THE Group for Authors! discussion

I am currently writing a novel in the first person. It is the second in a series of novels which is semi-autobiographic. There are a lot of facts mixed in with a generous dose of fiction to keep things interesting.
When I wrote the first novel ("AZZY") I was very lucky to have a small team of 'readers' who helped me enormously to clean up the text and made it a much better book.

This team is now reviewing my new novel ("SUZI") as I write the chapters. My problem is this. One of my reviewers continually criticises me for stating things from 'my POV' - i.e. the main character's point of view. She tells me that she would rather read it as though I was a narrator, rather than as me thinking, feeling and doing everything. There is barely a scene in the entire book (except occasionally in reported conversation) in which I am not present.

To give you an example, if I write: "I looked along the bar and saw two girls sitting there" She tells me it should read: "There were two girls sitting at the bar."

I wish I could understand why she finds the use of 'I' so objectionable and wants me to remove it whenever possible - after all, the stories are about me and my life. Even if I was in writing in the third person, I would still be inclined to write: "He looked along the bar…."

I could understand her point more if the first person was more in the nature of a genuine narrator, as in such novels as the Great Gatsby or Sherlock Homes, where one of the 'lesser' characters is telling the story of the main character. But this is clearly not the case in my novels. The series is entitled "The six Wives of Mobi D'Ark" and they are about Mobi (me) and my six wives.

Nobody else has raised this as an issue and I am confused. Is there some 'rule' about this when writing in the third person that I am not aware of? It's not a big deal either way, but I find it irritating that she always suggest that I correct my text to remove the dreaded ' I' whenever possible.

Anyone?

Yes, there is a rule. Of sorts. It's called "filtering". It's not unique to first person, but it tends to crop up in that POV more often than in third.

Filtering is when you describe an action filtered through someone else's eyes or ears. The example you gave is a good one. "There were two girls sitting at the bar" is a good direct unfiltered sentence. The reader gets the information undiluted without anyone else getting in the way.

On the other hand, if you say "I saw two girls sitting at the bar", you have added the "I saw" element. Does the sentence need it? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If you are writing in first person, then the reader will know that everything your character sees is seen by you. It can get very tedious very quickly if you go through a first person story constantly saying "I saw" and "I heard".

Filtering isn't always bad. It can work if the action of you seeing something carries some extra information or meaning. For example: "I was horrified to see two women at the bar".

But as a general rule, the act of your main character seeing things and hearing things can be assumed and (usually) does not need to be said.

This can be a little hard to spot because it is cumulative. One or two filtering sentences are generally okay. But if you fill your book with them it can get on a reader's nerves.

I can't be definite without seeing your writing, but from what you have said I think your reviewer may have a point. It is not so much about you being present or not - the narrator should always be present in first person POV. It is not so much about the word "I". It seems to be because you are filtering when you don't need to.

I hope that helps. Feel free to drop me a PM if you want to go into it in detail.

That helps a lot. Thank you very much.

You have done what my reviewer failed to do - explain her reasoning in a way I can understand. It is now quite clear, (and pretty obvious, I suppose), and I can see that she is correct.

Thanks for the offer of a PM, it is very kind of you. I might take you up at some stage.

To be fair to your reviewer, she might not have known about filtering. She may just have felt that something was bothering her and she didn't know quite what was causing it. Filtering is a pretty arcane rule that isn't widely known.

I guess. I did an internet search and couldn't find anything on this point.

I've always believed that rules are made to be broken, but I guess the truth is that you have to know and understand the rules before you try to break them - or, you are a very gifted writer who doesn't need rules....alas, we're not all Austen or Hemingway

Found these for you. The trick is to search for something like writing filtering and not just filtering. Otherwise you will get lots of websites trying to sell you water filters!

http://writeitsideways.com/are-these-...

http://www.scribophile.com/academy/an...

Two great links - I knew all about adverbs but hadn't come across filtering. I've learnt a lot today.

However, I notice one of the examples was within a piece of dialogue. Surely dialogue should portray what that character would say in real life? If he/she uses 'filters' in their speech, then it would be wrong to remove them. The same goes for any broken 'writing rules' in realistic speech. You can't edit what someone might say unless it doesn't ring true.

Dialogue is tricky. Our first thoughts are that dialogue ought to be realistic. It should be what someone would actually say. So that means that the rules about writing don't apply, right? Anything goes?

Unfortunately, while that might be theoretically true it doesn't work too well in practice. The writing rules are there to help readers and that applies as much to dialogue as to any other kind of writing.

It is rarely a good idea to write entirely realistic dialogue. If you listen to what people actually say it is usually a mix of ums and ahs and incomplete sentences. A reader can quickly get bored of that sort of writing and will only give us a small amount of leeway because it is dialogue.

