Rules for Writers | Hacker News Reader

Rules for Writers

locusmag.com

77 pointsfanf215 comments

> It took me an admittedly very long time to reach this conclusion, and I think it’s because the standard wisdom goes something like, “In order to break the rules, you must first master them.” That threw me off. If, instead, the writers and books I’d learned from had said, “These things are much harder to get right, so if your story goes wrong, try replacing them with something easier,” I’d have come to my epiphany far earlier.

This really is a much better way of framing the classic "master the rules before you break them" principle. It certainly applies to other creative disciplines outside of writing, as well.

The Turkey City Lexicon described in the article can be found here: https://www.sfwa.org/2009/06/18/turkey-city-lexicon-a-primer... It is an interesting collection of problems that can arise in science fiction writing.

> “Call a Rabbit a Smeerp“

Game of Thrones is famously full of that.

> "Idiot Plot"

Probably the most tiresome, as I see it constantly. It normally manifests itself as a squad goes into a dangerous situation, and then all split off and wander around on their own. Eventually, most get back together, then wonder "Where's Bob? Did anyone see where Bob went?" and of course, Bob has gotten into big trouble.

"The Walking Dead" was so full of this lazy trope I gave up watching it.

(From the referenced Turkey City Lexicon.)

Also, unsurprisingly, from TV Tropes[0,1]

[0]https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CallARabbitASmee...

[1]https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotPlot

Well, they're not from TV Tropes; TV Tropes is referencing the same source material that Cory Doctorow is.

I disagree regarding Game of Thrones. For me, its major sin is cod-medieval spellings — "Ser Jaime misliked his pease porridge" — and invented idioms — "much and more", "mummer's farce", "nipples on a breastplate". It's usually OK about calling a horse a horse and a sword a sword, and only deviating when there's a genuine difference between something and it's real-world equivalent, such as distinguishing leprosy from greyscale due to the latter's semi-magical effects.

Why are those sins? In my opinion they give the book's world its distinctive character.

I think why it works in Game of Thrones is that it’s used both sparingly and in ways that feel like an alternate-universe feudal European society might plausibly coin them. “Brother-by-law” and “sister-by-law” are particular examples of coinage that feel realistically archaic and foreign, yet aren’t arbitrary “smeerp” words, either.

"ringmail" comes to mind, as well as "bend the knee".

I find myself torn regarding the popular prescription against "said-bookisms". While I try to follow it in my own writing, it is the case that much real-world English speech uses a limited vocabulary and relies on tone of voice to carry meaning. As such, simple dialogue described by verbs like "hissed", "grunted", "whined", etc. better reflects how people really speak than more literary alternatives, and there is a trade-off in verisimilitude that comes from relying entirely on words to convey mood.

What I tend to find most effective in supporting otherwise-minimal dialog is to focus on facial expressions and body language. Compare this:

“You renewed the certs, right?” asked Alice.

“I think I did,” stammered Bob.

To this:

”You renewed the certs, right?” Alice said, eyes fixed on her screen as she typed something into a terminal window.

Bob looked up from his laptop, eyes suddenly wide. “I think I did,” he said, a panicked look slowly coming over his face.

Yet another case of mistaking principles for rules. Principles are guides, you go outside of them when you are experienced enough to know why they set the boundaries where they do.

Rules are inflexible. This makes them simpler, and inferior for guiding people.

> Rules are inflexible

Most people aren't this pedantic and implicitly interpret rules as breakable, that's why we have sayings like "rules are meant to be broken" and "the exception that proves the rule". Generally the enforcement bodies of any set of rules, like courts and police will have a lot of discretion on when and how to apply them.

Depending on which definition of principle you want to use the can also be a lot stricter than rules, looking at some definitions online "A basic truth, law, or assumption.", "a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion", " the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device". So substitution principle for rule would make things less clear.

Most people are far more cavalier about breaking rules than principles.

I would find this article more credible if the author was a decent writer.

"All of what follows has been said before. If you are interested enough in writing to be a purchaser of this magazine, you will have either heard or read all (or almost all) of it before. Thousands of writing courses are taught across the United States each year; seminars are convened; guest lecturers talk, then answer questions, then drink as many gin and tonics as their expense-fees will allow, and it all boils down to what follows.

I am going to tell you these things again because often people will only listen – really listen – to someone who makes a lot of money doing the thing he’s talking about. This is sad but true." - Stephen King

https://www.aerogrammestudio.com/2015/02/24/stephen-king-eve...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com