I hope you guys like the video despite the lack of script! At the end I say the next videos won't be done for a few weeks, I meant the character arc videos. I'm wrapping up a video on editing (the one I meant to film for this week) which will be out very soon. If you're getting blasted with this summer heat, I hope you stay cool!
This was really good! I like your perspective and I think the analogy with visual arts is apt. I think it would be cool if in some of your future videos you could use some novels as the examples for the points you're making! I know you often use films because there's a higher chance everyone's seen the particular movie, but personally I sometimes struggle to see the 'rules' of storytelling in a book - because movies are fundamentally a different medium and I think often don't have the greater scale that a novel would have. That's just a thought though, obviously a lot of the rules do apply to both! Thanks so much for your wonderful videos, I've learnt so much.
I think a big part of the problem is the way writing advice is given. Interestingly, it was EXACTLY when learning about filter words that I came to this conclusion. "Don't use filter words." "Why?" "It'll distance the reader from the character." "That's what I'm trying to do." A much more helpful thing to tell a new writer than Don't Do X, is "If You Do X, your reader will experience Y."
While I generally agree with the idea that most writing rules exist for a reason and you should understand them and have a reason to break them, rather than break them out of ignorance or laziness, I also believe there are some rules that someone influential came up with at some point and people keep repeating without questioning them. Filter words is a particularly weird one for me. I never notice them in what I read (and I’m pretty sure they’re used), and I don’t really feel this supposed “distance” they create. I mean, I understand the idea. Saying someone felt something is putting that character and their senses between you and the action. But is it really a problem? I’m not sure. I would really like to know where the idea that “filter” words add friction to the reader’s immersion comes from. It sounds like it makes sense, but in practice I doubt removing them has any real impact on a reader’s experience besides creating shorter sentences.
@@mariano7107 Going to have to disagree that removing them doesn't have impact. You don' t have to remove -all- of them, but they make a huge difference in getting the reader invested in a story. I've noticed with my horror stories that filtering made my story less scary. Reading a series of he felt, she felt, he heard, she saw, made the prose boring to read. Removing the filters makes the prose punchy, immediate, and doesn't repeat to the reader what they already know. Filtering adds bloat to the word count and is generally not needed in a story. When you're printing a book, brevity of words is important because the more pages you have the more money your book costs. There's a small but perceptible difference between: "She heard a metal pot clang in the kitchen causing her to jump from her seat." vs. "A metal pot clanged in the kitchen causing her to jump from her seat." It's smoother and easier to read without the filtering, IMO.
@@Thesilverninja Oh, I don’t disagree that making sentences more concise and eliminating superfluous words can result in a better reading experience. I’m just questioning that filter words necessarily have the claimed distancing effect. When you say filter words were making your story less scary, was this reader feedback? How did you manage to link their feedback to filter words. (If the readers pointed to the filter words … I would say it doesn’t count, because it means they’re aware of the “rule”). In your example, yes, in isolation the second version is better, but both really convey the same message and mental image. Personally I don’t think any of the two would make me feel more distant from the action in the context of a full scene. Anyway, I’m just wondering about this, not saying I’m definitely right. Writing “rules” is something I enjoy pondering from time to time :)
@@mariano7107 It's not based on reader feedback but rather my own feelings after re-reading the work. Filtering is one of those things that I feel has a cumulative effect in making the work feel amateur. It is a subtle difference that gives sentences a certain rhythm. With great authors, their writing seems so simple that anyone could do it. But the reality is that they invested a lot of time polishing the work. There is a certain melody that is harder to achieve with filtering. Similar to Shakespeare's iambic pentameter but less restrictive. I'm probably not explaining it well but those are my thoughts on it.
This was really insightful! I think calling them "Rules" adds to the confusion. Calling them "Tools" might be more helpful. For example, avoiding filter words is a tool that helps you shrink the narrative distance. You need to learn what the tools are for to know when to use them, and when not to. This is a really important discussion for creatives of all kinds. Thanks for sharing!
Or, calling them conventions. They are ways of doing something we agree on so we can communicate. A little rule-breaking, a little of the unexpected, is good for us.
A ceramist friend explained an artist's path as a circle. I think of it more as a spiral. We return to the same topics, but each time with a different vantage point. Beginners don't understand that knowing when a rule doesn't count isn't the same as not knowing the rule. They have to travel the circle back to were they were.
Am I the only one who appreciates the idea of an unscripted video discussing rules as guidelines rather than laws? Ellen, you're more amazing than you know. Thank you so much for what you share with us.
Thank you for this! Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of writing rules that have achieved a sort of folklore status, where the "what" of the rule gets passed on, but the "why" doesn't. I believe people are genuinely trying to be helpful when they pass these rules on, but they never learned the "why" themselves, and are perhaps insecure about admitting that fact. I do find that professionals are better about knowing and communicating the rationales behind the rules, but even that's not entirely universal.
I could really feel your energy and excitement to discuss this topic! Knowing the rules to know when, how, and why you can break or bend them is important and I'm glad that this impromptu video was made from your discussion. I guess you broke your own rules to make this video! 😏 A great video as always Ellen!
I think there is something quite apropos about you delivering this topic without a script -- aka, subverting one of your own usual rules for making videos! Very thematic. And great advice, as always. ❤
This is why I like your channel! You explain things very well. The “tools not rules” for achieving your creative vision is exactly what I love about writing (and art!)
