The point of this is to discuss the idea of the "rules" of writing – not specifically but generally (though we will get into specifics later): what they are about, what lies behind them, how they are motivated. The thought is with a little stepping back you might be more able to parse the value of rules when you come upon them. Which is important: some rules are good, some rules are bad. Some rules are in between. But to know the difference, and to get value out of them, even the bad ones, it often helps to understand why they exist to begin with. Good, bad, or in between, rules are usually worth thinking about. And anything that gets you thinking about writing is a good thing.

 
 

Where Rules Are Found

 

Rules can be found in many places. Style guides, like Strunk and White and Bill Walsh's The Elephants of Style touch on them to one degree or another. Though, keep in mind we are not here talking about grammar or syntax rules. For that you go to your Chicago Manual of Style. There are books whose purpose are to discuss the rules of writing, like LeGuin's Steering the Craft. Books that teach methods of writing like Save the Cat and The Anatomy of Story cannot help but present rules, whether intentionally or not. Also, writers will often touch on rules or advice in their critical work. Of course, they are all over the place online. There are youtubers who talk about writing, companies putting out videos, and blogs dedicated to the craft. When it comes to it, anyone can offer their two cents worth on the subject.

And you cannot tell from who offers the advice whether the advice is any good. Strunk and White, however famous it is, gives some bad advice, one reason why discussed below. Curiously, some of the worst writing advice I have seen comes from websites that are selling writing software or online memberships. Which is important. You should not be learning how to write from the likes of Grammarly or by letting Word correct your text – they are at best grammar aids, and such programs tend to dumb down a text, and they have no understanding of style. Not all things put out by online services are such, though; for example, the Reedsy videos tend to be really good. The best collection of rules I have ever come across is in Ezra Pound's essay "A Retrospect." It is aimed at verse, but applies some to prose. And it is worth reading because you can get a sense of the solid ground from which he is deriving his advice. (It is online on the Poetry Foundation site.)

 
 

The Purpose of Rules

 

What is the purpose of rules? Ostensibly, it is to make you a better writer. Though, it is not at all that simple. First, make you a better writer of what? Impressionist short stories have wholly different needs than technical manuals, and you would expect that rules that apply to the latter do not necessarily apply to the former. It is important to note that online that question of what is often not made clear and you have to decide for yourself whether a rule applies to what you are trying to write.

Second, make you a better writer according to whose criteria? A person sitting down to read that impressionist short story is looking for and expecting something wholly different than a person sitting down to read a technical manual. A writer who has spent their life reading pulp genre will probably have a very different idea of what makes for good writing from someone steeped in the literary.

Plus, it cannot be said that all rules are indeed intended to make you a better writer. Some rules are only intended to make your writing look a certain way. How "good" you are at writing is irrelevant so long as the writing has certain characteristics. For example, there was bandied about rather heavily for a while the rule that you need to hook the reader of a short story with the first sentence. This stemmed from Iowa Workshop conventions, and offered nothing to do with making you a better writer of the opening of stories, nothing to do with understanding how stories open. It simply was a rule of "this is what we decided so this is how you need to do it."

A good rule is a guide. By following it you are training yourself – hopefully – to understand why the rule is a good rule, learning through practice – through seeing the results – why following the rule tends for a better text than not following the rule. Very much, good rules develop your poetic ear, your ability to read (and hear) the text as it is on the page. Generally, people do not start out able to hear why too many adverbs is a bad thing and they overuse them. By following the rule they take out all the adverbs – even if they go farther than needed – and they can hear their writing without them, hopefully hear the improved harmony of sounds and learn through comparison the why behind the rule. Then the writer finds the ability to know when an adverb works and when it does not.

 

Digression: How You Learn.

This is something always worth repeating. It cannot be emphasized enough.

Primarily, you learn through reading. Which means not only reading other people's work but also reading your own; and, just as you have to learn how to read a book, you have to learn how to read your own writing. Of course, it is not simply "reading": you have to pay attention, you have to read critically. If, say, the rule about adverbs is on your mind, you pay attention to when you see adverbs used in books, and how they are used and whether it is used to success. If you come across an odd or particularly effective sentence, pay attention to it. If a paragraph is three times as long as anything in the previous thirty pages, figure out the why and how.

