the rules of writing

That’s Too Much: The Problem with Prolific Writers

by

This post by Drew Nellins Smith originally appeared on The Millions on 9/2/15.

Lately I’ve been struck by the notion that there might be no books more lost than those buried in the overwhelming bibliographies of authors who have simply published too damn much.

On Thursday, The New York Times published an op-ed defense of prolific writers by one of the modern era’s most prolific writers himself, Stephen King. It was a timely bit of writing for me, a non-prolific writer with a first book deal in the works, for whom the question of appropriate literary output is often debated.

In King’s take, which is certainly worth a read, he basically argues two things. One, that there are great works buried in the overwhelming bibliographies of some writers. (i.e. “Alexandre Dumas wrote ‘The Count of Monte Cristo’ and ‘The Three Musketeers’ — and some 250 other novels.”) And two, that for some authors, like him and Joyce Carol Oates, “prolificacy is sometimes inevitable.” He describes the crazy-making clamor of the voices in his head since his youth, all the stories crying out to be written.

 

Read the full post on The Millions.

 

I Don't Tolerate Poor Grammar

by

This essay by Cheryl Connor originally appeared on Forbes on 10/21/12.

And I’m not alone. Even the Wall Street Journal agrees.

Poor grammar and writing is an epidemic in the workplace. While the era of social media and texting has caused many to believe it’s a problem they couldn’t resolve, a number of businesses are finally finding the nerve to crack down. A recent HBR article by Kyle Wiens, I Won’t Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar, noted wryly that in his company, anyone who thinks an apostrophe was one of the 12 apostles or who tosses commas around with the abandon of a shotgun would be fortunate to find their way to the foyer before he shows them the door.

His article drew 3,013 comments (ironically, many of them taking him to task for ending a sentence with a preposition and referring to “company” in the plural, a convention that while common in American English is apparently still frowned upon overseas.) Which brings up another point – have you ever noticed how much argument a discussion of grammar inspires? It seems the “grammar police” are most vigilant about the 1-2 archaic rules they hold dear, while they blithely break or ignore the dozens of rules they don’t know.

 

Read the full post on Forbes.

 

In Fiction, Nothing Is Forbidden, Everything Is Permitted

by

This post by Chuck Wendig originally appeared on his terribleminds site on 5/12/14. Note: this piece contains strong language.

In other words: “Fuck the rules.”

WHOA, JEEZ, ME. SLOW YOUR ROLL, WENDIG.

Okay, so, at cons and conferences — or via e-mail — someone inevitably mentions in a question something that writer is “not supposed to do.” This person has been reliably and repeatedly informed at some point that This Particular Thing is Fucking Anathema, a Dealbreaker Of Epic Narrative Proportions, and to Do This Shitty Thing is Tantamount To Kicking A Baby Down A Flight Of Steps Into A Pile Of Burning Books. (No, I don’t know why I capitalized a bunch of those words, but it felt good at the time. This is probably appropriate given the post I am about to write.)

This can be anything, really.

Don’t open on weather.

Don’t open with a character looking in a mirror.

Don’t open on a character just waking up.

Never ever use an adverb ever.

(Related: “In Writing, There Are Rules, And Then There Are Rules.”)

And for all that’s fucking holy, writing a prologue is a major biggum no-no, on par with and as pleasant as prolapsing one’s anus. You may in fact be told that a Prologue killed Jesus in the Gospel According To… I don’t remember. Dave, maybe. Dan? Eh.

 

Click here to read the full post on terribleminds.