Great Writers Ignore Writing Rules

Filed under Proactive Writer.

I came across this quote in Robert Pirsig’s Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance:

And he became convinced that all the writers the students were supposed to mimic wrote without rules, putting down whatever sounded right, then going back to see if it still sounded right and changing it if it didn’t.

Is this true? Do all great writers write free of rules? Is the difference that great writers invent their own rules?

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

  • http://twitter.com/harrymarkov Harry Markov

    I think that to be able to make new rules, one must know the old ones first. It is only through sound foundation that one can push the evolution of an art form. Unless you are a genius. Then whatever thing you write will be recognized as innovative and you can do that without the practice of the cannon rules.

    • garysmailes

      I agree! Breaking rules is the sign of a great writer. The question is should we be following the new rules they invent?

      • ilma fathnurfirda

        whatever suit you. i think if the rules fits me better, i’ll choose to use the new rules :p

  • http://evbishop.wordpress.com Ev

    I think there’s some truth in the idea that the great writers do what they want, regardless of the so-called rules–and their work becomes the “rules” others are supposed to emulate . . .

    Ah, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Suddenly I’m 16 again!

    • garysmailes

      I am re-reading Zen after a span of ten years – still a great book!

  • http://twitter.com/leatherdykeuk leatherdykeuk

    Do all great writers write free of rules? Is the difference that great writers invent their own rules? Yes, but the not-so-great writers then hit stumbling blocks called editors.

    • garysmailes

      I suspect this is a pretty accurate summary!

  • Anonymous

    Or is it that great writers naturally know what works and what doesn’t so the need for rules becomes unnecessary? Then others look at these writers and devise rules from there in the hope that we can all write like the masters.

    • garysmailes

      I think so!

  • http://www.therosemoirs.co.uk Rosiebunny

    There was actually a “discussion” about this in my degree writing class. One of the students said he felt he was wasting his time learning ways to write effectively, because he wanted to write in a different style. The lecturer said you need to learn the rules, and then you can start breaking. Things got a bit heated and, after some “discussion” over which of them would win the booker prize, the student walked out with the lecturer shouting “see you at the booker prize” after him. Neither of them have won the booker prize, yet.
    I think I’m on the “know the rules, then break them” side of the fence. Manipulating and twisting a way of doing things has a greater impact then ignoring it completely. There’s a poem by Larkin which starts in a strict form and then begins to break away, in line with the subject of the poem. This bending of the rules of the form gives greater impact to the subject of the poem.
    I do think it is possible to write well without knowing any rules or even that they exist, but it takes a natural talent and special voice, and most people aren’t lucky enough to have that!

    • garysmailes

      What I find really interesting about the quote was the implication that ‘great’ writers make up their own rules as they go. I wonder if great writers are content driven and therefore use rules as and when needed?

  • http://averyoslo.wordpress.com Avery Oslo

    I think it’s a combination of things other commenters have said: Rules are only necessary for writers that aren’t fantastic.

    However, I don’t know many truly fantastic writers. Most published writers are published because they are hard workers and have put in the hours reading, editing, writing, platform-building, website maintaining, networking, and helping others. Rules seem kind of a moot point here because so few truly fantastic rule-circumventing writers ever make it to the publishing point because effort seems to trump inborn talent, and those gifted genius writers rarely tend to see the value of putting in effort.

    Therefore, we rarely see great writing that transcends or creates rules, and we must speculate on how this whole rules business works.

    • garysmailes

      Are you saying that writing rules apply to ‘normal’ writers and the indicator of a great writer is that they can ignore rules?

  • http://twitter.com/harrymarkov Harry Markov

    I think that to be able to make new rules, one must know the old ones first. It is only through sound foundation that one can push the evolution of an art form. Unless you are a genius. Then whatever thing you write will be recognized as innovative and you can do that without the practice of the cannon rules.

  • http://evbishop.wordpress.com Ev

    I think there's some truth in the idea that the great writers do what they want, regardless of the so-called rules–and their work becomes the “rules” others are supposed to emulate . . .

    Ah, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Suddenly I'm 16 again!

  • http://twitter.com/leatherdykeuk leatherdykeuk

    Do all great writers write free of rules? Is the difference that great writers invent their own rules? Yes, but the not-so-great writers then hit stumbling blocks called editors.

  • writersblocknz

    Or is it that great writers naturally know what works and what doesn't so the need for rules becomes unnecessary? Then others look at these writers and devise rules from there in the hope that we can all write like the masters.

  • http://www.therosemoirs.co.uk Rosiebunny

    There was actually a “discussion” about this in my degree writing class. One of the students said he felt he was wasting his time learning ways to write effectively, because he wanted to write in a different style. The lecturer said you need to learn the rules, and then you can start breaking. Things got a bit heated and, after some “discussion” over which of them would win the booker prize, the student walked out with the lecturer shouting “see you at the booker prize” after him. Neither of them have won the booker prize, yet.
    I think I'm on the “know the rules, then break them” side of the fence. Manipulating and twisting a way of doing things has a greater impact then ignoring it completely. There's a poem by Larkin which starts in a strict form and then begins to break away, in line with the subject of the poem. This bending of the rules of the form gives greater impact to the subject of the poem.
    I do think it is possible to write well without knowing any rules or even that they exist, but it takes a natural talent and special voice, and most people aren't lucky enough to have that!