Exiting lurking mode for a comment here: I've been following your channel for years, and you are one of the few people speaking about so many good topics for writers (filtering, rules, distance between reader and characters, and all the other videos). It's good to hear an impromptu video, and the quality is still there!! I look forward for more content like this one, and to hear more about your book!
What I'm writing is a continuous story with no beginning or end that I never plan to publish, so most rules don't apply to me, but I still watch every video of yours about every rule because when I'm stuck, it makes it easier to figure out why, and I can try some partial structure or technique, and modify and adjust them to fit my format. Rules are tools to be used if they fit the purpose.
Great video! It's like the dials and slides on a sound mixing desk. You need to know what the dials and slides do before you adjust the positions. Otherwise, you'll have a hard time creating your unique vision. (Tools, not rules)
As a musician, I wrote my master's thesis on how different fields of art (poetry, storytelling, visual arts, music, architecture etc.) influence and have been influencing and inspiring each other. This topic is fascinating to me. If you have time, I wholeheartedly recommend a master class on Elgar's cello concerto by Benjamin Zander. It's on RUclips. There he talks about how being an excellent cellist might sometimes be a distraction, standing between the artist and the audience. I could talk about it for hours, so I love you took up about this subject ❤️ Thanks and good luck with your artistic development!
I loved this video format ao much! It feels more like a conversation because you have those natural pauses etc. Please do more of these and don't let it be a one off 😅
The way my writing teacher got me out of my "rules" rebellion was by telling me that if I don't know the rules, I can never break them INTENTIONALLY. I can only break them ACCIDENTALLY. And do I really want to be a writer who only writes things well on accident?
love the video -- i always had this mischievous desire to break a rule the moment i hear it -- i think i need to try obeying them all and seeing why they are rules
I engaged with this question recently and came to a conclusion that differed from my previous stance. Considering that my goal, as a writer, is to deliver story in a way that doesn't hinder my reader's enjoyment of it, I need to operate in a way that doesn't distract from the story. Writing is simply a method of delivering story, so it needs to be intuitive. Following rules that your audience knows and expects is how you ensure your work is accessible. This is the reason you need to know the rules. Rules can be broken, but you need to develop a secondary skill in order to do so successfully. You have to understand that a reader doesn't have whatever context surrounds your reasoning for doing something innovative. When you do decide to venture off the beaten path, you need to be able to separate yourself from that original context. Doing so will allow you to view the same section of text as if from an exterior vantage, where you can then determine whether or not your innovation is consumable by a 3rd party. At least, that's what I think on the matter. 😅
This is a good point. There were some areas in my book where I wanted to deviate from the norm/rules, but when I read it back with distance, I wasn't satisfied and wanted to change a few things. Unsurprisingly, my changes nudged it back towards following the rules. It's great for creativity to experiment and innovate, but sometimes we look back and go, "Huh, that was fun, but it didn't work."
I wrote a 10-book series (7 novels, 3 novellas). I've read/edited them individually at least once (some 2 or 3 times), and I'm currently reading/editing them all for the 3rd pass through the entire series. - "Why did you do that?" - 1) I wanted to make sure I didn't write myself into a corner. I needed the entire series laid out, with all the intricate character arcs, plots, twists; etc. - 2) I wanted readers to be able to enjoy reading my series for the first time TWICE; so I've written the series in a way that allows audiences the ability to read it in two different orders. There will be the published order (book 1, book 2, book 3, etc.); but each book is also internally called a scroll with it's own number (scroll 1, scroll 2, scroll 3, etc.). This means I needed to ensure that certain mysteries aren't ruined when read in the other order, and certain characters or event details aren't assumed to be known by readers. A fun, tricky task for me; but I think I nailed it. - 3) My books also have illustrations. I wanted all the books to have the same art style from the same artist; so I couldn't reasonably expect him to be around for a decade or more to randomly come back and draw some art. I needed to present him all the images I required in a short amount of time (2 years), which meant I needed all the image ideas with specific details from the beginning, which meant I needed to have all the books written before I had the first image drawn. - Do you think it was smart of me to write them all before publishing the first book?
@@borednow It was not easy. I had to mentally juggle two versions/timelines of my story at once. This meant I also had to read through the whole series in both orders, to make sure everything worked correctly. The release order is very chaotic, and jumps all around in the timeline; but it feels natural, because of the set-up and pay-off of revelations and character development found in back-to-back books. Scrolls 3, 8, 4 are like one trilogy. Scrolls 6, 2, 7 are like a second trilogy. Scrolls 1, 5, 9 are like a third trilogy. The 10th scroll is also the 10th book; so it's the finale for both versions. - The second order is like reading it on hard difficulty. Everything is in the chronological order (scroll 1, scroll 2, scroll 3, & so on); which means the 'main character' isn't introduced until the third book, and readers must keep better track of events and subtle details, for them to make sense books later.
