Throw away the rule books

When I started writing fiction again, after a long, long lapse, I spent an inordinate amount of time reading various "instructional" books on writing because I felt I had to do so, in order to determine what would sell in today's market. There were books that focused on technique, plot, character development, and even voice. I began to feel so hemmed in by how the experts advocated I should write that I did very little writing myself.
That's why I enjoyed reading a series of posts on Indies Unlimited by Lin Robinson titled: Breaking the "Rules" (the link is to the last post in the series, to aid navigation).  It's not that I believe in total anarchy, but there's a far better way to improve writing style. As Robinson says:

The good news is, there is a set of books that show you what can be done, and how great writers write. It’s called “the body of published literature”.

I don't agree 100% with every point he makes. For example, head-hopping still bothers me when I read it (and I distinguish between head-hopping and multiple POV here). But overall, I think many writers could benefit from simply throwing away the instructional guides and "how to" books, and reading more. The one book on writing that I did enjoy is (aptly enough), On Writing by Stephen King.
What do you think? Do you write by the rules?

What's good, or what sells?

Since I apparently haven't had anything to say in a while, I'm going to point to someone else's blog post and the accompanying discussion. And yes, I have been living under a rock lately...
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Pet peeves: dropping an E

I'm currently reading By the Sea by Henry Gee (yes, that rhymes). It's a hugely entertaining novel that is something you'd expect if Dickens were alive today and decided to write a Gothic whodunit.

One of the minor points about the book that adds to my reading pleasure is that Henry spells acknowledgement and judgement with an "e" after the "g", the way they should be. This is one of my pet peeves...the e denotes that the g is a "soft" g and also avoids the ugliness of having three consonants in a row (dgm) were it dropped.

I grew up with the Queen's English, so perhaps this fixation of mine is not entirely surprising. I adjusted to American English well enough when I moved here many years ago (except for another pet peeve: the American pronunciation of "been". There are two Es there for a reason, people.). However, in the past couple of years, I've seen many British publishers dropping the essential E, even that last bastion of civilization, Nature Publishing Group. Clearly, the infection has spread across the pond.

What's next? Why stop at the noun--why not "acknowledg" or ”judg"? Thank you, Noah Webster.

On writing styles

Thanks to Dianne for reminding me about this writing analyzer. I'd done this a while ago, so it was time to try again.

For a SF flash fiction piece, to be published in Bete Noire magazine early next year:

I write like
Margaret Atwood

I Write Like by Mémoires, journal software. Analyze your writing!

My current short story (lit fic set in Bombay):

I write like
James Joyce

I Write Like by Mémoires, journal software. Analyze your writing!

Novel in progress (YA SF):

I write like
Dan Brown

I Write Like by Mémoires, journal software. Analyze your writing!

Novel in progress #2 (YA urban fantasy):

I write like
David Foster Wallace

I Write Like by Mémoires, journal software. Analyze your writing!

Dan Brown??!! Really?

Oxford drops the "Oxford comma"

I've been defending the use of the Oxford comma in couple of places recently, so it was somewhat ironic to see this bit of news:

Oxford Comma Dropped by a University of Oxford Style Guide

I like the Oxford comma for several reasons. First of all, it follows the general idea that a comma is inserted for a pause in a sentence; when you read a list such as "A, B, and C", you pause after each item. Dropping the comma--"A, B and C" just doesn't sound right.

In addition, the Oxford comma often helps to clarify the meaning of a sentence. "I went for a walk with my sons, John and Jack." Without the Oxford comma, the sentence would imply that John and Jack are my sons. However, with the comma, it becomes "I went for a walk with my sons, Jack, and John." Here, it's apparent that my sons are not named, and that Jack and John were two others who joined us on the walk.

So there, University of Oxford. I'll keep using your comma wherever it's needed.

Edit: It lives to fight another day, after all. The initial report was overblown.