  • http://willwriteforcake.com Mr Uku

    I think it depends on exactly which rules we are talking about and the story you’re telling
    I recently wrote about how I’d got stuck and confused by all the rules surrounding planning. I overcame them by learning them all first and ignoring the ones that either made no sense or that didn’t work for me. Maybe that’s what it means to ignore the rules. You just ignore the ones that you can’t fathom a good reason for and fill the gap with your own.

    • garysmailes

      I suspect you are correct… but this brings us back to great writing being content driven and only using rules as control devices.

  • http://averyoslo.wordpress.com Avery Oslo

    I think it's a combination of things other commenters have said: Rules are only necessary for writers that aren't fantastic.

    However, I don't know many truly fantastic writers. Most published writers are published because they are hard workers and have put in the hours reading, editing, writing, platform-building, website maintaining, networking, and helping others. Rules seem kind of a moot point here because so few truly fantastic rule-circumventing writers ever make it to the publishing point because effort seems to trump inborn talent, and those gifted genius writers rarely tend to see the value of putting in effort.

    Therefore, we rarely see great writing that transcends or creates rules, and we must speculate on how this whole rules business works.

  • http://twitter.com/MaikeruGuren Michael Glenn

    Rosiebunny and everyone else who mentioned something similar have the right idea. In order to ignore or invent new rules, you have to first know and understand the rules, why they may or may not apply to your work, and then make proper judgment whether to use them or not. You could probably say the same for artists and designers of all types as well.

    So, in a sense, you’re right. Great writers can and do write free of rules because of their experience with the written word. They learn through their mistakes, revise, and do it all over again until it has their personal stamp on it.

    • garysmailes

      So is it correct that other not-so-great writers should apply these same rules to their own work?

      • http://twitter.com/MaikeruGuren Michael Glenn

        My own ambiguity makes this hard to answer! If you refer to the the rule of ignoring the rules, then I’m at a crossroads. Writing and revising, which is what the quote describes, would help the ‘not-so-great’ writer become a ‘great’ writer through the experience of their mistakes, but only if they are objective enough to first admit they have made mistakes. It all seems to point back to trial and error, whether you are a ‘great’ writer or a ‘not-so-great’ writer. After all, aren’t the constant mistakes and experiences of others what make rules? Even if you don’t follow a hard set of rules, through revision you come to make your own set of rules and that eventually shapes your voice, right?Gah, I hope I’m not talking in circles. I’m still new to all of this.

  • http://willwriteforcake.com Mr Uku

    I think it depends on exactly which rules we are talking about and the story you're telling
    I recently wrote about how I'd got stuck and confused by all the rules surrounding planning. I overcame them by learning them all first and ignoring the ones that either made no sense or that didn't work for me. Maybe that's what it means to ignore the rules. You just ignore the ones that you can't fathom a good reason for and fill the gap with your own.

  • http://twitter.com/MaikeruGuren Michael Glenn

    Rosiebunny and everyone else who mentioned something similar have the right idea. In order to ignore or invent new rules, you have to first know and understand the rules, why they may or may not apply to your work, and then make proper judgment whether to use them or not. You could probably say the same for artists and designers of all types as well.

    So, in a sense, you're right. Great writers can and do write free of rules because of their experience with the written word. They learn through their mistakes, revise, and do it all over again until it has their personal stamp on it.

  • garysmailes

    What I find really interesting about the quote was the implication that 'great' writers make up their own rules as they go. I wonder if great writers are content driven and therefore use rules as and when needed?

  • garysmailes

    So is it correct that other not-so-great writers should apply these same rules to their own work?

  • garysmailes

    I suspect you are correct… but this brings us back to great writing being content driven and only using rules as control devices.

  • garysmailes

    Are you saying that writing rules apply to 'normal' writers and the indicator of a great writer is that they can ignore rules?

  • garysmailes

    I think so!

  • garysmailes

    I suspect this is a pretty accurate summary!

  • garysmailes

    I am re-reading Zen after a span of ten years – still a great book!

  • garysmailes

    I agree! Breaking rules is the sign of a great writer. The question is should we be following the new rules they invent?

  • http://twitter.com/MaikeruGuren Michael Glenn

    My own ambiguity makes this hard to answer! If you refer to the the rule of ignoring the rules, then I'm at a crossroads. Writing and revising, which is what the quote describes, would help the 'not-so-great' writer become a 'great' writer through the experience of their mistakes, but only if they are objective enough to first admit they have made mistakes.

    It all seems to point back to trial and error, whether you are a 'great' writer or a 'not-so-great' writer. After all, aren't the constant mistakes and experiences of others what make rules? Even if you don't follow a hard set of rules, through revision you come to make your own set of rules and that eventually shapes your voice, right?

    Gah, I hope I'm not talking in circles. I'm still new to all of this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/deetopia Dyah Utami

    I think all writing rules can be ignored but, one: “don’t be boring.”

  • ilma fathnurfirda

    well, some people choose to ignore the rules. just by meaning to find something out of the box. but how can you be out of the box if you don’t know the box itself. and yes it is true, sometime writing with rules can be difficult. but when you mastered the rules everything will be easier. 

    i think this book was written when the author already mastered the rules…