The usual advice on dialogue is that it ought to be an augmented version of reality. It needs to reflect your character's personality, but it also needs to be snappy. Yes, it needs to ring true but only by giving a hint of personality or accent.

Say that you have a character who stutters. You might be tempted to have him or her stuttering several times in every sentence because that is realistic. But if it turns readers off it can be counter-productive. Instead it is usually better to aim for just the right amount of stuttering to get the point across, but not so much that your reader is tempted into a book-wall incident.

For me, filtering is just as much an issue in dialogue as it is in description. Possibly even more so. Dialogue needs to sparkle and filtering tends to make everything just a little bit duller.

By its very nature, first-person POV is impossible to write without using "I." I can see the filtering points made here by others - employing them will help to vary your writing. And in business resumes and bios, we are warned to avoid starting every sentence or paragraph with "I this..." and "I that..." so as not to sound egocentric. But it could also be, too, that your friend is not the ideal reader for one engaged in first-person POV stories. Not everyone is cut out to be the best critic of every given work. I think you'll be looking for a balance between your friend's abhorrence of the use of "I" and the pointers given here. Good luck!

It's wise that you have a team of manuscript readers. Their comments will help you to find that balance.

There are public speaking and professional writing books, articles, seminars and courses available on-line, through public libraries and community colleges, at little or no cost, that include information and exercises specifically designed to overcome and avoid the I Syndrome.

That's great, Will, and your post puts it into proper perspective.

My previous novel was set in Nigeria, and all of the Nigerians spoke pidgin English.

Some of my reviewers loved it, as it gave the story a sense of realism, whereas others felt it slowed the pace of the story as they spent time in trying to understand what was being said.

I ended up with a compromise, which still kept the dialogue in Pidgin, but not so pronounced that it slowed comprehension. That seemed to keep everyone happy.

The truth is that if I had written in real hard-core Pidjin, hardly anyone would have understood it.

A friend of mine is writing a novel set in Russia at the time of the revolution. He has come in for criticism for not differentiating the dialogue between the upper classes and the proletariat. I recall from my Tolstoy and Dotseivski days, that English translators tended to use London cockney, as a rough equivalent of Russian working class dialect. It seemed to work well.

For my novels set in Thailand, I use broken English, (but not too broken), for Thais speaking English, but normal English when I am
relating dialogue spoken in Thai, but translated (by me) into English.

It's an interesting subject, and I can see that what you have said makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

(As you can see, I really don't know the rules and I am writing by instinct and the "seat of my pants".

Thank you, Sally. I think you are correct that my "I" hater is probably not the best person to read I POV stories. She has pretty much said as much. I am sure that if I had written in the 3rd person she would be more engaged. Nevertheless, she has raised the issue, and I can see her point (of view...) It is interesting that nobody else has raised it as an issue, either in my current book or my previous book.

Of course you are correct that I need a balance, and I think I succeeded in doing that in my last novel.

I'm just trying to understand the points they raise rather than just blindly changing the text to keep them satisfied.

Hence my conversation here, which has already been extremely helpful.

Jim wrote: "There are public speaking and professional writing books, articles, seminars and courses available on-line, through public libraries and community colleges, at little or no cost, that include infor..."

Thanks Jim.

One of the best (and frankly only) book I have read on the
'art of creative writing' is Stephen King's "On Writing".There is a host of great tips in there, the main one being, "read, read and read."

Interestingly he more or less rubbishes courses that teach you how to write, even though he admits he taught at some himself in his earlier years. But that's another subject.

Will wrote: "Dialogue is tricky. Our first thoughts are that dialogue ought to be realistic. It should be what someone would actually say. So that means that the rules about writing don't apply, right? Anything..."

Hi Will, Further to my earlier post, below, may I ask what your view is concerning the use of cliches and bad grammar in dialogue?

Most people's dialogue is full of cliches and also a fair bit of bad grammar. Is it wrong to include this in my dialogue? Cliches and bad grammar don't slow the flow of reading.

Use sparingly, like putting salt and pepper on your food. A little goes a long way.

We don't want all our characters to speak perfect English. That would be unrealistic. But it would be almost impossible to read photo-realistic speech. So we need to include some cliche and bad grammar into a character's speech to express their character, but not so much that it becomes hard to read.

This is DH Lawrence giving Mellors (the gamekeeper) a bit too much local colour in Lady Chatterley's Lover:

‘I mean as ‘appen Ah can find anuther pleece, as’ll du for rearin’ th’ pheasants. If yer want ter be ‘ere, yo’ll non want me messin’ abaht a’ th’ time.’