Do not think, though, that just because a book is published it is a good exemplar for learning how to write. Most genre books are not terribly well written. Some famous fantasy books are laugh out loud funny – if you actually read them. And you must always be wary of the bugbear of mediocrity. You learn best from seeing what works and what does not work; it is difficult to learn from something that does neither. And mediocrity rules the roost.

Also, you learn from doing. Practice, practice, practice, as it is said. And just as you have to "read" critically, so also must you write critically. You have to be paying attention to your writing. Not in the the sense of editing for grammar, but while you are writing, looking for and at possibilities, changing things around just to see what happens, writing a paragraph and then looking at it and pondering if it can be written in a better way, a more effective way. Depending on your writing habits you might save this for second draft. Try the sentence with the adverb and without and compare. See if there is a phrase that works better than the one word adverb. Or can the idea be presented without actually using an adverb. This is an important subcategory of learning by doing: experimenting. Writing simply to see what happens; modifying a drafted text one way or another to compare results.

Of course, writing is also reading. Reading what you are writing while you are writing, reading beyond what you have written to find alternatives and improvements.

An important part of learning by doing is learning by imitating. Do not believe those that say you should never imitate: much of the early part of the learning curve is conquered by imitating people whose style is attractive to you. And imitating requires reading. Imitating puts sounds in your ears and structures in your pen, sounds and structures you get from reading. As well, when you imitate you are paying close attention to the texts. Of course, the point is to grow out of imitating and into developing your own style. But much can be accomplished early on through imitating.

As said, though, it all comes down to reading. And how you read is important. You have to learn to pay attention to the text beyond the on-the-face meanings of words – whether reading others' work or your own. To write more sophisticated paragraphs you have to be able to see the sophistication in written texts. Which means you have to be reading work with sophisticated paragraphs. What you read is very important, and just as you should be pushing yourself while writing you should be pushing yourself while reading. Simple texts do not teach much. To note, it is always valuable to read verse (to read good verse) whether you write it or not, for verse is – or should be – the highest degree of the manipulation of words. You might even try writing it. Nietzsche has the great line that all great prose stylists have a drawer full of verse that no one sees, for it is in through latter that they are testing and improving the former.

This leads us to one of the major mechanisms of the development of sophistication: the expanding of horizons. This plays greatly in learning in general, not just with writing, but understanding how it functions in writing might aid in conscious development. Consider watching football. When a person first starts watching football, they see the wide receiver and they understand the wide receiver as someone running out into the field. Then they grow to understand they are running routes. Their horizon has expanded. Then they understand that the route is part of an offensive play, the parts of which work together as a whole. Then they grow to understand how the route – and that play – sometimes adapts as to how the defense is lined up and how they move during the play. The understanding of the game increases as the understanding of a play expands. Reading and writing are the same. In the beginning, you read word to word. Then you learn to understand the sentence. Then you learn to understand the paragraph. You learn more complex sentences and more complex paragraphs. You learn how to read arguments across paragraphs; how texts develop over time. Your reading sophistication increases as the horizon of your reading expands.

This is important because it is not all passive growth. Passive growth will only get you so far. For greater sophistication, you have to actively try to expand your reading and writing horizons. A weak reader will gloss over sentences more complex than they can understand; a weak writer will never venture into that sophistication – unless they force themselves to. As you read, force yourself to pay attention to what is happening. If it is a complex sentence, parse the sentence to see how it works. Notice how a sophisticated writer uses their paragraphs. Notice how they utilize dialog beyond the mere transmission of information. Notice how they describe and when. Only by understanding what you read can you then pass it on to your writing. And on the writing side, here we get back into experimentation and imitation, pushing against horizons in the making of texts. They go hand in hand, reading sophistication and writing sophistication; you should treat them that way.

Now back to talking about the "rules."

 

Most rules are only as good as they offer the opportunity to learn. You want to get to where you are following the rule not because it is a rule but because you can hear the result and know that the result works. That is where "breaking the rules" comes in. A good writer, a sophisticated writer, can tell when breaking a rule is creating a successful text and when it is not. They have developed their ear enough to hear what is being made, to hear whether a textual event works.

