The Art Of Writing

Filed under Proactive Writer.

Have you noticed the increasing number of writers who are becoming uncomfortable with the plethora of ‘Rules of Writing‘ articles and blog posts that have popped up in recent months?

To be honest I am not surprised…

For me there are two types of writers (two types of people). The first are those who see the world as one controlled by rules and laws. These types of writers/people like to measure, understand and categorise. They want to see a pattern behind the chaos. These are the people who drill down in Google Analytics to find the hidden data, they are the people who like to take things apart to see how they work and these are the people who want to know the Rules of Writing.

The problem stems from the fact that writing does have rules. It is controlled and structured by grammar and convention. We are taught these rules at school. We are taught how to write a sentence, form a paragraph and spell a word.

Yet the manner in which these conventions are viewed is one of the differences between the two types of writers. The first type of writer sees them as building blocks, the unbreakable foundations on which books are built.

The other sees them as just guidelines.

This second type of writer will hate the very concept that you can ‘define’ the Rules of Writing. This type of writer sees the rules as a straightjacket – they write from instinct and intuition. They write from the heart, not the head. They don’t want (or need) to make sense of the chaos, after all the chaos is just well…chaos. They write by instinct, in fact they live by instinct. Yes, they follow the rules (guidelines) but they don’t need them. These writers are the Romantics (in the classical sense). Their brains work differently, they see things differently. They feel things differently. This type of writer often has no need for plans and back plots. They just write, often in a fragmented manner, jumping from section to section, pecking out words in a seemingly random manner.

If we wanted to put names to these two types of writers then we could, though it is only the first type that would need (or want) them . However, since I am the first type I will referrer to them as the Mechanics and the Artists. I am the first type – a Mechanic, I like the rules, I want to see a pattern.

Yet the point of this post is to simply say there are two types of writers (two types of people). But there is no correct type of writer, just different types.

So the Rules of Writing are here to stay because the Mechanics (like me) need them! We will keep searching for the pattern, the secret, the magic formula. My advice to the Artists is to just humour us.

Are you a Mechanic or an Artist?

Need more actionable advice? Get your free weekly list of killer resources, straight to your inbox every Friday:

  • http://principlesoffailure.blogspot.com/ SHerdegen

    I see the rules as my training wheels; I use them when I don’t know what to do. They keep me from falling down until I have the experience to go without.

    I think you’ve got a good idea here by separating out two kinds of thinking on the subject, however, I don’t think most writers fall at the polar ends of the scale. I think most are mostly doing one or the other but not firmly committed to either camp.

    Thanks for the ideas.

    • garysmailes

      Writers do show characteristics of being both types of writers. I would love to to credit for splitting into two groups, but it was those ancient Greeks that came up with the idea. I just wanted people to see that there is more than one way to approaching the art of writing.

  • S.Callejo

    I think the rise in Creative Writing courses has spread the use of these “Rules”. Maybe those who stick to the guidelines have had a certain training or attended courses/workshops where they have been taught these methods will deliver a better product. And the struggle to be published pushes many writers to these courses, hence the increasing tendency to follow rules.
    I remember reading a book once where the author had deliberately deleted all punctuation marks. He was challenging the grammatical rules and his originality got him published.
    Maybe setting all these rules is a way of shepherding novice writers towards publishing, but it may also put a damper on intuition and originality.

    • garysmailes

      I believe that ‘writing rules’ and writing courses play a strong and important role in the development of writers. However, the rise of the internet has seen a lot of ‘writing rules’ that have very little substance to back them. My worry is that writers become confused with the plethora of choice!

  • http://www.lizfenwick.com liz

    Oh, do I have to confess – I have always been the artist type but I am trying to use the dark side to help the chaos a bit…I think as I have aged I see less clearly (or the creative spurt has slowed) I need the mechanics to help me through…

    • garysmailes

      I suspect we all fall somewhere between the two camps…

  • http://zlovers.blogspot.com Marcus

    I think that the “rules” that so many invent or repeat can certainly be helpful. Many rules I’ve read have helped me think deeper about my writing and analyze what I might be doing wrong.

