Thoughts on Rules and Reviewing -- c.anne.gardner

Last week I spoke very brashly about "writing rules" and this week I am going to continue that trend. Now we are not talking about grammatical rules here, we are talking about arbitrary writing rules like the tense consistency one I spoke of in the last weeks, but this week I want to come at it from a reviewer perspective.

I found an interesting post about Beta readers over on Pimp My Novel. Yes, I know, that site tends to flout rather flagrantly [say that ten times fast] their unfavourable view on Independent authors and self-publishing in general, but often I find the occasional bit of writing advice to be sound, as in this case. I recommend every author, Beta reader, and reviewer stop by and read the entire post.

However, for my purposes this week, I am only going to address a portion of that post because it has to do with those bullshit arbitrary rules I hate so much, and this is advice every reviewer and Beta reader need to take to heart:

2. See the forest for the trees. Take off the professor hat and really think about what you're reading. Is it possible that passive voice worked for that sentence? Did that adverb bother you just because it’s an adverb, or was it really inappropriate? Is that really a POV switch, or is it just a stylistic way of writing? As writers, we're desperate to latch onto something concrete, because so much of writing is judgmental and subjective. But because it’s so subjective, the rules don't matter all the time. Try not to act like they do.

I see this often, especially when it comes to self-published books. Many reviewers have the subconscious expectation going in that the self-published book they are holding in their hand is going to be lacking in editorial finesse, and so they latch onto all the cliché writing conventions they have heard with little regard for what they are actually reading. They often expect that the book in their hand will adhere to the conventions of mass-market fiction, and while some self-published books do try to work to those, many self-published books tend to be experimental in story and style. Now reviewers by nature are critics, and critics by nature tend to be tuned into the technical aspects of writing more so than most readers. I know this to be fact, because I am a reviewer, and this hyper-focus is a good thing. Our thoughtful and detailed criticism can actually help writers improve their craft/art, but we have to be very careful that the technical aspects of writing we latch onto are not some mainstream writing-for-dummies perpetuated arbitrary bullshit writing rule. And the first thing every critic has to do when they come upon something they think might be a technical issue is to: finish reading the damn book. After that then the critic can assess the issue(s) within the context of the entire story in order to determine whether or not the author actually made a mistake or made a deliberate stylistic choice.

For example: Back when I read Shannon Yarbrough's Stealing Wishes, I noticed that there were a lot of clichés -- a lot. Enough that if I weren't a very careful reader, I might have dismissed them as novice writing err and passed critical judgement. But I didn't. I just marked the clichés as I went and finished reading the book. It was a good thing I did. Towards the ending, our protagonist confesses a truism about himself: that he had no opinion of his own. So to me, after thoroughly analyzing the story and the character, I came to the conclusion that the cliché use fit perfectly with such a man: a man searching for life's great metaphor only to find a thousand clichéd similes.

In a similar situation while reviewing Gint Aras' Finding the Moon in Sugar, I stumbled over some scenes that just felt awkward and some that came off over-the-top unbelievable, but within the Wizard of OZ context, the characters and scenarios, while absurd, were completely believable, and their actions did not contradict the logic of their world. The book read to me like an Aesop's fable of a sort, and everything, albeit exaggerated to a degree for effect, fit quite nicely. Sure I had issues with the dialect and thought that it might have been a little overworked, but beyond that I found nothing in the plotline out of line. A story doesn't have to be "real" by the everyday life definition of the term to be good. We have to be careful how we define: suspension of disbelief. Some critics take that statement too seriously sometimes.

As a reviewer, we cannot take anything out of context. Sure there are real rules. Grammar is grammar and clarity is key when it comes to sentence structure, punctuation, and proper tense usage. Hell, sometimes I don't use a question mark at the end of a sentence if I am actually making a statement in the form of a question. I know. Who in their right mind would do that! I would. I am not specifically asking a question, I am just making a statement in order to introduce an argument. I have also been known to create my own words when I feel the need: In Logos, the paranormal novella I am editing at the moment, I use the word Phantasma. Not a real word, per se, but within the context of the sentence, it makes perfect sense.

As a reviewer, we cannot be too quick to judge. Now I am not saying that all bets are off when it comes to writing rules. We cannot forsake clarity for anarchy. We have to mean what we say and say what we mean when we write -- for the sake of the story and more importantly, the reader. Sometimes that might require that we follow a rule, and sometimes it might necessitate the bending or the breaking of a rule for effect.

So what am I saying here? If you need to shift tense, do; if you need that adverb, then leave it in, especially if you are writing in a campy style -- see Douglas Adams -- and if you need to change POV then have at it, Freud. Be as cliché as you want. Whatever! As long as it is appropriate. The key with any of this stuff is to be subtle and make sure it works. If it works, I promise I will be a careful enough reader to "get it." However, keep in mind that poor sentence structure, ineptly placed clauses, misspelled and misused words, and just god awful story construction are not stylistic choices, and I will "get" those as well.

Cheryl Anne Gardner

The art this week is The Elephant Celebes by surrealist artist Max Ernst, circa 1921