Generally, good rules are derived from the text; bad rules come from outside the text. Texts that overuse adverbs sound funny (in a bad way) to a sophisticated ear, so you get the good rule to be wary of adverbs. But, when you say the bad rule of never use adverbs you are stepping outside of the text, you are ignoring what an adverb can contribute to a text and just spreading your personal dislike of the words.

That example, though, shows that bad rules sometimes still have a kernel of truth hiding inside of them, which can turn a bad rule into a good rule. A bad rule I have heard is that you should never describe. Which is nonsense. Whether or not and how much to describe depends upon the style and needs of the text being written. But, there is the kernel of truth in the rule that unwarranted or unnecessary description does work against the text, and that too much description can bog it down. The good rule is describe only what needs to be described, and only to the degree it needs to be described; describe only where it contributes to the text, not where it detracts from it or where it is empty fluff.

 
 

Sources or Origins of Rules

 

This leads to the sources of rules, where they came from, which is part of the consideration of whether or not a rule is a good rule. If you can figure out from where a rule derives, you might have a handle on how grounded the rule is. I have come up with a handful of origins. Keep in mind, they greatly overlap.

 

Experience

One would expect that most rules derive from experience. As said, the rule about adverbs exists because to a sophisticated reader a text full of adverbs sounds terrible. Good writers notice what works and what does not work in texts and pass the knowledge on.

Keep in mind, again, that you have to consider what kind of text is being talked about. What works in one place does not necessarily work in another. A web page and literary fiction are wholly different texts. Keep in mind also that who said the rule can have some play in the usefulness of the rule. An author might recommend writing as little description as possible because it works for them. But are they talking about good advice for writing across the board, or good advice only for writing books like they write? There is also more cynical examples, where I come to believe that the person proffering the rules are a not very good reader. This is often seen where they will give a sentence, then apply the rule they are espousing, and in the process completely change the meaning of the sentence. So while the rule may be for them based in experience, it is poor experience and you should be wary.

 

Style

Some rules come out of the style of certain texts. A prominent example are the rules that have arisen based on Hemingway's style. A lot of bad advice was being circulated for a while based on Hemingway's work, who wrote in a deliberate style. It at times feels like many rules nowadays derive from the style of writing easy-to-read web content: short sentences, small paragraphs, etc. I have sometimes wondered if some rule disseminators think that every fiction text – if not every text – should be written in such a simplistic style.

 

Philosophies of Writing

Considering the source of a rule brings us into whether the rule is based not in the text but in a philosophy of writing. That is, the maker of the rule has a philosophical slant as to what makes a good text and what writing is about. The advice that comes from such will be pointed toward the aims of that philosophical slant. The prime example of this may be E.B. White's contribution to Strunk and White, which is a set of rules based on a very conservative idea of writing. He holds to the idea that writing should be oriented around the communication of ideas, therefore good writing is writing whose aim is that of as clear communication as is possible. It is a philosophy that is almost diametrically opposed to the idea of the literary work as art, opposed to the idea of writing for the beauty of what can be created out of language. Because he takes his philosophy so far, he offers some bad advice, unless you too subscribe to that philosophy of writing.

Another philosophy-sourced rule may be the idea that all great stories involve change in the main character. Which is not true, but some people have latched on to it.

Some people that promote three- or five-act structure seem to have taken that idea in as a philosophy of writing, though, for many it is more a convention.

 

A Second Digression: Philosophies of Writing

The question of philosophy, the questions of what writing should be, of what do you consider to be excellent writing, has a say in how you read, and has a say in how you write. Exploring philosophies of writing is not only a means to development, it functions as a guide to your writing what you think is the most successful texts. It is inherent to participation in the discourse of writing. To say a book is admirable speaks to your philosophy of writing, of literature – or lack thereof.

And most people have a philosophy of literature, even if they do not realize it. To say books should be entertainment is a philosophy of literature. It is also a philosophy of writing. To say that it is far more interesting for a character to describe something than for the narrator to describe it is part of a philosophy of writing. Philosophies need not be as large as adhering to realism or surrealism. It is simply thinking about writing – and about what you read – a level out, from the parts into the system by which they are crafted and organized.