    The thing I object to is not the rules themselves, but how they are so very often presented on various websites. They are presented as absolutes and people are told that if they deviate from the “rules” they are idiots, amateurs, not willing to put in the work to learn the Right Way to write, et cetera. And those who post them often act as if they have the final word on what the rules are, since they are Professional Writers (and all those who disagree are obviously amateurs).

    For instance, I recently saw a long post at a blog, with a stereotypical title along the lines of “10 Worst Mistakes of Inexperienced Writers” or something like that. The woman who wrote the post had written ten “mistakes” and rules that should be followed and got a lot of criticism in the comments. People were disagreeing with most of what she had written, but she didn’t budge. Her response was invariable along the lines of “I’ve written so and so many published books, I’ve been an editor for so and so many years – I know what I’m talking about, and obviously you don’t.”

    I see that attitude everywhere – people who in some way work in the field of creative writing and have published works think that they know exactly how things should be. Many seem completely unable to see that people have different taste in things like that.

    For instance, let’s look at Isaac freaking Asimov. If the woman I mentioned earlier (and many others who defend their personal set of rules) think that having published books and experience in the field lends you special insight into what is right and what is wrong in writing, then they have to acknowledge the words of Asimov. Among his other literary accomplishments, he had over 500 books published in his career – I don’t think any of the bloggers I’ve read beat that (their claims are usually along the lines of “I’ve written over a dozen books – I know what I’m talking about).

    Then consider Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is one of the most well-known, most read, most celebrated, most popular modern works of literature. So obviously, if people who have written a lot of books know exactly what is good and what is not, and Asimov wrote a lot of books, then Asimov must have agreed that Nineteen Eighty-Four is a good book, right? Wrong. He called it “an abominably poor book.”

    He didn’t just dislike it, he found it abominable. That’s a pretty strong word, from a man with a better claim to expertize in the matter than almost anyone in the world. But that doesn’t stop Nineteen Eighty-Four from being loved by millions.

    Whew, sorry for the long comment. I just wanted to say that all those “You shouldn’t write like that – I know what I’m talking about!”-people should remember that it’s very probable that not everyone agrees with them. Their word isn’t law.

    • garysmailes

      So you are a Mechanic?!! I like what you say about people not altering advice. I can safely say that the comments I get to posts make be think more than the original post! It is all about sharing knowledge and moving forward. Take today’s post, it came from a thought I had whilst reading a book. I decided to expand on it and share.

      I do worry that we are developing a ‘this is right, this is wrong’ online ecosystem. I don’t often blog about writing styles because I write differently from everyone one else I know! I think I would like writers to take away the message that they need to take ALL advice with a pitch of salt.

    • Kristen

      Asimov’s review does not take apart “1984″ on the quality of its writing and any technical authorial errors it might contain, but on its content and science, and hist taste. There is a huge difference between “Here are 10 common mistakes inexperienced writers make” and “Twilight blows because I hate vampires.”

      I honestly think I know the blog post you’re referring to. If so, notice that the people crying loudest against the advice are unpublished or self-published writers, and they’re arguing specifically against mistakes they’ve made in their own un/self-published work. The more a commenter invokes the greats or classics to justify their own mistakes, the more likely it is they don’t know why breaking the ‘rules’ worked for that author or that book, and why they’re doing it wrong.

  • http://principlesoffailure.blogspot.com/ SHerdegen

    I see the rules as my training wheels; I use them when I don’t know what to do. They keep me from falling down until I have the experience to go without.

    I think you’ve got a good idea here by separating out two kinds of thinking on the subject, however, I don’t think most writers fall at the polar ends of the scale. I think most are mostly doing one or the other but not firmly committed to either camp.

    Thanks for the ideas.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve tried writing out subplots first, graphically organizing characters, ect., but I find it difficult to find the character’s true voice when I box them in. For me, the writing that is the most productive is instinctual, I let the story take me where it wants to go allowing characters to develop in ways I could have never foreseen. Their voices ring true. I guess that puts me in the artist category.

    • garysmailes

      You sound like an Artist to me!

  • garysmailes

    Writers do show characteristics of being both types of writers. I would love to to credit for splitting into two groups, but it was those ancient Greeks that came up with the idea. I just wanted people to see that there is more than one way to approaching the art of writing.