I grew up in Nottinghamshire, so I can understand all this. But it's very difficult to read page after page of this sort of dialogue. A more modern interpretation would be to thin down the accent:

"Happen, I can find another place for rearing the pheasants. If yer want to be there, you'll not want me messing abart at the time."

That gives just a hint of the way that Mellors speaks but tones it down for the reader. I'm not saying that my version is right and Lawrence's was wrong - just that the second version is the more modern way of dealing with it.

Another example, and one that gave me a giggle. Here's an extract from a Taylor Swift song:

I used to say, "Never say never..."
Uggg... so he calls me up and he's like, "I still love you,"
And I'm like... "I just... I mean this is exhausting, you know, like,
We are never getting back together. Like, ever"

That's four "likes" in four sentences. I have no doubt that's how some people speak these days, but you probably wouldn't want to include one "like" per sentence in all of your dialogue. One or two "likes" per page would be enough to give the sense of the repetition without overwhelming the reader.

Cliches are trickier. People do speak in cliches, but that doesn't give us a free pass to use them in dialogue. They can irritate the reader. So again the general rule is to use just enough to season your dialogue and express character, but not so much that it becomes too salty.

Personally, I try to avoid cliche in dialogue unless I am making a point. I generally limit bad grammar, accents and "colour" words to no more than one per sentence. Approx.

Will wrote: "Use sparingly, like putting salt and pepper on your food. A little goes a long way.

We don't want all our characters to speak perfect English. That would be unrealistic. But it would be almost imp..."

Good advice as usual Will. Loved the Lawrence example

I tend to think that cliches belong only in dialogue (but agreed, sparingly). (I'm thinking of cliches here more as idiomatic expressions.) We don't want cliches in our narrative, but a certain cliche used regularly by a certain character does lend a certain color to that particular character.

As an example, one of my great aunts, who lived away Down East in Maine on the Canadian border (where the letter "r" is only rarely employed by the natives), had a favorite expression for any news, good or bad: "Well, ain't that orful!"

I am working with this dialect/regional accent issue in a chapter of my current novel-in-progress, in which my main character visits a native with a heavy Down East accent. Indeed, my main character himself has a tough time understanding him until he has listened for a while, letting his brain find the speech patterns. I have sent this chapter to a few non-Downeasters to see if they understand it. I have had mixed comments, and I think I need to send it to others for more feedback, and smooth out some of the accent areas.

I've read somewhere that you pick a few key words to retain in their original accent, with the odd spelling that (hopefully) conveys the flavor of the dialect (the salt-and-pepper seasoning that Will suggests above), and use standard English for the rest of the speaker's speech.

As you have noticed, Mobi, there really isn't much in the way of hard and fast rules (the basics of English grammar notwithstanding, to be followed more assiduously in non-fiction). The books out there on craft can be quite helpful and provide considerable guidance, but in the end, you've got to write the story, and your story line and your characters have got to work cooperatively to help you do it, to stay true to them and to yourself.

For me, Stephen King is one of the masters of dialogue. This is a quote from The Stand. Sheriff Baker is talking to Nick Andros who has just been beaten up:

"When I was a boy, we killed ourselves a mountain lion up in the hills, gutted it, and dragged it back to town. What was left of that critter was the sorriest sight I ever seen. You the second sorriest, boy."

This has just a hint of an accent ... "we killed ourselves", "that critter", "I ever seen", "You the second sorriest, boy".

It's the little details that you almost don't notice. He doesn't say "you ARE the second sorriest". The "are" is implied.

"I ever seen" is grammatically incorrect - it should be "I have ever seen". But it is much more evocative as "I ever seen".

It looks blindingly simple, but it is really hard to make dialogue as zingy as this whilst still being true to the character. It would be so easy to mess this up by cramming in too many accents or ums and ahs.

Excellent example!

Many thanks to Will and Sally - wonderful stuff.

I think I have been mainly following your guidelines, but it's good to read your posts as it helps to concentrate the mind (cliche). I will bear it in mind, particularly at the editing stage, to ensure I've got the balance right.

These days, there's some good editing software that hunts down cliches amongst other stuff and makes the manual editing job easier, but of course never replaces it.

BTW, Will, I hope you don't mind but I copied your comments about POV and "I" to my reviewer who kept raising the issue and she told me that she wishes she was clever enough to explain it as succinctly as you did. so thanks again.

Steven King is a born writer, even though I am not particularly keen on the subject matter of most of his novels. "The Shining" for me stands out as a great piece of writing.

That is why I put so much store on his advice in "On Writing". A great story of his life and his struggles, as well as some wonderful tips on how to write well.

