Plot"

Probably the most tiresome, as I see it constantly. It normally manifests
itself as a squad goes into a dangerous situation, and then all split off and
wander around on their own. Eventually, most get back together, then wonder
"Where's Bob? Did anyone see where Bob went?" and of course, Bob has gotten
into big trouble.

"The Walking Dead" was so full of this lazy trope I gave up watching it.

(From the referenced Turkey City Lexicon.)

~~~
stupidcar
I disagree regarding Game of Thrones. For me, its major sin is cod-medieval
spellings — "Ser Jaime misliked his pease porridge" — and invented idioms —
"much and more", "mummer's farce", "nipples on a breastplate". It's usually OK
about calling a horse a horse and a sword a sword, and only deviating when
there's a genuine difference between something and it's real-world equivalent,
such as distinguishing leprosy from greyscale due to the latter's semi-magical
effects.

~~~
StavrosK
Why are those sins? In my opinion they give the book's world its distinctive
character.

~~~
mortenjorck
I think why it works in Game of Thrones is that it’s used both sparingly and
in ways that feel like an alternate-universe feudal European society might
plausibly coin them. “Brother-by-law” and “sister-by-law” are particular
examples of coinage that feel realistically archaic and foreign, yet aren’t
arbitrary “smeerp” words, either.

------
stupidcar
I find myself torn regarding the popular prescription against "said-bookisms".
While I try to follow it in my own writing, it is the case that much real-
world English speech uses a limited vocabulary and relies on tone of voice to
carry meaning. As such, simple dialogue described by verbs like "hissed",
"grunted", "whined", etc. better reflects how people really speak than more
literary alternatives, and there is a trade-off in verisimilitude that comes
from relying entirely on words to convey mood.

~~~
mortenjorck
What I tend to find most effective in supporting otherwise-minimal dialog is
to focus on facial expressions and body language. Compare this:

 _“You renewed the certs, right?” asked Alice.

“I think I did,” stammered Bob._

To this:

 _”You renewed the certs, right?” Alice said, eyes fixed on her screen as she
typed something into a terminal window.

Bob looked up from his laptop, eyes suddenly wide. “I think I did,” he said, a
panicked look slowly coming over his face._

------
slowmovintarget
Yet another case of mistaking principles for rules. Principles are guides, you
go outside of them when you are experienced enough to know why they set the
boundaries where they do.

Rules are inflexible. This makes them simpler, and inferior for guiding
people.

~~~
flukus
> Rules are inflexible

Most people aren't this pedantic and implicitly interpret rules as breakable,
that's why we have sayings like "rules are meant to be broken" and "the
exception that proves the rule". Generally the enforcement bodies of any set
of rules, like courts and police will have a lot of discretion on when and how
to apply them.

Depending on which definition of principle you want to use the can also be a
lot stricter than rules, looking at some definitions online "A basic truth,
law, or assumption.", "a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling
opinion", " the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an
artificial device". So substitution principle for rule would make things less
clear.

Most people are far more cavalier about breaking rules than principles.

------
jdkee
I would find this article more credible if the author was a decent writer.

~~~
withdavidli
"All of what follows has been said before. If you are interested enough in
writing to be a purchaser of this magazine, you will have either heard or read
all (or almost all) of it before. Thousands of writing courses are taught
across the United States each year; seminars are convened; guest lecturers
talk, then answer questions, then drink as many gin and tonics as their
expense-fees will allow, and it all boils down to what follows.

I am going to tell you these things again because often people will only
listen – really listen – to someone who makes a lot of money doing the thing
he’s talking about. This is sad but true." \- Stephen King

[https://www.aerogrammestudio.com/2015/02/24/stephen-king-
eve...](https://www.aerogrammestudio.com/2015/02/24/stephen-king-everything-
you-need-to-know-about-writing-successfully/)

