For every rule, there is a reason to break it. Granted, breaking the rules takes more work, because the writer has to do everything right. Here are times where famous authors broke the rules and why it worked for them.
(Sure glad I wrote this ahead of time for once. I spent the last two days without a computer, because it decided to throw a tantrum. I barely survived!)
Don’t have a Prologue
JK Rowling starts with a prologue, even if it’s called chapter one. It works because it's the hook. Can you imagine Harry Potter without chapter one? The reader wouldn't know anything about the magical world, or that Harry is special. It would just start with Harry’s miserable life with his Aunt and Uncle. We keep reading, because we want to find out how Harry’s life will change, because we know it will.
Don’t describe your character in a mirror
Veronica Roth described her character in a mirror in Divergent, but it worked for her because of why she did it. Beatrice has rarely seen herself in a mirror, so she would be interested in what she looks like. It also shows what the world is like and is an opportunity to show character growth the next time Beatrice sees her reflection. (I’m trying not to spoil the story.)
Don’t use flashbacks
Suzanne Collins uses flashbacks effectively in the Hunger Games. This is because the reader always knows when we’re in a flashback and it’s something the character is thinking about. She doesn't tell us about what happened, but takes us back to the scene and shows us. The flashbacks are important to the story to show how the characters met. Her story wouldn't be nearly as powerful if we didn't feel what it was like for Katniss in the past.
Don’t break the fourth wall (make your characters know the reader is reading a book)
Rick Riordan does this in Percy Jackson. It’s his way of showing voice and introducing comedy. It doesn't take you out of the story and is easily ignorable, because he doesn't do it often. It also lets him just say, “I’m Percy Jackson, 12 year old half-blood”. (Well not exactly, but close enough.)
I debated mentioning how Stephenie Meyer uses verbs other than said and adverbs to modify said, but since I've never read Twilight, (too much romance for me) I don't know why it worked for her.
Some authors get away with things others can’t pull off. They are rules for a reason, so before breaking them, ask yourself why you’re breaking the rules.
I’m on a young adult reading kick, hence the examples. ;)
Do you break any of the rules?
I’m on the verge of breaking a few. At the beginning, my character gets knocked out a couple of times, but it’s for story development, (overuse of magic) not to transport her someplace different mysteriously.
I think I break every rule there is, even the ones I don't know about! Really, writing is about the readers, so if the readers like it and keep buying the books that break the rules, why should we work so hard to not break them when that's what sells? And I'm so fond of doing things that are usually frowned upon that I just might consider writing something that breaks every rule in the book.
ReplyDeletehaha that sounds like a fun project. If it's a parody you can get away with anything. Some of my favorite books are Terry Pratchett's and he always breaks the rules.
ReplyDeleteWhen I answered my own question I realized how many of the rules I've broken or at least bent. I've decided not to worry about it though. As long as I'm happy with what I've written, that's good enough for me. (I'm not exactly easy to please.)
In my experience the rules aren't what cause a rejection; they're what people use as a reason for an rejection. It's much easier to talk about word choice than to explain in a convincing manner that it didn't work for you and why.
ReplyDeleteIf you were to say, "Her dress ended two inches above her knee," and I don't like it--I want you to change it to, "She ran her fingers along the hem of her dress."--how can I convince you that I really didn't like it and that it would be better this way? I DIDN'T, but there's nothing TECHNICALLY wrong with it, and there very well might be people who completely disagree with me. It could be completely irrelevant. If I'm lucky, I understand why I don't like it, but there's a good chance I really only know that I don't. And even if I have full awareness, explaining it to an author is difficult.
I could go into detail about how your tone was over explanatory and "accurate," causing objectivity, thus losing tension or atmosphere. But that's arguable. It's arguable as to why it matters, what that even means, and if that's really how the story will typically feel to other people. Or I could say, "Show, don't tell." Same thing, but simplified. It might not be as clear, it might not be consistently true, it might not even be the best solution for my perceived problem, but it ends the argument.
The rules are symptoms of bigger issues, and so people's easy solutions are to cover them up--hiding the pox marks, if you will. People know there's a "disease," but they don't see the depths of it. They ignore the jaundice for the yellow eyes because you can't see a liver failing. It's not the rules aren't true exactly, it's that they aren't problems in themselves. Meaning if there's not a bigger issue causing them, then they are perfectly acceptable. So the question isn't about "is this right or wrong," but why does this bother people? You find out why people don't want you to write a prologue, then you find out how you can write a prologue (and when to ignore them.)
Although I believe that people should ignore the rules until after they've written something and after there is a problem they want to solve. Worrying about your prologue before anyone's complained is borrowing trouble. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. Learn how to dissect and analyze the purpose of the rules to learn to break them.
Exactly! Writing a certain way isn't wrong, it's all in the way the writer handles it. The rules are more guidelines for new writers on things that are hard to pull off.
ReplyDelete