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?

The Rules

Over at Amy Nathan's blog yesterday, there was discussion of how to describe your novel. And my main point, in the comments, was it seems like every once in a while there's a little blow-up, a comments section gone haywire, a Yahoo group gone mad, over "the rules," as it pertains to your query or some other aspect of publishing.

And usually, there are apocryphal stories of this agent or that one or this editor or that one who will immediately discard a query if the writer uses the word "tunafish." Of course, I'm kidding there, but you know these discussions as well as I do.

I have had writers send me lengthy "arguments" over use of the comma before the word "too" in serial lists (I prefer its use). In fact there seems to be nothing that's not fair game for a "rule."

And the reality is I also know editors who have peeves. I know some for whom certain storylines make them queasy. But that's not a "rule"--that's just their personal taste. If a writer submitted, say, a story about a fake wedding to Editor A and she loathes that sort of storyline, the writer is not going to be on some blacklist because they sent it to Editor A. I have had editor friends tell me, literally, "I know your friend X has a book about a runaway bride, but I just loathe those storylines. It's just me. I've read too many of them." But that doesn't mean some sacred rule has been broken. It's just not right for their list.

Are there some rules? Sure. Don't send in a manuscript covered in coffee rings and reeking of smoke. Ruthlessly edit for typos. Don't send an entire manuscript in set in a wacky font.

But really? If an editor rejected your manuscript because you underlined internal thought instead of italicized it--or because you underlined AND italicized--or didn't do their preference of the above . . . chances are your story didn't grip them.

I think these little blog discussions come up because you can CONTROL italics or the comma before the word "too" or whether you should sign off with "thank you for your time" or not. You can control that, so if you do it "wrong," it makes you feel better than being rejected because the agent/editor just didn't like your book.

But in the end, I think the iron-clad rule is tell your story. Don't chase people who love your work--chase honest critics, and elevate your story until every page races along. Until your peers--people you really respect not people who say even your grocery list is a "page turner"--say "you're ready . . . this is awesome." Tell your story with passion. Follow a few of the basics. And then send it out there.

The rule is "good enough" just won't cut it anymore. So make it great.

Thoughts?

Fight Club

Remember the movie (and book) Fight Club? The first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about the Fight Club.

Well, I think the first rule of writing is there are no rules. Look at The Sound the the Fury. Remember Benjy? My God, but how the heck do you get through his narrative? You do, of course. And the end result is worth it--the novel is challenging and brilliant. But breaks rules as we probably think of them as far as narrative and chronology.

On the other hand, say you want to be published and you're NOT Faulkner. Well, you probably want to follow a few rules. To that end, I am always amazed when I am asked to critique a 200-000-word novel. Happened three years ago. It was, as I recall a mystery about a sailor in the Keys. And the person who asked me to critique it expressed deep SHOCK bordering on an anaphylactic reaction that word count was something he might want to think about if he intended to send it to an agent as a mystery/thriller.

I have had people tell me "that's what editors are for" when their plots fall down halfway through the book or their manuscript is rough to the point of needing a massive copyedit.

So maybe the first lesson of writing--if you want to be published--is do your homework. I am not a joiner, but if you read the NY Times article I linked to yesterday, they gave credit to the RWA for being an organization that does a lot of market research, that helps its writers. Other groups do, too. Writers' groups, blogs, books . . . the information is out there if you want it.

So, if this is Fight Club . . . or Write Club . . . what's the first rule, in your opinion?