The more you take seriously a philosophy of writing, the more it has a say in what you write. If you do espouse realism as the highest form of writing, the more you think about it the more you are able to see it being performed in the books you read, the more you will see it being performed – or rejected – in texts. It will influence what you read, which will influence how you write. What you learn from books will be different because you are able to see them one step out, in the system of the text. If, say, you take surrealism's talk of the unconscious to heart, it will color how you think about writing, other people's and your own. And "books should be entertainment" is included in this, as you will reject classes of books that break from that category, and avoid writing that does the same.

A philosophy will also color how you accept writing advice. I reject some of White's advice outright because I see that he is pushing a type of writing that I consider a lesser form of writing. (Though, also, I think it detrimental to learning the craft.) Also, I understand his advice better because I can understand his philosophy of writing.

I consider reading books on philosophies of literature and writing as important a part of learning the craft as books on the craft itself. In the end, you have more of a grasp on how to write excellently if you have an idea of what excellent writing means to you. It will influence what you will permit yourself to do, and what you will strive to do in your writing.

Back to the sources of rules.

 

Convention

Some rules of writing have no basis outside of that someone started saying it and then everyone started saying it. Despite its origins, whatever they might be, they are no longer derived from the text, but are derived from simply saying "this is how it should be done." I am speaking of rules like the rule, above, about hooking the reader in the first sentence. These rules sometimes have a distant past where they originated from considerations of the text, but now they exist simply as accepted convention.

The use of three- and five-act structure seem for some people a convention: it is espoused simply because it was once heard, not because of any actual experience with texts.

Of course, the primary example in writing is genre. Genres create rules by convention: rules that say if you are writing, say, a fantasy story then you have to do X; rules that say when you do Y in a story in means something specific. Those rules have no real basis in the text, they have only to do with how to write just like other genre books, writing to what the readers expect. That is the nature of genre: it is greatly, if not at times entirely, convention. (Curiously, There are genre books from the nineteenth century that scholars do not know how to read because the conventions have been lost.)

 

Market

Related to rules based on genre are rules based on the market. It might be summed up in the idea that if you want to sell books you have to write your books to have the same characteristics of books that are currently selling. To make up something up, to recognize that books that occur on the east coast sell better than books that occur on the west coast is not convention but is writing to the marketplace.

Another example of this might be to start your main action as soon as possible, because readers are more likely to buy books by authors that get to the point. (Though, this can also be convention.)

 

Ex Nihilo

I sometimes wonder when I look at people with rules online if there are rules that are created ex nihilo, that someone out of nowhere decided it was a good idea and made it into a rule. The advice to never describe sounds so absurd that I wonder if it was concocted out of thin air.

 

Software driven

I have wondered with some of these sites if the rules they provide are based wholly on that that is how they programmed the software.

 
 

Types of Rules – with Examples

 

Grammar rules

Most issues of grammar are not writing rules as we are speaking here, but occasionally I will come across one.

 

– Never use colons or semi-colons; that is, break everything up into smaller, simpler sentences. Depending on who says it, it may be a style rule, or a philosophical rule, but may be a market driven rule as well.

– I recently came upon one something like be willing to use exclamation points. Which may be an ex nihilo rule created by someone who is not a very good reader, for it is the opposite of what you should do.

– Inversely related to that is avoid using italics. An experience rule saying the emphasis should be being created in text, and that most of the time italics are either unnecessary or a crutch.

 

Rules about the text

Most rules fall in this category, rules about what you are putting down on the page.

 

– There is our overused example, never use adverbs. An experience rule that got taken too far.

– Related is avoid using adjectives. This sometimes feels an extension of the never use adverbs rule, sometimes feels philosophical/stylistic, sometimes feels ex nihilo. It shows up in a milder form in in Strunk and White when White says to write through verbs and nouns. There it is part of his philosophy to write pared down, direct sentences, which pushes against things like adjectives.

– The king of all rules is show don't tell, an experience rule, with a dash of philosophy. Note that some people online have no idea what show don't tell means.

– Take out the superfluous; if it is not doing work, cut it. This is one of Pound's rules, a rule learned from experience. It may be one of the most important rules to learn. This includes rules like avoid words like just, rather, and really.

– A bad rule I have come across, which may find origin in removing the superfluous but is taken so far it may be ex nihilo, although it might also be from the experience of a bad reader, is cut the word that.

