Suggestions for Writers

[pameladean]

I got this, too, from Making Light; really sometimes I hardly know how I would organize my day without Teresa's weblog.

She calls it "Gene Wolfe's Rules for Writers." I had to go look. I admire Gene Wolfe somewhere the wrong side of idolatry.

They sit so much better with me than anybody else's. I might argue with one or two, but they do not provoke an allergic reaction, a resistance like that of a two-year-old threatened with being deprived of a large fragile glass object, a mad "I won't do it and you can't make me" or "what the hell is your problem, you moron" response.

So I thought I'd provide the link:

http://subnet.pinder.net/onwriting/index.asp?name=./References/19970101wolfe.htm

I think the reason I like these better than most is partly that Wolfe and I have similar aesthetics, though hardly similar practices; but mostly it's that it hardly ever says "Never" (except in one ironic bit) or "Always," does not toy around with forbidding or prescribing very specific words and phrases, and often says "Try to" rather than "You must."

I'm quite sure a person could violate every one of them and write a good book, but I don't feel the usual desire to do just that, IMMEDIATELY.

Pamela

Comments

[firecat]

Main characters should be striking in some way, attractive or grotesque or interesting in appearance.

This is the only one that gives me hives. I mean, of course the main character should be interesting in some way, or why write about him or her. But the guideline seems to focus on appeance or first impressions.

If you wish to flout fact (for example, have argon the principle constituent of the atmosphere) provide some explanation of how the change came to about.

If you wish to flout a widely accepted theory, such as relativity, provide an alternate theory.

I've read a number of very fine books that don't follow these. I probably would, but mainly because I'm insecure in my grasp of science-fiction tropes.

[yhlee.livejournal.com]

Frankly, if a trope is being flouted but is commonly so, e.g. relativity vs. most FTL, I'd rather see the pseudoscience mechanism glossed over rather than poorly explained. (If there's a good explanation, by all means use it!)

I'm reminded of a thoughtful review of one of my stories wherein the reviewer noted, " My problem was with the characters, who are really only sketches and thinly drawn counterparts, or vessels, for the author to fill past the brim with her obviously thorough knowledge of an abstruse science." Mea culpa on the characters, but...oh, God, the abstruse science is quantum mechanics, and I quit taking physics classes after honors E&M in college. I will admit I'm more comfortable with popular science than average, but my "thorough knowledge" is no more than that of an interested layperson.

In that case, the fakery worked for that one reader. I think it was the apparent confidence of the writing, as opposed to how I actually feel, which is that any day now a real physicist (or mathematician) is going to walk up to me, grab me by the shoulders, and dress me down loudly for Getting It Wrong.

If you must fake, be sure to think things through, and having done that, do it with gusto.

My two bits.

[firecat]

If you must fake, be sure to think things through, and having done that, do it with gusto.

That's a much better guideline, IMO.

[pameladean]

Yeah, that one made me squint a little, and if I were sure that "in appearance" referred to "attractive" and "grotesque" and not merely to "interesting," I'd be feeling itchy. It probably does. It may be a kind of shortcut for helping readers tell characters apart; dunno.

Pamela

[eub.livejournal.com]

My guess is he does mean a striking appearance. He once claimed that Severian's character all follows from his striking appearance, which was because Wolfe wished somebody at a con would dress up as a Wolfe character. "When I was a young sprout, I flouted this rule myself, and look where that got me: no masquerade presence, none." I like to take this rule that way.

(Who is the "Gene Wolf" these rules are stated to be from? Surely a Wolfe reader has to suspect that Wolf is a distinct character from Wolfe, and likely an unreliable fellow; and the reader can only gather data and speculate about the Wolfe pulling his strings.)

[pameladean]

Yes, I've heard him tell that story about the genesis of Severian.

As for Gene Wolf, well, what can one expect from something associated with Turkey City?

Pamela