IWSG: English Rules Worth Breaking

After a busy summer, it's good to be back for the Insecure Writer's Support Group. Learn more about the IWSG on their website. 

Our hosts this month are Beth Camp, Jean Davis, Yvonne Ventresca, and PJ Colando.

Our question this month has to do with school and English rules: Since it's back to school time, let's talk English class. What's a writing rule you learned in school that messed you up as a writer?

I didn't learn these rules in creative writing classes, but from writing books. The two rules I would put here would be to avoid adverbs and "said-bookisms" (other words to use besides "said"). I think these rules are writer rules, not necessarily something the average reader would consciously notice. I don't avoid adverbs completely; instead, I tend to use them to achieve the right nuance, or to push against the verb that's being modified.

I will admit that I'm more hesitant to use said-bookisms. To me, they can draw attention to themselves, especially if they're not physically possible or if several of them are used in a row. I prefer to use physical actions or descriptions to identify the speaker to break up a list of "saids," That said (pun intended), I'm experimenting a bit more with said-bookisms and adverbs lately. As long as they're used in moderation, they are useful writing tools. I think once you have a certain level of writing experience, you can tell when to use adverbs and said-bookisms and when not to.

What writing rules have you had to unlearn? Feel free to share them in the comments.

Writers and Words

One of the books I'm currently reading is actually a trilogy that came out over a decade ago. I read the series when it originally came out, but I don't have the paper copies any more. When I saw the ebook version of trilogy advertised at a bargain price on Bookbub, I decided to grab it. Reading a trilogy isn't going to help me make up my book count for my Goodreads challenge, especially when it's a very long trilogy, but I'm already close to halfway done. My secret? I'm skipping or skimming the description.

In the prefaces to the first and second books, the author talks about her love of words, which started in childhood. She also loves worldbuilding, which results in pages and pages of description of even unimportant people and locations. Unfortunately, I'm the kind of reader who is more interested in the story than the setting. (I have to admit I forgot about this aspect of the series, or maybe it didn't bother me back then.) I wonder how well a new author with this amount of description would be able to sell her work to a traditional publisher today--or how well her work would fare if she self-published.

It's important for writers to develop their vocabularies so they know the proper definitions and connotations of words. There are words that are appropriate for a Victorian setting but not a futuristic one, and vice versa. As a creative writer, I acknowledge that other writers are free to experiment with language--and they should. I don't believe that writers should abstain from using adverbs and adjectives. But with my background in technical writing, I also want to keep my works easy-to-follow. I don't want to write the parts that readers are going to skip. Wordcraft is only one aspect of storytelling; story structure and character development are also important. Writers and readers may prefer different proportions of description and action. Perhaps book blurbs should do a better job of conveying style along with story. (Some do, but not all of them.)

In my opinion, Patricia McKillip is the champion of writing poetic prose that doesn't detract from the story. What other authors do you admire for their writing style? Do you think they'll still be read a hundred years from now, or will changes in our language make our current works inaccessible for future generations? Please comment below.