– Related to "take out the superfluous" are rules about dialogue tags: for example, only use "said"; or never use adverbs with them. These are experience rules that often get taken to far. The reason it is related to "take out the superfluous" is because dialog tags should tend to not being seen rather than calling attention to themselves. In a poor or mediocre writer, many dialog tags can be cut.

– Be clear. Experiential, though, for White, wholly philosophical, coming out of the idea of writing being communication. Note that people talk about clarity in different ways, and clarity is, in general, a good thing; the way White talks about it is anchored in his philosophy.

– Related is the simpler the word, the better. A bad rule that might be style, particularly if based on social communication. Though it might be a touch philosophical if you read it in terms of such a as Strunk and White. Though, I wonder if at times it is software driven. On one such site I saw the substitution of use for utilize, two words which do not mean the same thing. This is a good example of where writing programs dumb down texts if not create errors in meaning.

– Possibly related, I have heard someone say don't use metaphors or similes, which has to be an ex nihilo rule, unless it was a style or market based rule based on the idea that poor readers will not understand.

– Also related is avoid detailed descriptions. It is experience based; but involves style, and can also be philosophical (S&W). Also, there is the rule never describe a character which is partially style based (based on an author's style) and partially philosophical (let readers imagine the characters as they would). Taking it to the extreme I have actually heard never describe, which may be ex nihilo.

– Use only short, simple, sentences. This is sometimes a style based rule, some people may be trying to apply rules from non-fiction or corporate writing or YA texts to fiction as a whole. But I am beginning to believe it is more and more market oriented.

– Be wary of dialect. An experience rule, for how out of control dialect reads so poorly.

 

Rules about the story

 

– Don't jump around with perspective. An experience rule.

– Avoid exposition / information dumps. An experiential rule. A good rule also in how less sophisticated readers do not hear why it can be bad.

– The same rule be clear also has application within the story. In the philosophical want to have a story as clear communication as possible, you do not permit ambiguities in plot as well as language.

– Every great story must involve change in the main character. This might be half experientially based (from observation) and half philosophical. It may derive from the ideas of three- and five-act structure. I find it an odd rule because it is patently untrue.

– You should never digress from your main plot line. This may be experiential, but may also be from market considerations.

 

Not all rules are about the text:

 

Rules about drafting

Mostly these are things from personal experience that get turned into rules and become bad rules in their attempt to universalize.

 

– Never correct or rewrite while drafting. A good example of where if you find the root idea you find something positive: do not get bogged down in getting it right. But as a general principle it is a good example of how what works for some does not work for others. Taken to the extreme you get the first draft is the best draft, which is entirely philosophical.

– Write an outline and stick to it. Probably a universalized experience rule. Very much forcing a writing style. Not everyone writes that way. And to say to stick to is taking it to the extreme.

– Develop back stories, etc. for your characters. Another experience rule.

– Write in a way that comes naturally. This is a bad Strunk and White rule that is philosophically driven. You should be writing in a way that creates the best text.

 

Rules about writing habits

Again, turning personal experience into a universal.

 

– Write every day. Which can be softened to write something every day.

– Stick to one genre. Which is market driven.

– Don't end the day on an ending, always leave with the motor running. This, actually, is a incredibly helpful rule.

– Don't read in your genre while you are working on a manuscript The idea is the fear you will become derivative through influence; though, there is to the other side the need to feed yourself.

 

Rules about the psychology of writing

Often you will find such advice in critical books written by authors; though, some online sources will go into this. Generally, I find them to be positive, though you have to keep in mind that psyches can work differently.

 

– Write for yourself, not for other people.

– Do not expect writing to be easy, and do not give up just because it gets hard.

– Find what works for you.

– Do not set unrealistic expectations.

 
 

In Close, General Principles

 

1) Distrust rules that say "never" or "always"; though, don't confuse "don't" with "never."

2) If it feels extreme, it probably is.

3) Pay attention to what kind of writing the rule may be addressing; and to who is saying the rule. This is very important in the internet world, where such considerations are ignored, and where things quickly get universalized.

4) Ask of a rule not "what is it telling me to do?" but "what can it teach me?" This is where rules become interesting, and where exploring them is the most profitable.

5) Anything that gets you thinking about writing is a good thing. Just keep in mind not everything people say is good.