Breaking the Rules
I love breaking the rules. Maybe it was my parents, who constantly told me "Don't believe everything you read; don't believe everything people tell you." That caveat applied to teachers, the Bible, religion, friends . . . didn't matter. They wanted me to think for myself. When I would come home from high school history class and say, "My teacher told us . . .," my parents would say, "You better find out for yourself whether that's true or not." Sometimes my teachers turned out to be correct. Sometimes not.
Then came the war in Nicaragua. My father and I found ourselves of differing opinions, and ended up fighting at the breakfast table. He was angry I disagreed, but angrier still that I didn't have all my facts pulled together (how was I to know that I would be defending politics over scrambled eggs?). Anyway, this rather argumentative upbringing meant I don't do things because someone (even an expert) says so, or because of "conventional wisdom" (who wants to be conventional anyway?).
I found it really interesting to watch the discussion two posts ago about Alex Liuzzi's use of second person. Some embraced the idea. Some resisted. And I loved that Sarah looked at the preview and was hooked and bought it, too. For whatever reason, I think it works.
So this guy? Love him. I also feel sympathy for him because he is Scrabble-challenged, but also delusional about his skills, so really . . . it's just pitiful. But love him nonetheless, since yesterday his reaction to my POV dilemma was to tell me to "go for it." Because I "think" I am writing a book with some of it in third (one character) and some of it in first (other character). I don't know yet, since I'm still in that touchy-feely make-out dating stage with the characters and we haven't hopped into the sack yet. I don't totally KNOW them, under my skin know them. But I think this is how it's going to be.
Am I being clever or different for the sake of breaking the rules? Nope. I just think one character, who has panoramic travels through time and space, requires third because his story isn't personal, it's global, in some ways. For lack of a better way of describing, he is the journalist, the observer. The other character is grieving. She is inner and closed and in a world of her own making. And I think I can convey that closed, tight knot of grief in first.
People will resist. People will tell you that you "can't" do certain things, that you'll alienate your reader, that . . .
But I suppose if you break the rules to passionately discuss your politics over eggs, that it's okay. But I also think making those decisions means you likely need to put in years working your craft so you have some clarity over what rules you are breaking and why. I recently coached a writer and told her to take out a HUGE back story dump. She didn't know what that was. (Now she does . . . the "ah-ha" moment.) So I think it's an imperative to define the rules--just so you can break them. I respect that Alex knew, totally, what he was doing when he chose his POV. I hope I am equally clear-eyed as I choose mine.
One more thought. Break them at your peril. If it doesn't work, then, in the words of Twitter and FB . . . "epic fail."
Thoughts? Break any rules lately?
24 comments:
Probably it's already out there, but I am dying to write a book titled Epic Fail, LOL.
Yesterday I wrote 5K of a novel in second, present tense. Seems I will write it all. Not exactly what I had in mind for NaNo: it has sex in it. *sigh* I've wanted to write something in second person for ages, but I listened to all the naysayers. I can't wait to finish it. I've fallen in love with it hard.
My current WIP that will finish this week I swear is two alternating characters: first and third. It was fun. The dangers of first were even more apparent when juxtaposed with third, which made it as much of a struggle as it was a challenge.
I drive the speed limit. I pay my taxes. I feed my kids.
Those are the conventional rules I follow...the rest are out the window. I don't do things because I'm supposed to, I do them because I want to, and some of those fall under conventional guidelines for sure.
In writing fiction I'm still learning the rules, analyzing them and if they work for me and we click, then fine. I had an unsatisfying reading rendezvous with an editor who tried to plug my pages into a fiction formula.
Epic Fail.
Hi Natasha:
Well . . . can't you write something that has thriller or spy elements AND sex? Couldn't you break that rule?
E
Amy:
Well . . . I think there's a balancing act. Editors have to think about marketing, or about shelving, or who your readers are and their expectations, so I think there are reasons to plug something into a formula. But to me, I think the delight as an editor has to be in finding something special enough to NOT fit. I know my own editor said she wished she had seen Lovely Bones when it was making the rounds. Broke a ton of rules, but a lovely piece of fiction.
E
I was one of those teenagers who did the opposite of what my mom asked of me--even though I knew I was doing it. It was like a reflex for me. And we had a generally good relationship.
But it doesn't sound like this is a reflex situation for you--you've thought it through and you have compelling reasons to do it.
And the fact that you have to ask if you can make it work means that it's going to be a challenge. You're upping the ante. Go you.
My son always puts on non-matching socks in the morning. He doesn't get why it bothers me. If the socks were awesome, and it were deliberate--ie not out of laziness--then I'd be okay with it. But two mismatched white socks look horrible. Our pediatrician wears two different socks to get smiles from the kids. They always have some sort of cute pictures and relate to holidays--turkeys on one, pumpkins on the other. Clearly, he knows the sock rules, and is effectively breaking them. I think you'll wear your socks with style.
Heather:
LOL! LOVE the sock analogy. That's a blog entry in and of itself.
And I never wear socks. I like barefoot. ;-)
Anticipating Scrabble-Challenged's response :)
I'm still learning to write so I'm sticking with conventional writing styles. It's enough of a challenge for me to remember conflict is interesting, narration is not.
Richmond:
LOL!!!! Yeah. I didn't try anything wacky until I had a couple of books under my belt.