Will, this is good advice in general. My gripe is that so-called cliches have been given a bad rap. Not everything that has been used more than once is a cliche. And how can readers be annoyed by reading dialogue that has cliches in it when they hear people talking that way all the time? It sounds natural, which is what dialogue should sound like. I use cliches in narrative as well as dialogue—sparingly of course—because they have one big thing going for them: if you use one nobody will misunderstand what you mean. And the intent of good writing is to convey clearly what you mean. Who would misunderstand the sentence, “This hill will be here until hell freezes over.”?

It depends what you want from your writing. If all you want is to convey meaning and not be misunderstood, then there is nothing wrong with using cliches.

But good writing is about far more than conveying information. A piece of dialogue is a chance for a writer to do two things at once. It is the literary equivalent of a "buy one get one free" offer at the supermarket. You get the chance to say whatever your character wants to say and you also get the chance to show a little bit about the character speaking the dialogue.

The problem with cliches is that they are dull and flat. "Until hell freezes over" has been said so many times that it doesn't give an impression of the thing you are describing or the person who is saying it. It's toothpaste. Warm beer. White bread. Yes, I can understand it but I'm not excited by it.

Here's a piece of dialogue from Gollum in the Lord of the Rings:

“We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!”

Tolkien is using the dialogue to move the story on, but also to tell us more about Gollum's character. If instead he had used cliches, it would have told us nothing about Gollum.

A sentence like "This hill will be here until hell freezes over" for me has the ring of a first draft when I can't think of anything better to say. I would almost certainly want to tighten it up for the second draft.

Agreed. It was a poor example. But if it’s the way that character speaks, then it makes sense. Example: The lyric “Mr. Peabody’s coal train has hauled it away” doesn’t ring true to the dialogue one would hear in the Tennessee coal country where the song is placed. He would have done better to have used “Mr. Peabody’s coal train done hauled it away.” That’s the way people talk in the Tennessee hill country. Your point is, however, well taken. I wouldn’t use that either. What I did use once was, “That’ll be the day the devil goes ice skating in his back yard.” Conveys the same idea but in more original language.

G. wrote: “That’ll be the day the devil goes ice skating in his back yard.”

Now there's an image! I like it! Wonderful rewriting/rethinking of an old cliché.

One of the most notable writers in the first person who breaks almost every writing rule in the book is the late, great, Damon Runyon.

He uses gangster slang throughout and writes exclusively in the present tense. The narrator is just 'someone around' so the stories are not written from the narrator's point of view. Runyon's writing is a masterclass of how to write in highly stylised, idiosyncratic English to great effect - particularly as far as humour is concerned.

Masters of the art of writing can break the 'rules' with impunity, but journeymen hackers like me are best advised to stick to what we are taught. Every time I try to write a piece in an 'original' way, I always end up re-writing in Standard English. Maybe I am an intellectual coward.

Does Damon Runyon break every writing rule in the book? He has a distinctive style, sure, but he also follows nearly every writing rule. Writing in slang in first person present tense POV is quite normal. He avoids adjectives, adverbs and said bookisms - just like a modern author.

I think the trick is to use the rules and guidelines as a foundation for writing, and then to add your own personal style on top. All too many starting authors want to do something wholly original, which usually means either ignoring all the rules or not bothering to learn them.

When we boil it down, the writing rules all equate to one thing - improving the experience for the reader. That surely has to be such a fundamental point that we can't ignore it altogether.

Will: The foundation of good writing is still Strunk & White. You build from that or ignore them at your peril. Runyon does not “avoid” adjectives and adverbs; he uses them sparingly. Used in the right places, they can be effective. Strunk & White remark “Occasionally they surprise us with their power, as in ‘Up the airy mountain / Down the rushy glen, / We daren’t go a-hunting / For fear of little men . . .’.” They point out that without the two adjectives, the poem “might never have got off the ground.” Other than this minor point, your advice is good. Stick to fundamentals and don’t try to be a ground-breaker. You’re writing for the reader, not for yourself.

Hmm. Strunk and White might be the foundation for good writing on your side of the pond. Here in the country which invented the language we don't like to be tied down to just one bible for good writing.

This is what famed grumpy sod, Geoffrey Pullum (Professor of Linguistics at Edinburgh University) made of Strunk and White:

"The book's toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity is not underpinned by a proper grounding in English grammar. It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules ... It's sad. Several generations of college students learned their grammar from the uninformed bossiness of Strunk and White, and the result is a nation of educated people who know they feel vaguely anxious and insecure whenever they write however or than me or was or which, but can't tell you why."

Ouch.

We Brits prefer to play with the nuances of words rather than the US habit of dealing in absolute rights and wrongs. For us "avoid" does not mean "never use". It means to "use sparingly".