@@borednow Self-Publishing. Trying to convince a big publishing house to take a chance on a 10 book series from an unknown author sounds like mission impossible. 😅 I think the addition of illustrations might discourage professional publishers as well. In Japan, something called 'Light Novels' is getting very popular; which are effectively Novellas with frequent manga-style illustrations. Manga has exploded in popularity here in the U.S.; even destroying American comic book sales. I see this 'Light Novel' industry having a good chance of gaining popularity here in the U.S.; allowing for the two industries of manga readers and novel readers to overlap. My books are an attempt at predicting this trend; featuring manga style tropes, artwork, and even manga style covers with series numbers in the bottom corners. I plan to begin publishing them next year.🤞😁
Very cool video! I have been trying to advocate for that for so long but you put it in such clear words ... Thank you so much! ❤️ Side note: That applies to story structure, too. Horror for example often does NOT wrap up all the lose ends in the end. Or some stories have a very short first act to create a feeling of uncertainty. But just like you said: You need to know what effect you will cause on your audience by breaking those structures. Otherwise you won't tell the story you want to tell - and that is kind of the whole point of writing it down, isn't it? 😊
Rules are like dimensions, sometimes you have to turn it inside out, and sometimes the rules that define art and writing, or music, and dance, are separated by the illusion of said rules...
I was so lost without ‘the rules,’ definitely not an intuitive writer. So I use them as scaffolding, but make modifications as I go. Although it’s laborious, asking ‘what is the purpose’ of each element helps with selection. I hope to become more intuitive and capable as I write more. I like this trend towards questioning writing advice though, because a lot of Hollywood writing is getting stale. I think good novels are always much more dynamic anyway.
In my previous writing group one member was head hopping. She signposted it, so it wasn't confusing, and so since it didn't cause confusion, she didn't understand why she shouldn't do it. She wanted for the reader to know what the other character was thinking. And I think this is the perfect situation for what Ellen was talking about here. She was breaking a rule without understanding why the rule exists in the first place, and she was breaking the rule to create an effect that she could have accomplished without breaking the rule. We didn't need headhopping to show what the other character was thinking (it wasn't a complex thought), but we did it anyways and now my immersion is broken because a single paragraph in this whole chapter is randomly from another POV. At the time I didn't have the understanding that I do now for what she was sacrificing when making her choice, but I think that plays into what Ellen was saying. I need to learn why the rule exists and what I sacrifice by breaking it. If I can't answer that, then I need to study up or just stick with what is orthodox.
More simply, if you break a rule to create an effect, but the effect did not require the rule to be broken, then you likely created an unintentional effect. Or at the very least, read as amateurish.
Great video! I'm coming at things from the experience opposite of you, I'm a professional illustrator who's trained at visual art since I was a kid, only just now trying out writing as an almost-30s for the fun of being a Beginner again. I feel like it's helped give me a different perspective than a lot of "new writers", since I don't have nearly the same level of agonizing over rules, failure, and letting my own bruised ego get in the way of progressing, because I already grueled through those exact things while learning to draw lmfaaoooo. Now writing can be the hobby that I can like, experimentally push blocks around until something either falls over and I go "oops! Not like that then", or i step back to look at it and go "hey! that's not bad actually :-)". Learning the base rules has been enjoyable, because they help demystify what the procedure to Do The Thing even IS. Like practicing with a recipe before slinging random ingredients you like into a pot, or following a tutorial on building a birdhouse before you design your perfect bookshelf, they're helpful for familiarizing yourself with the "tools" at hand before attempting your magnum opus, lol. And like almost everything, while there are some rules you can "know" just by memorizing them, there are many that you don't GET until you try to write something, don't get the effect you wanted, but then you remember the rule and go "ohhhhh okay so THAT'S why". And that's what makes it so fun to me, lol. That transition from Knowing to Understanding is the best in the world. (It's also very funny to me that, no matter the medium, "but it's my STYLE!" as a buttheaded refusal to engage with the fundamentals is eternal. oh, the memories of kids trying to draw anime in the early 2000s)
This subject reminds me of the two types of English classes I've seen in college. It could be the exact same class level, but you have two types of professors. You have the professor that focuses on sentence mechanics and definitions and you have the professor who focuses on critiquing your work to help you convey an idea better, making your writing more impactful. I see too many people being as rigid as the former than naturally falling into their own place with their own style as the latter. The problem I see with "rules" is that it weighs more subjective by gatekeepers to protect their bottom line than objective for the artform. I think there's more fear to change. A classic example is when Marvel Comics lost all their big money making artists and writers in the early 90s which gave birth to a new rival called Image Comics. These artists broke from the norm and expressed their art their way that's also appealing and stands out different from everyone else's copy & paste formats.
I have a very difficult relationship with rules in writing, mainly because I write what I want to read and most of what I want to read is bizarre, surreal, avant garde stuff that breaks all the rules and in turn alienates most people. As such I'll never expect to be popular. I've written four, soon to be five novels and the first two followed all the rules and advice I'd received to the letter. Neither were anything to write home about. The third broke all the rules and was hated by everyone who read it, even though I thought it was okay, so I learned that maybe following some rules might be worthwhile. The fourth also broke a lot of rules but is currently looking like it'll be the most commercially viable. The moral of my story here is don't drink and drive. (I've honestly forgotten where I was going with this comment or what point I was trying to make.)
Writers have rules because readers have rules and life has rules. We don't always perceive them unless they're broken. In every book that "doesn't work," it's because the reader has implicit expectations the author hasn't fulfilled.
as someone who's an artist and a writer and has been trying to learn how to do both better recently i have definitely been thinking about both of these things recently lmao
Everything that’s been created has rules. You might not see it if you haven’t mastered the craft but they’re there. Rules are guidelines until you master them. Master your craft and then you can know how to cheat and bend the rules (never break them). Trying to become a top martial artist without learning the basics overall concept first will get you hurt. Learning every stage is part of knowing how to get to the top of the craft.