E
Interesting. One of the chaperones I traveled with to Disney World with the band last spring commented that some people were rule breakers and some weren't. (She clearly was). She went so far as to ask my oldest son if he was a rule breaker (he isn't, and really, neither is his father). But it was a sort of interesting insight into how SHE sees the world, and probably not an inaccurate one, either. I tend toward the passive-aggressive, so I might argue that I don't "break" the rules, I just disregard the ones that I'm not interested in following. Ahem.
As for that 2nd person, well, good luck. One reason the third-person or first-person past tense is such a part of literature is because it's so effective. That said, I recently read Kristine Kathryn Rusch's SF novel, "Diving Into The Wreck" and she used first-person present. I really don't know why, although I suspect it was to give the character some immediacy and the narrative a sense of unpredictability, ie., it's happening as it's being narrated, not at some later date.
Of course, some lit professors/analysts have noted that probably the reason the past tense is used is because we tend to live our lives that way. We may be in the moment, but only for, er, a moment, then it's past. Oy, it's early in the morning. Or was.
Mark:
Well, I want to use first-person past tense, and third-person past but from one character's POV, so it's not challenging reading-wise, I don't think. But I also have the third-person chapters share a single line/single sentence that is identical to the first-person narrator's observation. In chapters 1 and 2, the sentence is "The world was crimson." In his case, it's because of amber glass. In hers . . . it's a funeral and death. So there are some oddities to say the least.
Laura Caldwell uses first person present a lot. A know a couple of writers who do. I think it can be effective, but I don't think I could sustain it for the reasons you're stating.
And yeah . . . I tend to see the world in a similar way. I think I am always searching for kindred spirits who don't like to follow the rules. When we were recently at a park, I took a shortcut across the carefully manicured grass instead of staying on the path. My kids said, "Are you allowed to walk on the grass?" I said, "Doesn't matter. I am. Now let's go . . ."
I would like them to break more rules than they follow. I'll start with grass . . . taking them to anti-war rallies. We'll progress from there. ;-)
E
I've written a couple of stories in first/third person. I like it, and I totally agree with you that some characters need the depth of first person.
Actually 1st/3rd is fairly common, especially in the mystery-thriller genre. The first time I read a book written like that I thought, "Whoa! You're allowed to do that?" LOL.
All of James Patterson's Alex Cross novels are written that way, and he seems to have done pretty well.
Honestly, though, as a reader I'm more comfortable with first-person past tense or third-person past tense when there are multiple POVs. Anything else and I start thinking more about the writing than the story.
Ok, there's definitely something in the water.
I'm bringing back a character for my next book who I wrote a short story about - in the first person. Thing is, the book is not about her. In fact, she's very secondary, a potential antagonist, though I envision her helping out the protag eventually. But seriously, I cannot convey her any other way. She has a good role in the book, but she's got to be first person.
And hell, I totally envision my protag in third person. I really can't feature him any other way, especially since he's loosely based on an acquaintance (who is cool with being the center of my book - we'll see how he feels after he reads it, lol).
I loathe second person. I've yet to find a story in 2nd that didn't make me cringe and get almost angry They're all so damned preachy. But I didn't get time to read the clip, so I have no real opinion on your guest's work. I'll try to get back and do that at some point.
magolla:
I could show grief in body language and so on, but this is visceral grief and I think 1st person will be the best choice. We'll see.
E
Jude:
Oddly, I DON'T like it in mystery/thriller (like when the killer is an "I"), but maybe it's just the books I've tried.
LOL--you CAN do that.
E
Starbucks:
Well . . . Alex's book doesn't sound preachy, but I could imagine what you're saying.
Yes, something in the water . . . I'm feeling adventurous!
I'm with Jude -- alternating 1st/3rd doesn't bother me in the least and I don't understand why it bugs so many people. I mean, I GET why it does, but I don't empathize.
My husband and I were just discussing the idea of needing to know the rules before you can break them. He's taking English tests so he can teach and studying a LOT of grammar. I, in turn, am explaining why things are correct, etc. It was while defending sentence fragments that I told him you can break rules for stylistic reasons.
Melanie:
Wehn I taught ESL, I spent more time on how the rules were made to be broken for this case or that case. English is so insane that way.
Breaking rules: Pete Hautman in his novel, All In, has one 1st person POV and a couple of 3rd person POVs. It's a great book. And, he's a great writer, won the National Book award for his novel, Godless.
Right now I'm experimenting with multiple points of view. I have one person that just appears for one chapter and you get it from his POV. That's unconventional and I'm not sure it's going to work but I'm playing with it. Even if it doesn't work I'm sure I'll learn something by trying it.
These comments are interesting. I predicted more nay-saying about alternating POVs. It's refreshing to hear that others like or don't mind it.
Oh, and I'd like to point out an error in the post. You intended to link to someone who was Scrabble challenged and delusional, and you accidently linked to my blog. Just thought you'd want to know.
I've always been a rule follower for things that might get me in trouble - staying off of private property, etc. I can't stand to be yelled at or reprimanded, so I stay away from stuff like that.
But as for other rules, I definitely beat to my own drum and frequently do my own thing.
However, in regards to writing, so far I've stuck by the rules, but that's only cause I'm still learning. I'm sure it won't take long for me to break out of that shell.
Paul:
I agree . . . sometimes when you break a rule, you learn something about why or why not it works.
Stephen:
Shhhhhh, we won't tell anyone about your delusions. We'll just keep it between us.
E
Nadine:
I found when I started breaking rules, my writing got better, LOL!
E
Post a Comment