Will, Sorry, I didn’t realize you were from the Motherland. You Brits may be from the country that invented the language, but some of you—present company excepted, of course—are adept at mangling it at times. Strunk and White is no “bible” for American writers, it’s just a good jumping off point. We do depend on our dictionaries for guidance, however, and Merriam-Webster defines avoid as meaning “to keep away from: SHUN; to prevent the occurrence or effectiveness of; to refrain from.” Let’s just agree to disagree, OK?

I can tell you that I do not feel “vaguely anxious and insecure” whenever I write “however” or “than me,” and certainly not when writing “was,” although I have become adept at “which hunting.” Thanks to “the little book” I have managed to keep my prose entirely free of that awful expression, “the fact that” (except just then!). And how many points are there in time?

As to playing with nuances, you are saying that you prefer fifty shades of gray to black and white—n’est-ce pas? I would have to agree with that point of view, although I more often work with 256 shades of gray (just an inside joke).

I think we can agree that although writing may be hard at times, it should also be fun. When it stops being fun, it’s time to put away your pen.

Agreed: Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" is not the end all and be all, but it is a wonderful guide that should be on any writer's shelf. If it was the only book you had, your writing would only improve under its guidance.

A standard style guide is an important addition to that shelf, too, something like the Chicago Manual of Style. (There are several standard style guides out there for English usage - CMS is not the only one, but it is one of the style guides used almost universally by editors everywhere.) Strunk and White is a pocket guide, something of a condensed version of far larger tomes.

Many of us American writers do have a (perhaps inordinate) fondness for our Strunk and White...

But surely you see the difference between "avoid doing something" and "never do something"?

Don't you see that they are not quite the same degree of emphasis? This is what I mean by nuance of meaning.

Consider the difference between "Never eat fatty foods" and "avoid fatty foods."

Please tell me that you are not so bound up by your dictionary that you think they have the same meaning?

Will: No, I would not consider the two usages—never (do) and avoid—as exact equals. Never is much more forceful than plain vanilla avoid. Nevertheless, I would have worded your sentence about Runyon as, “He uses adjectives, adverbs, and said bookisms sparingly—just like a modern author.” Avoid may not mean precisely “never uses” (in your context), but it implies something at least very close to that. Saying that he used these things “sparingly” makes the meaning clear.

Virtually everything I've published has been in first person. Since my preferred genre (MM romance) clearly requires two main characters (sometimes three), my novels are told in alternating POVs (yes, that ain't grammatically correct since it's "points of view"). In lieu of chapter numbers, the "heading" (if you will) of each chapter is in this format:

Jeremy
6 April 1816
1:38 p.m.
Ireton House, London

(From "no way out," a gay Regency in progress). Ireton (the Marquess thereof) takes over in the next chapter. Mostly it's literally alternating, but sometimes the tale requires one character to narrate a chapter or two, or even three, consecutively.

In any event, that writing preference has made this thread/discussion/whatever-it's-technically-called both fascinating and highly educational. I'm not sure precisely why the discussion of "never" versus "avoid" tipped the scales from lurking into participation.

Although I have a probably endless fascination with "two countries divided by a common language," and have had for at least the last 50 years, I have to side with Will on this one.

I recognize the definitions above for "avoid" (having used Google to briefly check). But I have always interpreted, and used, "avoid X" as having an implicit attachment of "whenever possible," "if you can." Conversely, if you can't "avoid X" then do it as sparingly as possible. *teasing smile, G*

I think what this all comes down to is personal preferences in word choices...I would have written Will's never/avoid sentence in the same way had I been bright enough to think of it...and the hope that our readers will understand the nuances we intend.

So while "sparingly" is, of course, a correct alternative, for whatever it's worth, I don't think it was necessary here.

And if the comments above weren't clear, I thank all of you for the interesting discourse on language.

Just my USD .02.

Eric

All of this simply shows that not everyone will read what we wrote and understand it precisely as we intended. Eric wrote: “hope that our readers will understand the nuances we intend.” That’s the key issue, of course. It’s the Holy Grail of writing, as unattainable as the original. Revise, revise, revise. Yet, in the end nothing is perfect.

But we need to try.

G. wrote: "All of this simply shows that not everyone will read what we wrote and understand it precisely as we intended. Eric wrote: “hope that our readers will understand the nuances we intend.” That’s the ..."

*cyber-sound of Midwestern cyber-hands clapping*

*s*

G - so you agree and disagree at the same time about the meaning of "avoid"? That's an interesting position to take, but if it makes you feel happy...

