(Plot+Characters)*Voice^2=Literature?

[Boromir88]

"plug and chug"

My Geometry teacher would say the same thing!!!

Anyway...

His use of "archaic" language too has, I believe, been criticised as inappropriate in a "modern" novel. I am sure that there are other examples.

Very true SpM, I remember Tolkien having trouble with them editors. With the whole "Elfin" "Elfish" fiasco.
I say Elfin you say Elven. I say Elfish you say Elvish.

There's two keys to being a "good," author, as I was taught. You either "go with the flow," and continue on with the popular trend at the time. Whatever the literary trend be at that time you continue to write in that fashion, and tweak it just a bit to your own likings.

Or you do something completely opposite from the trend and just go off on your own thing. Sometimes people want to see something knew, and therefor it starts your own trend. For example:
The Reformation thinkers wrote about how we are born being capable of evil and it was society, government, laws that kept us being "good."
The next literary change brought something totally opposite, called "romanticism." They believed we are born good but it is society, government, laws, that corrupt us.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

My understanding is that LotR is replete with examples of how, in literary theory, one is supposed not to write a book. I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong (Bêthberry? ),

No need for Bethberry to assure you of your correctness, I can confidently inform you that you have successfully avoided splitting that infinitive.

My Geometry teacher would say the same thing!!!

My Calculus teacher likes "Now you take these numbers, and plug them into that equation, and see what happens." Math class is like a Glade commercial... plug it in, plug it in.

My view of writing instructors is that they tend to instruct you in the "correct" way to write based on their personal preferences for what they like to read. I got 80s on my first few papers this year for English because my teacher doesn't grade the same way as my old teacher did. His taste in literature is far different than hers, and so he prefers different styles than she did.

One "bad habit" that The Lord of the Rings taught me, and that my English teacher pounces on me for, is beginning a sentence with the word 'and'. He hands me back papers covered in red marks for where I use sentence fragments to add a little spice, where I start a sentence with 'and' because I like how it sounds, where I lost him with some random reference... All bad habits (in his opinion) that I picked up from "That stupid hobbit stuff".

I honestly wish more writers would break the rules and write something interesting, as opposed to cookie cutter books with the same plot, same character ideas, and same everything. I appreciate that there is pretty much nothing orginal any more, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

Fea

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

No need for Bethberry to assure you of your correctness, I can confidently inform you that you have successfully avoided splitting that infinitive.

Actually, that gives rise to a pertinent point. I have become "conditioned" (by one of my previous bosses) not to split the infinitive. But the rule was, I believe, originally established so as to avoid clumsy sentence construction and there are many cases where splitting the infinitive will not give rise to a clumsy sentence (even though it might seem wrong to our "conditioned" grammatical sensibilities). So there will often be no real reason to not split the infinitive.

And I don't really see anything wrong with starting sentences with "and" either. Taking my cue from Tolkien (and disregarding what I learned at school), I do it all the time in my (very limited) creative writing. And in my posts here too. It makes for shorter sentences. Which is, I think, desirable. Or so the Plain English Campaign tells us. But then again, as Tolkien himself once again illustrates on many occasions, it is sometimes appropriate to have incredibly lengthy sentences, sentences which are perhaps heavy with descriptive words, or those where complex and related ideas are best grouped together, or even where that is the manner in which a particular character speaks - and so the length of his sentences enhance the credibility of his dialogue; and in such cases I see no reason not to indulge oneself in a nice lengthy sentence.

The point being that many of these rules (structural, grammatical etc) are there to be challenged. Sometimes there is no real purpose served in following them. And, occasionally, breaking them will even enhance the quality of the work in question.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am most certainly not saying that these rules should not be taught (double negative, anyone ). But it should also be acknowledged in doing so that there is scope for flexibility in their application.

[Elven-Maiden]

If you're still in school, don't do this until your graduation ceremony. If you've finished at that school, do this next time you see her: Ask her how many of her books are on the NY Best Sellers List because you'd like to own one of her masterpieces to pass down for posterity.

I have no respect for teachers like yours.