  • http://nikperring.blogspot.com Nik Perring

    I’d like to think I’m an interesting mix of both. Actually, I’d just like to think I’m interesting!

    Seriously though, I’m definitely more of an ‘artist’ though I would say it’s extremely important to understand the rules and to understand why breaking them is okay.

    Great post, as always!

    Nik

    • garysmailes

      I suspect it may be a spectrum, but we all fall one side or the other.

      • http://nikperring.blogspot.com Nik Perring

        Definitely. There is a spectrum. I’m definitely on the artistic side of it, but (and I think this is crucial for me) I have worked very hard at studying and understanding the mechanics of it cos it’s a damn sight easier to use to use tools, even as an artist, if you know what they do!

        Nik

  • S.Callejo

    I think the rise in Creative Writing courses has spread the use of these “Rules”. Maybe those who stick to the guidelines have had a certain training or attended courses/workshops where they have been taught these methods will deliver a better product. And the struggle to be published pushes many writers to these courses, hence the increasing tendency to follow rules.
    I remember reading a book once where the author had deliberately deleted all punctuation marks. He was challenging the grammatical rules and his originality got him published.
    Maybe setting all these rules is a way of shepherding novice writers towards publishing, but it may also put a damper on intuition and originality.

  • garysmailes

    I believe that 'writing rules' and writing courses play a strong and important role in the development of writers. However, the rise of the internet has seen a lot of 'writing rules' that have very little substance to back them. My worry is that writers become confused with the plethora of choice!

  • http://www.lizfenwick.com liz

    Oh, do I have to confess – I have always been the artist type but I am trying to use the dark side to help the chaos a bit…I think as I have aged I see less clearly (or the creative spurt has slowed) I need the mechanics to help me through…

  • http://zlovers.blogspot.com Marcus

    I think that the “rules” that so many invent or repeat can certainly be helpful. Many rules I've read have helped me think deeper about my writing and analyze what I might be doing wrong.

    The thing I object to is not the rules themselves, but how they are so very often presented on various websites. They are presented as absolutes and people are told that if they deviate from the “rules” they are idiots, amateurs, not willing to put in the work to learn the Right Way to write, et cetera. And those who post them often act as if they have the final word on what the rules are, since they are Professional Writers (and all those who disagree are obviously amateurs).

    For instance, I recently saw a long post at a blog, with a stereotypical title along the lines of “10 Worst Mistakes of Inexperienced Writers” or something like that. The woman who wrote the post had written ten “mistakes” and rules that should be followed and got a lot of criticism in the comments. People were disagreeing with most of what she had written, but she didn't budge. Her response was invariable along the lines of “I've written so and so many published books, I've been an editor for so and so many years – I know what I'm talking about, and obviously you don't.”

    I see that attitude everywhere – people who in some way work in the field of creative writing and have published works think that they know exactly how things should be. Many seem completely unable to see that people have different taste in things like that.

    For instance, let's look at Isaac freaking Asimov. If the woman I mentioned earlier (and many others who defend their personal set of rules) think that having published books and experience in the field lends you special insight into what is right and what is wrong in writing, then they have to acknowledge the words of Asimov. Among his other literary accomplishments, he had over 500 books published in his career – I don't think any of the bloggers I've read beat that (their claims are usually along the lines of “I've written over a dozen books – I know what I'm talking about).

    Then consider Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is one of the most well-known, most read, most celebrated, most popular modern works of literature. So obviously, if people who have written a lot of books know exactly what is good and what is not, and Asimov wrote a lot of books, then Asimov must have agreed that Nineteen Eighty-Four is a good book, right? Wrong. He called it “an abominably poor book.”

    He didn't just dislike it, he found it abominable. That's a pretty strong word, from a man with a better claim to expertize in the matter than almost anyone in the world. But that doesn't stop Nineteen Eighty-Four from being loved by millions.

    Whew, sorry for the long comment. I just wanted to say that all those “You shouldn't write like that – I know what I'm talking about!”-people should remember that it's very probable that not everyone agrees with them. Their word isn't law.