Good video, but I also had to think about the plants, both not in a spot suited for them. The left clearly grows to the light, getting longer and longer, the right needing a stem to grow up on. ^^° But yeah, it's the same in art. The fundamentals exist to help you, but they are guides, not guards. You can and should break them. They can help you understand the human reaction to your craft and give ideas how to achieve them and construct your work. But they are not a prison to work in.
Why do we have "rules" in music? Why do we have musical theory? A musician could ignore them and take "liberty" at the keyboard... but they would find they do not have the freedom of expression had they followed the rules. Thanks for this video!
Chesterton's Fence is at play here: "Before you tear down a fence, pause to ask why it was put up." Studying Beethoven (great classical composer who created the Romantic Period) and studying Magnus Carlson (world's greatest current chess player), I've found that breaking the rules is a key component to their success; however, it is only done with great intentionality. Carlson is an important one to look at, because chess is not a matter of preference. The rules of chess aren't opinions, -they're testable. You either win or lose the game when you apply the rules of chess well. But if that was so, then Magnus Carlson would be a terrible chess player for breaking the rules, and yet, he's the world #1. So there is another layer of breaking rules. The thing about Magnus is that he doesn't discard the rule book to do his own thing. He knows the rules like the back of his hand. Half of the games he plays are by-the-book, -using a proper opening, ect.. He knows the rules. But more than that, he knows the function of the rules. He knows why the rules were made, and so if he sees a very unique situation where the application of the rule doesn't accomplish the intent of the rule, or he sees a better move than the rule, he has the intelligence to subvert the rule for a better outcome. (Not to mention his other Grand Master opponents are so used to opponents that play by-the-book that it throws them off.) But Beethoven is different in that music is a matter of taste and preference, but it all still applies. Beethoven didn't "mess up" on the rules. Most of Beethoven's Symphonies follow form as they're supposed to, but he knew to listen to the music to know deeper insights. He wisely recognized that he had too much energy going into the Coda of the Finale of his 5th Symphony. So rather than wrapping up quickly, he needed to disburse the energy, which he did by extending the Coda (by a lot). He wisely recognized that the Finale of his 9th symphony was too grand to build up to it with a conventional 3rd movement, so he swapped the roles of the 2nd and 3rd movement, to come at the grand finale with tact. The ironic thing is that it's always the people who idolize these rule breakers who end up destroying their art. "Beethoven broke the rules, and I want to be like Beethoven!" But you're not Beethoven. Until you learn to think like Beethoven, you should follow the rules. And now that you do think like Beethoven, you respect the rules.
Thank you for these examples from other fields! I always find it extremely interesting to learn the reasoning behind the choices of people who know their art or field of study very well. Beethoven's idea of extending the coda sounds very smart, and something similar can be applied to extending certain plot points/beats/phases of a piece of fiction. Very cool! And yes, breaking the rules in an informed way can create extremely inspired and inspiring work that others want to emulate, but it takes a long time to get to the point where someone is able to put good reasoning behind why and when they're deviating from the rules.
I like to use the semicolon to illustrate this point. Because semicolons are not used very often I most fiction, any semicolon you use will necessarily draw attention to itself - which is good, if that’s what you want. If it’s not what you want, though, then maybe just stick with the popular trend of avoiding semicolons. It kinda reminds me of Clockwork Orange. For the first few chapters, I was really struggling to internalize the unique slang terms, so a lot of my energy was spent focusing on those (which seemed to be the intention). As the story progressed, I got accustomed to the slang terms and was able to focus more on the story. Then, around CH12 I think, he throws in a couple brand new slang terms, and I’m back to focusing on them. So that’s nifty.
Good point about the semicolon. I think playing around with punctuation can be effective when you want an impact, but most of the time we want punctuation to get out of the way and be invisible.
I would say you're safe to go off script. That was great. Also, when it's hot and the power is out, put your feet in a bowl of cold water. (Something learned on a trip to India 😆)
Great talk. Since the 19th century, the visual arts had to compete with cameras, and this is why impressionism and abstract art was invented to help visual art survive. Writing is now facing ChatGPT. In order for human writers to continue to be a thing, they will have to invent very human forms of writing that the latest renditions of ChatGPT can't accomplish. Rules aren't going to do this, because ChatGPT can follow any rule that can be written down.
Artist and writer here. I see "rules" more like bases, how things work, you must know how they work before tweaking and altering them. Because if you don't, they will not work. The artists who "don't use the rules" or break them, got a deep grasp of how they work, a natural understanding, that they can make the whole art piece or book function "without" it. And the only way to do this is repeating the rules till they get under your skin. And how long that process is varies with each person and their own artist journey. There's no formula neither calendar to achieve it. Just doing it and progressing piece by piece
I wrote an essay on this topic after a writer's group member argued that his bad prose was his style and perfectly fine. He was confused about what style is and why the rules enhance style. His prose remains a stumbling block.
