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

[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.

[Rimbaud]

In terms of overarching criticisms, the main one I would level at this site's focus, is the clumsy shifts in tone and pacing. This is due in part to his combination of linear narrative writing and 'cut-n-paste' history addendum. Still, the difference in character speech in particular from book to book is awkward. Oddly enough the forced archaisms do not hinder my enjoyment nearly so much, perhaps as I view them as an integral part of the fabric.

But don't think the sour lemon spoils the excellent tonic.

[Boromir88]

I think all authors must have their plot outline (exposition, initial incident, conflict....etc). That is something all English classes study. Also things like Character development, theme, setting, all things we look at, and all things the author puts there for a purpose to get us wondering. If you didn't have this stuff there would be no story, so it is important to actually HAVE a story, but I wouldn't say it's what makes a NY times best seller. It's all about opinion, what people are interested in at the times, if there's a trend, and people want to continue with that literary trend they are going to read it. If someone wants to break away from the trend, and create something totally different, maybe the people want a literary change, therefor they read that.

A little more about the plot outline, and this is one of the things I happen to like about the story. You have the exposition, initial incident, conflict, climax, resolution (destroying the ring). But then there's this French phrase called Denameaut (sp?) (falling action), where after the climax the story begins to fall. In LOTR, everyone is saying their good byes and going back home. But, the author adds in an extra twist sort of like a "mini climax." In LOTR this is the scouring of the shire. That's a part of Tolkien I like about, that short climax, curve at the end, but I must say that isn't what makes it a "good" book.

[Lalwendë]

But then there's this French phrase called Denameaut (sp?) (falling action), where after the climax the story begins to fall.

I think it's Denoument? I know exactly what it means, but as shown in my lifelong struggle with the word beauracrat, I struggle with French words.

This topic has got the old cogs turning as I'm someone who not only enjoys writing, but has also taught writing, has been taught writing, and who does it professionally. Firstly, looking at this from the point of view as the teacher, it is vital that children are taught grammar, but this needs to be done as early as possible; in my own case, I was taught grammar from the age of five, and hence it became second nature to apply it. I don’t know many of the names of the rules, as it is almost instinct to apply them having learned them at such a young age. But coupled with this, nothing can beat reading as a way of assimilating the rules of spelling and grammar.

I can see why a teacher would want their students to learn to write in a structured manner. Learning rules of story writing helps assist students to think about what they are writing and to structure it; I have taught teenagers how to write, and we experimented with a comparison of free-form writing and using structure and planning, thus demonstrating how well an idea can be conveyed if laid out appropriately. In addition, in the UK at least, one of the ‘roles’ of an English teacher is to guide students in how to set out essays correctly, and in such a manner that they make their point coherently; this is a vital skill in achieving A levels.

I also studied writing at university, where we eventually learned quite the opposite, and that was how to break the rules. After a grilling in the basics, e.g. how to write a Petrarchan sonnet, we were then ‘set free’ to do our own work. One of my experiments included an autobiography without any description; I used line drawings instead. And now, in my work, I must not only write according to strict standards, but (when I get the chance) write creative speeches. This is yet another area of writing which I had to learn. I have been taught never to begin a sentence with a number, always to write Government with a capital (it is blasphemy not to do so as Government equals God), and to make liberal use of beginning sentences with ‘And’ and ‘But’ when speechwriting.

So, what I’m saying is that yes, there are rules, and it helps enormously to learn them, but out there, in the heady world of words, the rules don’t necessarily count. On the one hand we have the official documents which must be written to specified standards, and on the other we have Finnegan's Wake (which are perhaps not so far apart actually). And throw into all of this the fact that grammatical and spelling rules are constantly altering, which is a marvellous thing as it keeps the English language alive, and keeps me from being a pedant as I have to accept that this language would just die if we were all too pedantic.

[Rimbaud]

The point being, as Lalwende explains, that in order to break a rule justifiably, you have to know it (and preferably understand it). Ignorance being no defence in matters of the pen!

[HerenIstarion]

it is vital that children are taught grammar

What, than, should be done to this coarse and uneducated person (that is, me), who never ever learned any English grammar whatsoever? For truly, my native is Georgian, my mother (and books I've read) tought me Russian, and French was foreign language of my choice when I've been visiting school (visiting occassionally, mind you, as I've been preparing myself for a career of a professional swimmer and spent most of my time afloat in a pool )

Not that I denounce what've been said. What I would you to see (and repeat after Aiwendil), is that exeptions only underline, or stress the vital importance of rules. But moderate mastery of English can be achieved by means of 'parroting' - per instance, I suppose I do not break that many rules now as I write current post, but not because I know them, but as I 'feel' them - as I've read many books and I've seen many posts where rules were applied in a proper fashion, and learned to discern them without knowing them.

Do not believe me? See my posts of some years back and compare the language and style (besides, since than I've invested my money into a software under the name of Lingvo 9.0. Good returns on investment I've got too - ctrl->insert->insert - and doubts as to meaning and spelling are magically resolved)

I constantly progress, and one day I hope to understand what Rimbaud writes on first reading. [Now his posts, especially short ones, require second reading on yours truly's part to get the meaning across ]

But that'd be personal information, probably of no interest. What I've got to say on topic, is that pursuit of originality, or pursuit of compliance to the rules, are equally ruinous to the work in itself.

Try to be original, and break the rules on purpose (making those two goals an end in itself) - reward will be contempt of critics and probably no readers. Try to follow the rules, and make that an end - the result, I suppose, would be the same.

But love the subject you write about with passion, believe it to be 'the Truth', write to communicate the subject, not for writing's sake, but for the sake of the subject and for the sake of 'the Truth', and - lo and behold! - if you are even moderately good with language, the piece of work produced will be praised and loved

That'd be general rule which bears no exeptions, which may make mere work about stamp-collecting a fascinating and absorbing read, - else is technicalities of no great consequence.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

There are all kinds of ways in which LotR is a "bad" novel -- in fact, there are ways in which it is not a novel at all, but a long story (which is how I try to refer to it at all times).

The beginning is overly long, with whole episodes of action and character entirely dissociated from the plot (Tom Bombadil et al.); there are huge chunks of expository prose in which the writer is "telling" not "showing"; there's the awkward shifts in tone and voice that Rimbaud has lemonly pointed out, the climax is drawn out with a long and uneven denoument. . .and on and on.

For many people these variations from the established 'norm' of novelistic technique prove too great a challenge. I'm sure we've all run across people who have said that they started FotR but "could not get into it" -- to these people I now say "skip the chapters bewteen Crickhollow and Bree, and give the story a chance to grab you at Weathertop", and this usually works.

And yet it all, obviously, holds together and I think that Lush hitnts at why: the organisational logic of the work is not narrative but thematic. The action is not organised around the linear plodding of events, but around the ideas that it develops and explores in and through its characters.