The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Aiwendil · 12-01-2004, 10:14 PM

We ought to distinguish two different kind of literary "rules".

First there are micro-rules - rules primarily regarding grammar or style. Examples are the prohibitions against starting a sentence with a conjunction, splitting an infinitive, and using a double negative. Some of these (like the former two) don't make all that much sense and should not be considered rules; others (like the last) do make sense. The ability to work with these rules (whether following or breaking them) is, I think, the prerequisite for good prose as such.

But the topic started with a discussion of an entirely different kind of literary rule. This is the macro-rule - examples include the exposition - rising action - climax - falling action - resolution scheme. Again, some of these rules make sense and some don't. The ability to work with these rules is a prerequisite for writing a work, a finished piece of prose, whether a short story, a novel, an essay, or anything else.

Now in both cases there are quite a few rules that are usually applicable but not generally applicable. It's usually a good idea not to split an infinitive, simply for reasons of style. Compare, for example, the previous sentence with: "It's usually a good idea to not split an infinitive . . ." But in other cases splitting an infinitive can work quite well: ". . . to boldly go where no one has gone before."

The same, it seems to me, is true of the macro-rules. Do you think it's a good idea to start your novel with a chapter that introduces none of the main plot of the novel and to follow that with a chapter containing almost nothing but exposition and a lot of strange-looking names? It's probably not; nearly anyone who tried to write a book like that would most likely fail. It makes sense, then, to call it a "rule", of sorts, that one not proceed like that. The Lord of the Rings happens to begin in that way; it is an exception.

But it's a mistake to think that the existence of exceptions to the rules means the whole concept of literary rules is invalid, for two reasons.

First, as I pointed out above, even when there are exceptions to a rule, the rule is often still widely applicable. The five act structure is not the only way to write a good piece of fiction, but it is a good way, and its essential points can be of value even when it is not followed to the letter.

Second, the ability to succesfully break the rules is neither magical nor random. The second chapter of The Lord of the Rings only works because Tolkien knew, better than perhaps any other modern author, how to make exposition interesting. If I tried to write a novel like that, I'd be certain to fail miserably (not that I wouldn't fail anyway). The rules fail at times not because rules cannot be applied to art but because art is so complex that all the rules we have formulated are only approximations and not applicable generally - when they are not simply wrong.

12-01-2004, 10:14 PM	#12
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	We ought to distinguish two different kind of literary "rules". First there are micro-rules - rules primarily regarding grammar or style. Examples are the prohibitions against starting a sentence with a conjunction, splitting an infinitive, and using a double negative. Some of these (like the former two) don't make all that much sense and should not be considered rules; others (like the last) do make sense. The ability to work with these rules (whether following or breaking them) is, I think, the prerequisite for good prose as such. But the topic started with a discussion of an entirely different kind of literary rule. This is the macro-rule - examples include the exposition - rising action - climax - falling action - resolution scheme. Again, some of these rules make sense and some don't. The ability to work with these rules is a prerequisite for writing a work, a finished piece of prose, whether a short story, a novel, an essay, or anything else. Now in both cases there are quite a few rules that are usually applicable but not generally applicable. It's usually a good idea not to split an infinitive, simply for reasons of style. Compare, for example, the previous sentence with: "It's usually a good idea to not split an infinitive . . ." But in other cases splitting an infinitive can work quite well: ". . . to boldly go where no one has gone before." The same, it seems to me, is true of the macro-rules. Do you think it's a good idea to start your novel with a chapter that introduces none of the main plot of the novel and to follow that with a chapter containing almost nothing but exposition and a lot of strange-looking names? It's probably not; nearly anyone who tried to write a book like that would most likely fail. It makes sense, then, to call it a "rule", of sorts, that one not proceed like that. The Lord of the Rings happens to begin in that way; it is an exception. But it's a mistake to think that the existence of exceptions to the rules means the whole concept of literary rules is invalid, for two reasons. First, as I pointed out above, even when there are exceptions to a rule, the rule is often still widely applicable. The five act structure is not the only way to write a good piece of fiction, but it is a good way, and its essential points can be of value even when it is not followed to the letter. Second, the ability to succesfully break the rules is neither magical nor random. The second chapter of The Lord of the Rings only works because Tolkien knew, better than perhaps any other modern author, how to make exposition interesting. If I tried to write a novel like that, I'd be certain to fail miserably (not that I wouldn't fail anyway). The rules fail at times not because rules cannot be applied to art but because art is so complex that all the rules we have formulated are only approximations and not applicable generally - when they are not simply wrong.