My entire novel is in third person limited of one POV. However, the climax technically requires 3 different POV’s. I’ve decided it must be a rule that it’s forbidden to only switch POV’s within one chapter randomly, so I’ve decided to try to work around it
Many artists, were classically trained to follow the rules, and then created new movements by purposely subverting the rules. In fact, I think it's natural over time for the rules to change even, with whatever is trendy. If you want a book that fits current trends better than it can be beneficial to just learn how modern books are expected to do. That being said, I feel like rules are man-made. Different cultures and art movements had different rules, and as long as you are consistent and understand why you are doing what you're doing, it can work out. Shakespeare, Lord Byron, Austen, and Hemingway all wrote completely different. What I would say is, once you become a writer (have the ability to write without effort), then it becomes easy to develop your own rules and start getting creative with how you set things up and how organize everything and you basically stay consistent with within your own rules. Similar to how Tolkien made up his own languages. Most people won't do what Tolkien did. He wrote ina very strange and overwrought way, but he didn't care, because he wanted to sound alien and epic. I will say that in our culture today, randomness and a lack of standards is pretty common. In music, for example, the standards are so low, with lyrics and songwriting, it almost seems like it doesn't even matter. There's so much content being thrown thst people people have developed a taste for mediocrity. At the end of the day, when it comes to popularity, sometimes just giving people what they want is more important than doing proper things. That's why you might have a pop star that can barely sing, be more popular than an opera singer that is classically-trained. So the same is with writing. Sometimes, people just want something that's skmple and easy to read. We live in weird times. Anyway, thanks Ellen for sharing about rules. Obviously, as an editor, you have a good understanding of the structure of books.
What I don't understand is when you get non-professional writers who not only break the rules but have no semblance of what the rules even are and nobody complains. Michael dobbs, michael crichton and these youtubers turn writers come to mind
To break a rule, we first need to understand who made the rule and why. Some rules exist to help us write a psychologically satisfying story; we can consider those rules to be made by readers. Other rules are made by publishers for the purposes of exploiting authors' work for profit. And then there are the rules we make for ourselves, the ones that define what we want our art and legacy to be.
i wrote 3 novels without knowing the rules the story ideas original but they weren't well written one i day wanted to go back and rewrite them but right now i am working one a story i wanted to get published knowing rules is making my story better but it's slows me down thinking if everything is how it should be
If every set of stairs used its own rules, rather than the universal mathematical standard, every stair user would trip. One never needs to think about how to step while climbing stairs for that reason. We are acclimated to the standard formula. The same idea applies to writing. What good comes from tripping the reader?
Writing rules are there only to be learned. When you learn these rules of creative writing and storytelling then you can learn when to break them. Rules are just guidelines.
I have (very) recently finished the first draft of my 100.000 words fantasy novel, and this video was very helpful, I can't wait to hear more news about your book! Additionally, this is really interesting because my experience is the opposite to yours, I come from a visual arts background and have recently been going towards writing. As for the rules-breaking, for visual arts this is completely true, you cannot make anything 'special' without breaking a few rules to spice it up, but while you break them, it is of utmost importance to know why you break them intentionally. I made a video on my channel detailing my statistics of how I wrote my book in about 100 days. All along the process, I kept referencing a lot of your videos, especially about the quarters of a novel, how to keep it interesting, and I will continue to do so during the editing phase that is coming up. Thank you Ellen!
I see people raging against structure in both music and art, my two other hobbies. “Why do we need all this stuff with anatomy and scale? Just draw what the eyes see!” “Why do I need music theory, just play from the heart!” Well, the rules aren’t arbitrary, they’re breaking down reality into understandable points. Learning the rules is never a negative. It doesn’t take away your raw beginner mojo or whatever. Which I think a lot of beginners say to justify not putting the work in. You have to learn the rules before you can intentionally break them creatively. Otherwise it’s a crapshoot
I think the idea of doing art "from the heart," as in sitting down and creating a masterpiece from the soul is such an appealing thought, but in actuality, you don't want to see/hear/read anything that comes straight from the heart (without editing, planning, refinement, finetuning) because in the vast majority of cases it's going to be pretty weak. Many excellent pieces of art that feel "from the heart" took years of study and effort to create. It's interesting to look into the processes of artists/musicians/writers to really see how many times they failed to convey what was in their heart. Usually there are dozens of iterations that end up on the cutting room floor.
I have a chronic illness so there were some gaps where I didn't work at all, but I also went about writing it in a way that was not efficient (which isn't the end of the world) and also not effective (a much bigger problem). I'm planning for a video on why it took me so long, what I would/could do differently, etc. I learned the hard lesson that there is a big difference between knowing what you're doing and knowing how to actually do it on a step-by-step, day-by-day level. I've conveyed a lot of my conclusions/solutions already - many of my videos on editing in the last couple years have been born from being on the writing side instead of the editing side. And no, it's not an epic fantasy. It's a fairly simple psychological horror told from three POVs which (sneak peek into my myriad of problems) I did not plan in advance and paid the price. ha ha
@@EllenBrock As i said, there was no disrespect meant. But its grate that you are writing your own book, I belive it will be an enhoyable read, I prefer JRRMartins books over all other english writers he takes his time, and i belive the wait it worth it once it all comes out.
@@stebbigunn7690 No disrespect taken at all! I think talking about process is important. My slow writing speed is something I'm eager to talk about in the future! 🙂
I've heard the opinions about that show from The Critical Drinker, Echo Chamberlain and a few others. It sounds like those shows aren't even stories, just a masterclass in how not to write.
The thing about writing rules is that you have to understand them before you can know when, where and how you can break them without breaking your story. A lot of low budget horror movies try to break the rules by, say, having the monster not follow any particular rules with how its abilities work. That can work but, more often, it just makes the movie seem poorly thought out and incoherent. A lot of them seem to be trying to create some distance between the audience and the characters. I am guessing it's so that people don't feel too bad when the characters get killed. Most of the time, the end result is that I don't care about the characters at all and don;t care what happens to them. If I don't care about the characters, I don't care what's happening in the movie. Oh no, not...that guy. Is this thing over yet?
