Should Writers Follow the Rules? (by Nat Russo)

The rules are everything every pro patiently sits down and explains to newbie writers. Good books aren't written, they're rewritten. Let your work cool for six months before going into revisions. Start with an interesting main character in an interesting world with an interesting problem. Stay with the main character and the problem in the beginning, down dive into backstory. Your protagonist should be the protagonist and act, not react. Your bad guy should be good enough to defeat the good guy and it's his actions that push the hero into greatness (to quote I gave you all: If only I had enemies as big as my apathy, I could have won) Your main character should have internal and external reasons to want to solve the problem. They shouldn't just be doing it because it' a job or they have nothing better to do. There should be conflict on every page. Always be escalating your tension. Your main problem shouldn't be the same issue in chapter three as it is in chapter 27. Avoid cliches like the plague. Even though said isn't as invisible as people like to say it is, avoid "he ejaculated" and such. Keep it simple, stupid. Purple writing doesn't make you sound smarter, if you need to bedazzle your prose your reader will stop reading the text and start looking for the next egregious example of overwriting. Show, don't tell. If you can't write a likeable character, they should at least be likeable. Any rule can be broken, but breaking a rule is more work than following it (and, if you must, if the piece works and it breaks the rules, then there are no rules that can't be broken. Find an ideal reader and write to them, don't try to please everything. Up to 90% of critiques are bullshit, it's up to you to figure out which aspects of what a critiquer has to say works for you but the comment that feels like they've dug into your chest cavity and yanked out your still beating heart is probably the one you should be listening to. The Dunning Kruger effect is alive and well in the writing community; you're probably not as good as you think or a bad as you feel. The imposter syndrome is a thing, too. Finding out when and why a reader stopped reading is as available as having them read to the end. Most of what your friends and family have to say about your work (as long as they're non-writers themselves) are great for cheerleading, but cheerleaders are not the same thing as a head coach. Anyone who wants you to pay them money probably can't be trusted to give you an honest review of your work. Money should flow towards the author. Your first couple of books will probably mortify you in a few years, but that's okay. Everyone has to start somewhere. There's nothing wrong with trunking your novel. People who are pro-self publishing have probably either just started down their process or are one of the lottery winners. Most self-published novels disappear without a trace. When you've blown your first chance, second chances are expensive to buy back. If you want to be a writer, you have to write. No matter what your writing style is, if it's not giving you the "success" (however you define that word), try something else. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Most writers have to learn to write. No other artist expects their first attempt at anything to sell. You're making an implicit promise with your reader that you will not waste their time if they read your book. Try to keep your promise. Write a million words. If that isn't enough to get you to where you want to go, write a million words. And most importantly:

It takes twenty years to become an overnight success.

/r/writing Thread Parent Link - erindorpress.com