I sense there are two things going on here. First, there's an internet thing about wanting to nitpick. Some people like to pick fault with other people's posts. I suppose it's part of the meme of "someone is WRONG on the internet.", also known as SIWOTI.

Of course, the nature of debate is that we won't always agree. But where SIWOTI kicks in is when the point of disagreement is exceedingly small or pointless. Does it really matter whether I said "avoids" or "uses sparingly"? Does anyone pin a medal on your chest if you ever "win" a nitpick like that?

But I think there is something else here. As Eric says there is something about the difference between US and UK English. Noah Webster introduced a strong element of logic into US English. He complained about UK English being elitist because it has so many exceptions and irregular words. He tried to steer US English into being more logical.

Famously, this include redefining spellings to match them more consistently with pronunciation. So "colour" became "color" because the "our" sound suggests that "colour" ought to rhyme with "sour" or "our".

Over time, this has caused US English to become more rule based and logical than UK English. I have seen countless arguments on the internet (more SIWOTI!) where a US English speaker has tried to argue about a word by comparing words to each other, and the UK English speaker has responded by saying "but that's just the way it is".

More often than not, the US English speaker will want words to have one meaning and one meaning only. And they will often go to dictionaries or Strunk and White or some other source to try to "prove" that word X means Y.

Meanwhile the UK English speaker will generally talk about how a word is used rather than what the dictionary says. UK English speakers are also more comfortable with words changing meaning over time, or having a different meaning to one group of people than to another.

It's not that either approach is right or wrong. It's just two different approaches to language.

I have a theory that fiction writing - or at least good fiction writing - tends towards the UK English approach. A writer will often use a word which carries a hint of ambiguity. We want our readers to think and for words to provoke an emotional response. That is why good descriptive prose always leaves something out. The reader's imagination will fill in the gaps with far more vivid images and colours than anything we could put onto the page.

That's why avoiding adjectives, adverbs and said-bookisms can be a good approach. By leaving information out we encourage the reader to add those details back in for themselves. They may not come up with the same image that we had in our minds when we wrote it, but that's not the point. They will have had a richer experience.

So do we really want "precision" in our writing? If we are writing a technical manual, then maybe. In fiction, precision and perfection are often false goals. That's about as far from the Holy Grail as it is possible to get.

G and Will, that subject is quite interesting, but what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Will, I think we're just kicking a dead horse here. “East is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet.” Let's just say we agree in principle and let it go at that.

Here's my four penneth.

Part of the process I follow when writing fiction is to have a team of readers read through the drafts and give me their comments.

Some do what is more in the nature of 'proof-reading' (point out spelling/garammatical/ punctuation errors); some offer their general view on the story and whether they think it will hold the reader, and others get more into style and offer suggestions on how to make the narrative tighter, etc.

Some do a combination of the above all of which I find invaluable. Two of my readers are also writers, one is a retired literary professor and yet another is simply a 'Joe Bloggs' reader. He just tells me if he likes it or not and which parts he likes and which parts he doesn't.

The next part of my process is to edit and re-edit with all the comments I have received alongside me. Finally, I put the text through a computerized 'style checker' such as pro writing aid.

This is where the discussion comes back to what others have said.

Of course, Pro Writing aide is just a computer programme and I have to be very careful with it.

Those who are familiar with pro writer will know that it does a host of tasks, such as check spelling and grammar; lists over-long sentences; points out inconsistencies between the use of UK/American English, capitalisations, hyphenations etc; hunt down cliches; lists over-used words and the number of times each word has been used, ("I" always comes up here), writing 'style' errors, and a few more things that don't immediately come to mind.

When I trawl through the 'results' I have to be careful about accepting or rejecting the suggested changes. Some are great, but others are simply not applicable.

Sometimes the software tells me that I have broken some rule, but as far as I am concerned, I am happy to break that rule. I believe that the way I have written the sentence works well in the context.

This might apply to the possible misuse of words, (such as 'avoid'), the occasional split infinitive, inconsistencies in spelling (I am always told that I use the American spelling of 'install') and other 'style' errors.

If a person whose first language isn't English used this software, he would probably end up with a lot of nonsense.

The point I am making is that rules about writing style and so on are very helpful, but as far as fiction is concerned, you don't have to follow every rule all the time to make a good story.

BTW, thanks for the mention of Strunk's Elements of Style. I have now downloaded it from project Guttenberg and it's a great little reference book.

I do resent being called a “nitpicker.” I didn’t start out by picking nits. I simply read Will’s comment as meaning that Runyon did not use adjectives, adverbs, or said bookisms at all. I read it from a USA perspective, not UK. I get the difference, and I’m not trying to say Will—or anyone else—is wrong. The difference between “never uses” and “avoids using” is obviously a thin one. There is room for more than one interpretation of those phrases. Will meant one meaning, but I read another one. That’s the way writing is. You can never be sure the reader will read what you wrote the way you meant it. The object of fiction is to tell a story and tell it well. In the final analysis, that’s all that matters.