I agree with all your points here. Horror is particularly difficult to balance. There needs to be rules to the villain/monster, but also some horror takes that too far and spends a tremendous amount of time explaining the rules, which can be a distraction, tedious, or can betray how illogical the rules actually are. Characterization is the same. Some horror spends so long setting up the characters that it's exhausting and tedious while other works of horror give no characterization at all and treat everyone like sacks of meat or they make every character so unlikeable that you don't care if they die. Maybe writers are afraid of making the viewer/reader too sad when the characters die (A24 is on the polar opposite side of that). I've also noticed in recent horror films a struggle between hiding the villain/monster/ghost far too much and showing it way too much. There is a necessary balance. If we see the monster/ghost/whatever over and over, it stops being scary. If we never see more than a tiny glimpse, in most cases we don't have any sense of what we should be scared of. Of course, like the premise of this video, exceptions exist all around us!
@@EllenBrock Excessive explanation of how the monster works is something I see more in horror novels while having the monster be able to do or not do whatever the plot demands with no consistency is more something I see in movies. I watch a lot of horror movies and the number of movies that seem to go out of their way to make their entire casts as unlikable as possible is astounding. The found footage sub-genre is really bad for this. I have lost count of how many of these I have seen that don't have a single character I can care about in the entire cast. It's to the point where it's a relief when they start dying because I don't have to see that character any more. Internet based found footage movies are the worst for this. I blame the success of Unfriended.
You must follow the rules, or the writing police will get you! I KnOw... BeCaUse I HaVe SPent Half MY LiFe IN RightErs JaIl whEre TheY Sent ME tO BeD WiTh (out) SuPPeR. (DinEr). fEmdowm rfmer fEfmeEf. (I don't like spelling rules either). HaVe A NiCe Day. =].
I hope you guys like the video despite the lack of script! At the end I say the next videos won't be done for a few weeks, I meant the character arc videos. I'm wrapping up a video on editing (the one I meant to film for this week) which will be out very soon. If you're getting blasted with this summer heat, I hope you stay cool!
It's fine Ellen, just by uploading you motivated us, keep up the good work!
I live near SF. The highs are in the 60's and it's foggy and windy. So yup, stayin' cool here.
This was really good! I like your perspective and I think the analogy with visual arts is apt.
I think it would be cool if in some of your future videos you could use some novels as the examples for the points you're making! I know you often use films because there's a higher chance everyone's seen the particular movie, but personally I sometimes struggle to see the 'rules' of storytelling in a book - because movies are fundamentally a different medium and I think often don't have the greater scale that a novel would have. That's just a thought though, obviously a lot of the rules do apply to both! Thanks so much for your wonderful videos, I've learnt so much.
I love the background. Your hair matching the wood is strangely satisfying.
I think a big part of the problem is the way writing advice is given. Interestingly, it was EXACTLY when learning about filter words that I came to this conclusion.
"Don't use filter words."
"Why?"
"It'll distance the reader from the character."
"That's what I'm trying to do."
A much more helpful thing to tell a new writer than Don't Do X, is "If You Do X, your reader will experience Y."
While I generally agree with the idea that most writing rules exist for a reason and you should understand them and have a reason to break them, rather than break them out of ignorance or laziness, I also believe there are some rules that someone influential came up with at some point and people keep repeating without questioning them.
Filter words is a particularly weird one for me. I never notice them in what I read (and I’m pretty sure they’re used), and I don’t really feel this supposed “distance” they create. I mean, I understand the idea. Saying someone felt something is putting that character and their senses between you and the action. But is it really a problem? I’m not sure.
I would really like to know where the idea that “filter” words add friction to the reader’s immersion comes from. It sounds like it makes sense, but in practice I doubt removing them has any real impact on a reader’s experience besides creating shorter sentences.
@@mariano7107 Going to have to disagree that removing them doesn't have impact. You don' t have to remove -all- of them, but they make a huge difference in getting the reader invested in a story. I've noticed with my horror stories that filtering made my story less scary. Reading a series of he felt, she felt, he heard, she saw, made the prose boring to read.
Removing the filters makes the prose punchy, immediate, and doesn't repeat to the reader what they already know. Filtering adds bloat to the word count and is generally not needed in a story. When you're printing a book, brevity of words is important because the more pages you have the more money your book costs.
There's a small but perceptible difference between:
"She heard a metal pot clang in the kitchen causing her to jump from her seat."
vs.
"A metal pot clanged in the kitchen causing her to jump from her seat."
It's smoother and easier to read without the filtering, IMO.
@@Thesilverninja Oh, I don’t disagree that making sentences more concise and eliminating superfluous words can result in a better reading experience. I’m just questioning that filter words necessarily have the claimed distancing effect.
When you say filter words were making your story less scary, was this reader feedback? How did you manage to link their feedback to filter words. (If the readers pointed to the filter words … I would say it doesn’t count, because it means they’re aware of the “rule”).
In your example, yes, in isolation the second version is better, but both really convey the same message and mental image. Personally I don’t think any of the two would make me feel more distant from the action in the context of a full scene.
Anyway, I’m just wondering about this, not saying I’m definitely right. Writing “rules” is something I enjoy pondering from time to time :)
@@mariano7107 It's not based on reader feedback but rather my own feelings after re-reading the work. Filtering is one of those things that I feel has a cumulative effect in making the work feel amateur.
