Wednesday, November 18, 2009

When Perfect Isn’t

At some point in your writing journey you may decide that you actually want someone to read your work –as opposed to messing around with Dick and Jane for the fun of it. Perhaps this is the phase where you move away from playing with paper dolls and start writing a true story. Naturally, when this phase arrives, you start paying more attention to craft, go on writer’s forums, or visit blogs like this one. Great debates and pondering of craft occurs in which you begin to learn the intricacies of craft –how to keep them reading by adding tension, engaged by creating emotion, plotting, characterization and the like. This is as it should be. This is an on going process that you as a writer will never fully complete (or it ought to be! Heaven help the writer who claims they know all there is to know!)

We strive for perfection in our work. Which is good. But is perfect always advisable? I often talk out of my ass, so feel free to jump in with objections, but I contend that while striving for perfection in writing, one often does so at the expense of voice. What the heck do I mean? Well, simply this:

There is a tendency for writers (both newbies and old hats) to run down a checklist of do’s and don’ts –yes, this does touch on the old debate of rules and when to break them. But the argument is a bit more subtle (wait –I promise!). How many times have I read tips for editing which covers the following: check for extraneous adverbs and adjectives, avoid dialogue tags, don’t say 'walk' when you can say 'strode', eradicate passive sentences, and the list goes on. These are all good tips; some editing/writing tips are awesome. But at some point, by carving into your work, whittling out any “writer” mistakes, you run the risk rubbing out your unique voice as well.

I’m not talking about throwing the rules out –and perhaps this is a discussion best saved for those who have learned the rules and are ready to break them. I am simply saying that going over and over your work in an attempt to make it flawless often results in me seeing a work that is technically glorious, and unfortunately dull. I shouldn’t be praising your technique; I should be lost in your story.

I adore Diana’s use of dialog tags, Laura Kinsale’s head hopping POVs, JK Rowling’s excessive adverbs and adjectives. I’d weep if someone had gotten to these artists and said, “You know, you really ought not to do that.” And if they had listened! Think of if all us followed the rules, edited out any “mistakes”, we’d have paint-by-numbers books that might have been penned by anyone –or Elmore Leonard! (perish the thought of a million Elmores running amok.)

I won’t name any examples here but I have read exquisitely wrought prose, perfection on a page, books so technically marvelous that I was wiggling with envy, yet that’s about all I remember about those books. The story often drifts over me like mist. It simply doesn't stick.

Tell me I’m wrong. I’m sure there are exceptions. But for me, perfection is boring. I’d rather a writer let loose, drown me in their unique but perhaps slightly flawed voice.

So I ask you. What rules are you tired of? What dirty little writer’s no-no do you love to employ and critics be damned? And when is good enough, good enough, already!

6 comments:

  1. Definitely agree that there's a fine line between perfection and maintaining an author's voice. I know what you mean about books that are technically marvelous yet/in fact/on the other hand, I would hesitate to call them perfect since, if they're forsaking a voice for grammatical perfection or high-end vocabulary, then they're clearly missing something in their storytelling.
    Trying to be a little concrete, I'm thinking of books like Jane Urquhart's Away, for instance. There are others, but that's the first one that comes to mind. Either it's an exercise in words (a la Ulysses, and even that has moods and images and playfulness) or it's a well told story with its internal word choice. Diana certainly uses a rich vocabulary, but there's a grand story in there, and lots of different character voices. Whereas books that concentrate too much on the words, lose the people and emotions. I find. Am I making sense? :-)
    Hmm, rules I'm tired of... Well, as a grammar nit, I definitely don't want the writing world to lean in the opposite direction either - that word choice and spelling and pronounciation don't matter at all - of course they do! But that stuff should count only after the first draft. No sense bogging down your ideas with getting their/they're/there right. (Though methinks if you've learned it the right way the first time, those mistakes shouldn't even happen! But that's me on my high horse...)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kristen -- great post! And a timely one for me as I've recently been hearing quite a few opposing viewpoints being voiced about my general style. (Why is there always one person in every group who just INSISTS that first person is (1) annoying (2) the easy way to tell a story (3) too self-involved with all the I's and My's, etc. (ahem...as though someone couldn't go overboard with the she's and he's. I mean, really?!)).

    Yanno, I think a lot of writers fall into this trap because in a way it's easier. If you follow "the rules" you aren't called upon to think outside of the box. To take chances that might flop. In short, it's like people believe if they dot their i's and cross every last t, that they'll somehow win in the end. It all gets rather ridiculous most times.

    Sometimes I feel like there's a ref on the sidelines throwing little yellow flags....*whistle* "Jen used the word WAS! 10 yard penalty for writing passively." TIMEOUT. "Was that an adjective in that sentence?!"

    Good grief.

    And I must say the 'was' thing is probably my biggest pet peeve. The use of 'was' DOES NOT make a sentence passive. My other pet peeve is people who don't even know what passive writing looks like but feel the need to point it out all the time. Dang WAS-police need to get a life. *grumble* Gaaaaah. Yeah. Okay. I'm better now. :)

    Jen

    ReplyDelete
  3. We have to get past the rules, I think, and write without being overtly conscious of them. Otherwise, as you suggest, we follow them too closely at the expense of voice.

    During the editing process, we can fix the rules we shouldn't have broken while we were writing, and maybe break a few we should have broken already. It all becomes part of us in time, integrated within our writing personality. It's as though instinct takes over and we do it right without knowing--or caring--about the why and the how of it.

    Malcolm

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Jen,
    Funny, but I hear those whistles and see those flags not about the grammar but about the references. Every time I use the word cart, or mention a bird name or tree name, or talk about a character having a pocket or anything like that, all these bells start going off in my head. Would he/she have a pocket? Is it a wooden cart? A carriage? What kind of horse? Would a farmer in a small French village in 1492 own a horse and cart? Or would he have a wheelbarrow? Gaaaaaaa....
    All this for one scene. Thank goodness i wrote the scene anyway. But it's a minefield of square brackets!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Deniz-- ( I know what you mean about books that are technically marvelous yet/in fact/on the other hand, I would hesitate to call them perfect since, if they're forsaking a voice for grammatical perfection or high-end vocabulary, then they're clearly missing something in their storytelling.) yes, that's it exactly. Perfect has become NOT perfect. LOL.

    And yes, you made perfect sense. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Malcolm--

    ( It's as though instinct takes over and we do it right without knowing--or caring--about the why and the how of it.) Yes, exactly! Or it should be, at any rate.

    ReplyDelete