When I’m wearing my copy editor hat, I often am a nitpicker. That’s what copy editors do in part. But in this case I was just commenting on a comment as I understood its meaning. To say otherwise is putting the cart before the horse.

Mobi: I’m glad you found The Elements of Style to be helpful.

G.G. wrote: "G and Will, that subject is quite interesting, but what does this have to do with the topic at hand?"

Mobi started this thread by asking about a writing rule. A reviewer had remarked on the number of times that "I" appeared in a first person story. Mobi wanted to know if there was a reason for that comment - did it break a writing rule?

That took us to a more general discussion about the nature of writing rules. That's how these debates often go. A specific question will often branch out into a more general discussion.

Mobi - you make a good point when you say:

"The point I am making is that rules about writing style and so on are very helpful, but as far as fiction is concerned, you don't have to follow every rule all the time to make a good story."

I would tweak that a little. There is a sentiment that often crops up in discussions like these that most of us should follow the rules but that really good writers know when to break the rules. And while that's probably right most of the time, it isn't a very helpful statement. How do I know if I am good enough to break the rules? One of the biggest signs of a newbie writer is that he or she breaks too many rules.

I prefer to think that we should first try to understand why the rules are there. Okay, so there is this rule about not using too many I's and avoiding filtering. Now we need to ask why this is a bad thing? That leads us onto ideas like "readers would get bored with too much repetition", "filtering distances readers from the action" and "phrases like 'I saw' can be implied and don't need to be said.

When we understand the reasons behind these writing rules we usually find that the good writers aren't really breaking them as often as we think. They are often obeying a deeper rule - one that no-one has told us about.

I am enjoying the debate, and widening it is fine by me. I am tempted to raise other issues but worry that I will be digressing a little too much from the original purpose.

Will, I don't know if I can consider myself a 'newbie'. I have now written three quite substantial novels and a collection of short stories. I can't claim much commercial success, but I am sure that each novel is better than the previous and that I never stop learning. I see many things wrong with my text these days that I never saw before.

I also see much more in the text of successful authors that I never saw before - not all of it good.

I guess along with Stephen King's advice to read, read and read, is to write, write and write....

I love creative writing. It's the only thing that keeps me sane and
gives me peace of mind in an increasingly problematic world.

Hey, it's your thread. I don't mind wandering off the beaten path if you don't! ;-)

Like you, I think we should never stop learning. Never stop asking why.

Fr'instance at the moment I am fascinated by how seemingly "bad" books can sometimes sell so well. Books like Da Vinci Code, Fifty Shades, Girl with a Dragon Tattoo. And that is leading me to the thought that how we define "good" and "bad" writing isn't quite as straightforward as the text books would have us think.

Yes, there is no doubt that many modern books are not particularly well written, yet some of them are monster hits.

I have just started reading a book which is a commercial success, but I am not sure I will finish it. So far, I am not impressed with the writing style and find it quite annoying. I'll give it a couple more chapters and see if I can get into it.

This is one of the reasons that I tend to restrict my reading to nineteenth and early 20th-century literature. Most of it is so beautifully written - or cleverly written - or both.

But I also dip into modern literature to try and see what makes books commercially successful.

Some time ago, quite by chance, I read a romantic novel by Jo Jo Moyes entitled 'Me before You' and I found it beautifully written and a riveting read. So it can be done. Of course, it is now a major movie.

But I couldn't get on with Donna Tart or Toni Robinson, even though I appreciate they are very highly regarded by the professionals. It was just too hard, although I did finish 'Beloved.' Give me Hardy or Tolstoy any day of the week,

Reading literature should be a pleasure, not a chore. (IMHO)

Will wrote: . . . I am fascinated by how seemingly “bad” books can sometimes sell so well.

You make a good point. I once picked up a Ludlum book that my father had been reading. I couldn’t get past the first two pages. There were so many errors in grammar and syntax that it hurt my “reading ears.”

But consider this excerpt from Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons. I used this once to demonstrate a point to a friend of mine. (Note that the “camerlengo” is assistant to the Pope.)