It is a subtle difference that gives sentences a certain rhythm. With great authors, their writing seems so simple that anyone could do it. But the reality is that they invested a lot of time polishing the work.
There is a certain melody that is harder to achieve with filtering. Similar to Shakespeare's iambic pentameter but less restrictive. I'm probably not explaining it well but those are my thoughts on it.
This was really insightful! I think calling them "Rules" adds to the confusion. Calling them "Tools" might be more helpful. For example, avoiding filter words is a tool that helps you shrink the narrative distance. You need to learn what the tools are for to know when to use them, and when not to.
This is a really important discussion for creatives of all kinds. Thanks for sharing!
Or, calling them conventions. They are ways of doing something we agree on so we can communicate. A little rule-breaking, a little of the unexpected, is good for us.
A ceramist friend explained an artist's path as a circle. I think of it more as a spiral. We return to the same topics, but each time with a different vantage point. Beginners don't understand that knowing when a rule doesn't count isn't the same as not knowing the rule. They have to travel the circle back to were they were.
Never apologize for looks. We're here for your clear knowledge and experience.
Am I the only one who appreciates the idea of an unscripted video discussing rules as guidelines rather than laws?
Ellen, you're more amazing than you know. Thank you so much for what you share with us.
Love the background in this one 💛 giving cottage core vibes
Thank you for this! Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of writing rules that have achieved a sort of folklore status, where the "what" of the rule gets passed on, but the "why" doesn't. I believe people are genuinely trying to be helpful when they pass these rules on, but they never learned the "why" themselves, and are perhaps insecure about admitting that fact. I do find that professionals are better about knowing and communicating the rationales behind the rules, but even that's not entirely universal.
I could really feel your energy and excitement to discuss this topic! Knowing the rules to know when, how, and why you can break or bend them is important and I'm glad that this impromptu video was made from your discussion. I guess you broke your own rules to make this video! 😏
A great video as always Ellen!
love the humidity induced curls.
I think there is something quite apropos about you delivering this topic without a script -- aka, subverting one of your own usual rules for making videos! Very thematic. And great advice, as always. ❤
It's good to see you again. Thank you for providing us your knowledge to us. We all appreciate it and hope to see more content from this channel. 🙏
I think it was really on point to go into this video topic without a script. Good job.
This is why I like your channel! You explain things very well. The “tools not rules” for achieving your creative vision is exactly what I love about writing (and art!)
I have nothing to complain about the looks, but even if I had, I'd still enjoy the videos due to the great insight they provide.
Welcome back Detailed and informative Thanks for the download
Exiting lurking mode for a comment here: I've been following your channel for years, and you are one of the few people speaking about so many good topics for writers (filtering, rules, distance between reader and characters, and all the other videos). It's good to hear an impromptu video, and the quality is still there!! I look forward for more content like this one, and to hear more about your book!
Loved this video. A great reminder not to blindly follow "rules" and to focus on what a story or an art piece is actually trying to achieve.
What I'm writing is a continuous story with no beginning or end that I never plan to publish, so most rules don't apply to me, but I still watch every video of yours about every rule because when I'm stuck, it makes it easier to figure out why, and I can try some partial structure or technique, and modify and adjust them to fit my format.
Rules are tools to be used if they fit the purpose.
Great video! It's like the dials and slides on a sound mixing desk. You need to know what the dials and slides do before you adjust the positions. Otherwise, you'll have a hard time creating your unique vision. (Tools, not rules)
As a musician, I wrote my master's thesis on how different fields of art (poetry, storytelling, visual arts, music, architecture etc.) influence and have been influencing and inspiring each other. This topic is fascinating to me. If you have time, I wholeheartedly recommend a master class on Elgar's cello concerto by Benjamin Zander. It's on RUclips. There he talks about how being an excellent cellist might sometimes be a distraction, standing between the artist and the audience.
I could talk about it for hours, so I love you took up about this subject ❤️ Thanks and good luck with your artistic development!
Your thesis sounds so interesting! I will check out the video on Elgar's cello concerto. Thanks for the recommendation!
Thank you for this video it was really helpful to hear about your perspective on rules.
I loved this video format ao much! It feels more like a conversation because you have those natural pauses etc. Please do more of these and don't let it be a one off 😅
Wow I get to watch a live Ellen Brock video. Honored
The way my writing teacher got me out of my "rules" rebellion was by telling me that if I don't know the rules, I can never break them INTENTIONALLY. I can only break them ACCIDENTALLY. And do I really want to be a writer who only writes things well on accident?
That's a great point! Love it!
Excellent way to put it.
love the video -- i always had this mischievous desire to break a rule the moment i hear it -- i think i need to try obeying them all and seeing why they are rules
I engaged with this question recently and came to a conclusion that differed from my previous stance. Considering that my goal, as a writer, is to deliver story in a way that doesn't hinder my reader's enjoyment of it, I need to operate in a way that doesn't distract from the story. Writing is simply a method of delivering story, so it needs to be intuitive. Following rules that your audience knows and expects is how you ensure your work is accessible. This is the reason you need to know the rules.
Rules can be broken, but you need to develop a secondary skill in order to do so successfully. You have to understand that a reader doesn't have whatever context surrounds your reasoning for doing something innovative. When you do decide to venture off the beaten path, you need to be able to separate yourself from that original context. Doing so will allow you to view the same section of text as if from an exterior vantage, where you can then determine whether or not your innovation is consumable by a 3rd party.
