After taking a short summer break, we are back with a new discussion question! This time, it is about writing rules. Let's hear from some of our members.

---

Question posted on August 5, 2023:

We've all been told that when writing, we should always show instead of telling. However, that rule is sometimes challenged. What are some other writing rules and conventions that you do not agree with?

*note, all answers are slightly modified for grammar and structure*

Winning answer (tied) by ToWolfKin:

I think anything, any rule, trope, classic, etc. can be done if it's written or implemented well. Rules are like clichés. They're marked off because they've been done so many times badly and people get sick of them, but they (usually) originated from good ideas/implementations.

An example of this is the rule, "don't open a book with the weather." Why? Probably to avoid the classic, "it was a dark and stormy night" opening, but there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with your book if you open it with the weather. In fact, opening the weather can be a perfect way to set the scene, feel, and tone of the book right off the bat! For example, if you character adores rain, they'd be very likely to open with thoughts or description about the rain—or, on a flip side, if your character is feeling moody and depressed and hates rain with a passion, starting out with a gloomy, grumpy description of rain is a totally viable way to start your book.

Another example is, "never use 'suddenly'".  You can, and should, use suddenly if the character is the type to say such things, you can't phrase the action first, or if your tone/situation calls for it. But use it sparingly because yes, "suddenly" is good to avoid when you can jump straight to the action, but it isn't forbidden.

It all really depends on how you execute the rule and why you chose to do it (things done for the sake of "eh, why not" or laziness usually don't end up that great). Now, don't get me wrong, there are some rules that should be followed at all times and do make your work better if you do (cough like grammar, punctuation, and capitalizing your proper nouns cough), and rules that are generally good to follow, but not all of them are hardfast, set-in-stone, you-must-never-do-this-or-else kind of thing. Most things you can pull off if your write it well and have good reason to do it!

Winning answer (tied) by BlueStarrySky1:

One rule I disagree with is the idea that the protagonist has a perfect moral compass, is always the 'bigger person' in fights, and is redeemed at the end of the story—no matter how vast their crimes or the depth of their miscalculations. I could be alone in this opinion, but I connect better with stories about realistically flawed main characters above the 'they were perfect' trope because these reflect on real world struggles! I don't enjoy ones where even if the main character has made a colossal mistake, they are always redeemed at the end and get the perfect ending.

In my opinion, a character should have a clear idea of their morals in the novel—they could be utterly twisted or completely naive, but it should not be perfect. As a part of their character development, they should be forced to face ugly truths, realise that the world isn't so rosy and happy, or even that there is a glimmer of hope in the bleakness which eventually leads them to be semi-polished individuals at the end—or not, depending on the type of story! If the character is perfect from page one, it seems quite redundant to have them go through the entire trial of the novel in the first place—why should they suffer if it won't help them develop in any way?

The evidence I have to support this is simply real life. It's messy, complicated and less 'black and white' than shades of morally grey. There is no individual on this earth who can claim to be a hundred percent pure and innocent because it's simply improbable, and I think that books could touch on this point as well.

Now, that is not to say that characters should be completely evil at the start and then perfect at the end. Perhaps a better approach should be the character recognising that they are flawed because that's a huge first step. When they realise the consequences of their actions, lose people, make mistakes etc. it simply makes them seem more human and the readers could connect better with them- even if they are just words on a page or pixels on a screen. This is applicable to villains as well. Don't go for the lazy 'they did it because they could' approach because that gets bland after the first three chapters. Try to develop their personalities in the same way you would for the main character. Give them a reason for why they are like this. Make them and the main character(s) petty because, let's be honest, we've all done something petty at least once in our lives.

While I acknowledge that not every story will adhere to this approach, it's important to consider the narrative's genre and context. Yet, embracing the messiness of human nature in characters and narratives can elevate storytelling, making it more immersive and thought-provoking.

Linking on from this, I also don't think that every character should be redeemed for the sake of romance or plot. I've read books where the love interest (LI) has the communication skills of an IKEA manual and acts like a heathen on steroids at every turn, yet the main character is deluded by the 'I can fix them!' Notion. It's even worse when the LI relentlessly harasses the MC and eventually they succumb out of exhaustion and a desire to end the torment, but it's portrayed as romantic? If we adopt the realism I mentioned in the last few paragraphs, the LI would be rotting in jail or an asylum. Occasionally, holding on hurts more than letting go so, if the plot demands it, real relationships involve separations, personal growth and eventual reconnection. Therefore, the portrayal of romance should avoid the unrealistic notion that love can magically 'fix' characters.

Overall, I propose that characters should mirror the complexities of real life, with their flaws and growth contributing to a rich and authentic narrative tapestry.

1st Runner-Up answer (tied) by PathSojourner:

I don't like the general lean towards "start the book in the action right away, then cut back and explain what's going on". It feels like a cheap trick based on movie trailers etc. to get the readers interested what that hook is, and then when you finally get back to the hook, it's skimmed over because the dramatic writing was already done in the beginning.  Surely, if you're going to that trouble, you can either 1) set up the story and trust your characters and stakes are compelling enough readers don't need to be baited into it, or 2) don't back up and let the readers piece things together along the way, thus making them engaged and hopefully feel smart for figuring things out (only works for some kinds of readers). Similarly, I prefer having a little time to breathe and understand main characters in their normal lives, rather than being totally rushed into the first crisis. But this completely depends on how it's executed, because as ToWolfKin said, just about anything can work if executed correctly.

1st Runner-Up answer (tied) by DrizzleTheWolf:

I fundamentally agree with what ToWolfKin has said, there are no supposed writing "rules" that aren't or shouldn't be challenged.They exist simply because people use these events, or descriptions, or tropes excessively and horribly. I've read many of them and perhaps written some as well. My teacher in fifty grade used to tell me "said is dead", some people think adverbs are evil, and everyone knows you should always show instead of telling. But none of that is necessarily true in every case. I even choose to ignore punctuation rules at times for the sake of showing certain emphasis.

The key is to execute them well and with purpose. If you've described your character doing a thousand things while speaking, or have used every verb in the dictionary for talking, it's probably time to switch it up and use said. Now, I'm not saying use it after every line of dialogue, but when a character has something simple to say, sometimes the best way to show that is by describing it simply.

Adverbs can be another great way to show action in a more simple manner. Again, just use them sparingly. As for showing and not telling, there are some books I have read where they spend so much time describing the creaking noises of the staircase when I just wish they'd tell me the MC went up them. Of course it's good to describe the senses and everything during specific scenes, but we don't need a microscopic view of everything. You could even start a book with someone brushing their teeth, maybe that's the most exciting part of their day because they're stuck in a time loop or something. You don't have to start with action either, maybe emotion or a vivid landscape is your thing.

You could even start a book with someone brushing their teeth, maybe that's the most exciting part of their day because they're stuck in a time loop or something. You don't have to start with action either, maybe emotion or a vivid landscape is your thing. I also like how PathSojourner pointed out that it's nice to have time to get to know a character before catastrophe strikes.

There are always cases where writing rules will be challenged, and for good reason. It all just depends on how it's written and why.

---

And that's all! Thank you to everyone who participated in this round's discussion questions, and congratulations to the winners! Feel free to leave any additional thoughts in the comments.

See you next round, debaters!