[Kuruharan]

My AP English 12 teacher is somewhat of a mathemetician when it comes to literature and it really bugs me. For her, a good story comes from the Five Act Formula (she doesn't really call it this) with an exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution. Add a protagonist, conflict, and antagonist, a few side characters (better if it includes a pretty woman), throw in a pinch of what my teacher likes to call "narrative voice" which includes tone, diction, syntax, and word choice. Foreshadowing and flashbacks give it some zest, too. And voila! Without even trying, you have plugged and chugged a New York bestseller! Funny, I had always considered writing to be an art rather than a algebra formula.

I think the (or a) secret to the art is the setting of the stage for a story and how the author links all these elements together in pursuit of this goal. This is not an easy challenge, as several threads on the Downs on the subject of crappy fantasy attest. Sure, one can plug and chug all they want (and likely as not, sell books too) but that does not make it worthwhile. All of the elements you mentioned I believe are tools in the quest to help “realize” the story, but they are not ends in themselves. Writing the story can follow some accustomed forms in utilizing these tools, but bringing the story to life is the art that does not fit into a formula.

For whatever reason, Tolkien succeeds while many do not.

[Encaitare]

My Geometry teacher would say the same thing!!!

Ah, well, my math teacher last year would always say of large equations, "Okay, so you take this mess and multiply it by this mess..." etc. Amusing. (<--Blatant Sentence Fragment!) I think once his said "this mess" five times in one period.

But on topic, English teachers seem to believe it is their solemn duty to educate us about these literary elements and techniques, and then have us spit information back at them regarding how they affect the story. Oftentimes I am given assignments which consist of the analysis of tone and diction and such-- granted, they are important, but contrary to what my English teacher tells me, I don't believe most writers sit down and say to themselves, "Hmmm... I think I'll use this sort of tone here..." or "Aha! I shall characterize this person through the thoughts of another person about him!" Of course, for example, if one is writing something satirical, the tone will be a little humorous or caustic. But still, I have to wonder how many of the things we must analyze in school were actually done intentionally. I tend to think that things just develop on their own more than anything, as was the case with Tolkien's writing. Personally, I find certain unintentional elements in my own writing -- for example, I put a symbol in something I wrote without even realizing it. It makes me wonder, if ever I should write a great novel, if high schoolers would read it and their teachers would say, "Ooh, just look at that diction! Now why do you think she did that?" And it would be rather silly, because I probably wouldn't have done it for any particular reason at all; I probably would not have even realized what I was doing.

Gee, am I babbling much?

One thing I find a tad ironic (another literary technique!) is that I gripe about this in school and yet I dash to the CbC thread and am engrossed in much of the same thing.

And in Tolkien's case, perhaps we could call it the Six Act Formula: exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution, and a great number of multi-lingual super-long brilliantly-rhymed poems thrown in there for good measure.

[Kuruharan]

There is some method to the madness of English teachers. They are trying to teach large numbers of people to communicate effectively and following a certain formula is a relatively simple means of doing this.

Now, to make me feel better about myself, here is my critical comment:

Looking at some of the dreadful educational results, perhaps this does not work so well. But there are many other issues involved there.

[Aiwendil]

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.

[Lush]

Wait... This is a teacher of AP English? As in ADVANCED PLACEMENT?

How the #$5@ does this woman expect you to pass the exam while dispensing pearls of wisdom such as the ones you describe in this thread?

Per whether or not Tolkien knew where he was going: I think all good writers do actually know exactly where they're going, but the knowledge is more metaphysical than anything.

[the phantom]

and that my English teacher pounces on me for, is beginning a sentence with the word 'and'

That always happened to me, too.

The point being that many of these rules (structural, grammatical etc) are there to be challenged.

It is this attitude (I have it towards everything having to do with school) that cements my status as an A-/B+ student rather than an A+ student.

Another thing that gets me in trouble is spelling. I'm always writing "grey" instead of "gray", "colour"- "color", "armour"- "armor", "theatre"- "theater", "defence"- "defense", etc....

Here's something I thought you might enjoy-

I have noticed that some British tend to be more particular about split infinitives and prepositions at the end of a sentence, but those "rules" came from Latin and have little relevance in English. It was, in fact, Sir Winston Churchill who put to rest the "preposition cannot end a sentence rule" with his famous rejoinder that placing the preposition at the end of a sentence is "something up with which we will not put!"