  • garysmailes

    I suspect we all fall somewhere between the two camps…

  • garysmailes

    So you are a Mechanic?!! I like what you say about people not altering advice. I can safely say that the comments I get to posts make be think more than the original post! It is all about sharing knowledge and moving forward. Take today's post, it came from a thought I had whilst reading a book. I decided to expand on it and share.

    I do worry that we are developing a 'this is right, this is wrong' online ecosystem. I don't often blog about writing styles because I write differently from everyone one else I know! I think I would like writers to take away the message that they need to take ALL advice with a pitch of salt.

  • elizabethisaacs

    I've tried writing out subplots first, graphically organizing characters, ect., but I find it difficult to find the character's true voice when I box them in. For me, the writing that is the most productive is instinctual, I let the story take me where it wants to go allowing characters to develop in ways I could have never foreseen. Their voices ring true. I guess that puts me in the artist category.

  • http://nikperring.blogspot.com Nik Perring

    I'd like to think I'm an interesting mix of both. Actually, I'd just like to think I'm interesting!

    Seriously though, I'm definitely more of an 'artist' though I would say it's extremely important to understand the rules and to understand why breaking them is okay.

    Great post, as always!

    Nik

  • garysmailes

    You sound like an Artist to me!

  • garysmailes

    I suspect it may be a spectrum, but we all fall one side or the other.

  • http://nikperring.blogspot.com Nik Perring

    Definitely. There is a spectrum. I'm definitely on the artistic side of it, but (and I think this is crucial for me) I have worked very hard at studying and understanding the mechanics of it cos it's a damn sight easier to use to use tools, even as an artist, if you know what they do!

    Nik

  • Anonymous

    I agree with Nik in that one must understand the rules to break them. I also agree there are ‘Artists’ who create from the heart, who may or may not instinctively understand the rules, with the result that their output can be very hit or miss.

    You can see I am hoping to form a coalition government.

  • davidoconnorthompson

    I agree with Nik in that one must understand the rules to break them. I also agree there are 'Artists' who create from the heart, who may or may not instinctively understand the rules, with the result that their output can be very hit or miss.

    You can see I am hoping to form a coalition government.

  • Kristen

    I think of most rule/guideline sets as a helpful tool for figuring out what’s not working. When you’re picking at your finished draft, unable to put your finger on what exactly makes you want to pull your hair out, having a list to spark thoughts helps. Is my protagonist passive? Is the story structure working?

    Even if I don’t use every bit of advice I read or am given, they make me think objectively about the technical aspects of the story.

  • Kristen

    Asimov's review does not take apart “1984″ on the quality of its writing and any technical authorial errors it might contain, but on its content and science, and hist taste. There is a huge difference between “Here are 10 common mistakes inexperienced writers make” and “Twilight blows because I hate vampires.”

    I honestly think I know the blog post you're referring to. If so, notice that the people crying loudest against the advice are unpublished or self-published writers, and they're arguing specifically against mistakes they've made in their own un/self-published work. The more a commenter invokes the greats or classics to justify their own mistakes, the more likely it is they don't know why breaking the 'rules' worked for that author or that book, and why they're doing it wrong.

  • Kristen

    I think of most rule/guideline sets as a helpful tool for figuring out what's not working. When you're picking at your finished draft, unable to put your finger on what exactly makes you want to pull your hair out, having a list to spark thoughts helps. Is my protagonist passive? Is the story structure working?

    Even if I don't use every bit of advice I read or am given, they make me think objectively about the technical aspects of the story.

  • garysmailes

    This is, in essence, the age old debate of science vs art. There are one group of people who feel that the creation of anything can be repeated by following a set of defined rules. This is science, but it is also self help books, business manuals and ‘how to’ guides. There are a second group of people who feel the creation of anything is art. They feel that the act of creating is an undefinable, and often, unrepeatable act.

    The reality is somewhere between with rules allowing creation, but the magical instinctual extra factor turning this into art.

  • garysmailes

    This is, in essence, the age old debate of science vs art. There are one group of people who feel that the creation of anything can be repeated by following a set of defined rules. This is science, but it is also self help books, business manuals and 'how to' guides. There are a second group of people who feel the creation of anything is art. They feel that the act of creating is an undefinable, and often, unrepeatable act.

    The reality is somewhere between with rules allowing creation, but the magical instinctual extra factor turning this into art.