Chartrand took a deep breath. “I don’t understand this omnipotent-benevolent thing.”
The camerlengo smiled. “You’ve been reading Scripture.”
“I try.”
“You are confused because the Bible describes God as an omnipotent and benevolent deity.”
“Exactly.”
“Ominpotent-benevolent simply means that God is all-powerful and well-meaning.”
“I understand the concept. It’s just . . . there seems to be a contradiction.”
“Yes. The contradiction is pain. Man’s starvation, war, sickness . . .”
“Exactly!” Chartrand knew the camerlengo would understand. “Terrible things happen in this world. Human tragedy seems like proof that God could not possibly be both all-powerful and well-meaning. If He loves us and had the power to change our situation, He would prevent our pain, wouldn’t He?”
The camerlengo frowned. “Would He?”
Chartrand felt uneasy. Had he overstepped his bounds? Was this one of those religious questions you just didn’t ask? “Well . . . if God loves us, and He can protect us, He would have to. It seems He is either omnipotent and uncaring, or benevolent and powerless to help.”
“Do you have children, Lieutenant?”
Chartrand flushed. “No, signore.”
“Imagine you had an eight-year-old son . . . would you love him?”
“Of course.”
“Would you do everything in your power to prevent pain in his life?”
“Of course.”
“Would you let him skateboard?”
Chartrand did a double take. The camerlengo always seemed oddly “in touch” for a clergyman. “Yeah, I guess,” Chartrand said. “Sure, I’d let him skateboard, but I’d tell him to be careful.”
“So as this child’s father, you would give him some basic, good advice and then let him go off and make his own mistakes?”
“I wouldn’t run behind him and mollycoddle him if that’s what you mean.”
“But what if he fell and skinned his knee?”
“He would have to learn to be more careful.”
The camerlengo smiled. “So although you have the power to interfere and prevent your child’s pain, you would choose to show your love by letting him learn his own lessons?”
“Of course. Pain is part of growing up. It’s how we learn.”
The camerlengo nodded. “Exactly.”

While I can’t say that this is an example of really good writing (e.g., “double take” is a cliché), it does follow the advice that you stated in your original post about this subject. Brown avoids said bookisms to the point where he even uses the word “said” only once in the entire dialogue.

He comes close to my ideal in dialogue: that the speaker should be identified by his words, so no he saids or she saids are necessary. Brown could could even have left out the “Chartrand said” in that one place without compromising the meaning.

If this is an example of bad writing, then I think I’d like to be a “bad” writer.

I read "The Da Vinci Code" many years ago and found the story quite engaging. I do recall that I wasn't particularly impressed with the quality of writing, but I couldn't tell you what was specifically wrong with it without reading it again.

I agree that your example from " Angels" flows pretty well.

Just being a bit provocative here, but I wonder if once Brown became a best seller, he had access to the best editors money can buy....

Maybe not - maybe like us he is still learning and is becoming a better writer. I'll be charitable and give him the benefit of the doubt.

Another best seller I have recently read is "Brooklyn" by the Irish author Colm Toibin. Apart from being quite an unremarkable story that doesn't really go anywhere, I was amazed by the sparsity of dialogue. A vast majority of the dialogue is reported where there is no need to write it that way. It was almost as if he was in a hurry to finish it.

His greatest sin was to even paraphrase letters written between the main protagonists. I'm still scratching my head wondering why he wrote it that way - for me, it was a turnoff to a story that was already quite thin.

Having been disappointed with the book I wasn't expecting much from the film, but I couldn't have been more wrong as it is a very well-made film and brought the story and 50s Ireland and New York era to life with sparkling dialogue written by Nick Hornby. It's one of the few examples where the film is so much better than the book.

In other films made from books, I can often spot the dialogue lifted word for word from the book. Impossible to do with "Brooklyn" as there was nothing to 'lift'.

BTW, I have just been writing an extended piece of dialogue that involves three, and sometimes more than three people - including 'me'.

In this situation it becomes quite difficult to avoid the dreaded 'he/she said' but I try to do it in creative ways, and still avoid it when the speaker is obvious. (eg when he is answering a question directed at him by name.)

Mobi, now you’ve got me wondering how “an unremarkable story that doesn’t really go anywhere” could have been made into a good film. Even “sparkling dialogue” can’t rescue a story that “doesn’t really go anywhere.” Eh?

Well it did, I can assure you.

The key is that the film is 'based' on the book.

They found the few gems in the story, subtly changed it around a bit and together with sparkling dialogue, excellent acting and good cinematography and direction, they turned it into a pretty good movie.

It had me drawn in from the very first lines.The story is still a bit lightweight, but they've made the best of it and you can empathise with the characters far more than you can in the book. You can see them, hear them and almost feel them.

I'm usually pretty harsh in my criticism of films that the professionals find brilliant, and was ready to tear it apart, but in this case, I think they got it right.

It hasn't been nominated for best film for no reason. (double negative...)

Don't take my word for it - read it and see it as I did, although everyone will have a different opinion. One of my friends hated the movie.