At least, that's what I think on the matter. 😅
This is a good point. There were some areas in my book where I wanted to deviate from the norm/rules, but when I read it back with distance, I wasn't satisfied and wanted to change a few things. Unsurprisingly, my changes nudged it back towards following the rules. It's great for creativity to experiment and innovate, but sometimes we look back and go, "Huh, that was fun, but it didn't work."
I wrote a 10-book series (7 novels, 3 novellas).
I've read/edited them individually at least once (some 2 or 3 times), and I'm currently reading/editing them all for the 3rd pass through the entire series.
-
"Why did you do that?"
-
1) I wanted to make sure I didn't write myself into a corner. I needed the entire series laid out, with all the intricate character arcs, plots, twists; etc.
-
2) I wanted readers to be able to enjoy reading my series for the first time TWICE; so I've written the series in a way that allows audiences the ability to read it in two different orders.
There will be the published order (book 1, book 2, book 3, etc.); but each book is also internally called a scroll with it's own number (scroll 1, scroll 2, scroll 3, etc.).
This means I needed to ensure that certain mysteries aren't ruined when read in the other order, and certain characters or event details aren't assumed to be known by readers.
A fun, tricky task for me; but I think I nailed it.
-
3) My books also have illustrations. I wanted all the books to have the same art style from the same artist; so I couldn't reasonably expect him to be around for a decade or more to randomly come back and draw some art.
I needed to present him all the images I required in a short amount of time (2 years),
which meant I needed all the image ideas with specific details from the beginning,
which meant I needed to have all the books written before I had the first image drawn.
-
Do you think it was smart of me to write them all before publishing the first book?
This sounds cool! It also sounds like it worked for you and that's the most important thing.
i am intrigued by the different order/reading two times concept :D
@@borednow It was not easy. I had to mentally juggle two versions/timelines of my story at once.
This meant I also had to read through the whole series in both orders, to make sure everything worked correctly.
The release order is very chaotic, and jumps all around in the timeline; but it feels natural, because of the set-up and pay-off of revelations and character development found in back-to-back books.
Scrolls 3, 8, 4 are like one trilogy.
Scrolls 6, 2, 7 are like a second trilogy.
Scrolls 1, 5, 9 are like a third trilogy.
The 10th scroll is also the 10th book; so it's the finale for both versions.
-
The second order is like reading it on hard difficulty. Everything is in the chronological order (scroll 1, scroll 2, scroll 3, & so on); which means the 'main character' isn't introduced until the third book, and readers must keep better track of events and subtle details, for them to make sense books later.
@@TylerNOS386277 sounds awesome! now you need to publish it... are you going the traditional route or self-publishing route?
@@borednow Self-Publishing.
Trying to convince a big publishing house to take a chance on a 10 book series from an unknown author sounds like mission impossible.
😅
I think the addition of illustrations might discourage professional publishers as well.
In Japan, something called 'Light Novels' is getting very popular; which are effectively Novellas with frequent manga-style illustrations. Manga has exploded in popularity here in the U.S.; even destroying American comic book sales.
I see this 'Light Novel' industry having a good chance of gaining popularity here in the U.S.; allowing for the two industries of manga readers and novel readers to overlap.
My books are an attempt at predicting this trend; featuring manga style tropes, artwork, and even manga style covers with series numbers in the bottom corners.
I plan to begin publishing them next year.🤞😁
Very cool video!
I have been trying to advocate for that for so long but you put it in such clear words ... Thank you so much! ❤️
Side note: That applies to story structure, too. Horror for example often does NOT wrap up all the lose ends in the end. Or some stories have a very short first act to create a feeling of uncertainty. But just like you said: You need to know what effect you will cause on your audience by breaking those structures. Otherwise you won't tell the story you want to tell - and that is kind of the whole point of writing it down, isn't it? 😊
You're a writer too! Amazing! 🧡🧡
Great info, Ellen! I like the impromptu/ad hoc video style.
This was helpful, thanks! And doing it ad hoc was very on point for the topic of understanding the rules and knowing when to step away from them.
Rules are like dimensions, sometimes you have to turn it inside out, and sometimes the rules that define art and writing, or music, and dance, are separated by the illusion of said rules...
Excited to see N Ellen video. Love the background. I mostly have to watch on TV due to some loss of sight, but came on iPad to comment.
I was so lost without ‘the rules,’ definitely not an intuitive writer. So I use them as scaffolding, but make modifications as I go. Although it’s laborious, asking ‘what is the purpose’ of each element helps with selection. I hope to become more intuitive and capable as I write more. I like this trend towards questioning writing advice though, because a lot of Hollywood writing is getting stale. I think good novels are always much more dynamic anyway.
In my previous writing group one member was head hopping. She signposted it, so it wasn't confusing, and so since it didn't cause confusion, she didn't understand why she shouldn't do it. She wanted for the reader to know what the other character was thinking. And I think this is the perfect situation for what Ellen was talking about here. She was breaking a rule without understanding why the rule exists in the first place, and she was breaking the rule to create an effect that she could have accomplished without breaking the rule. We didn't need headhopping to show what the other character was thinking (it wasn't a complex thought), but we did it anyways and now my immersion is broken because a single paragraph in this whole chapter is randomly from another POV. At the time I didn't have the understanding that I do now for what she was sacrificing when making her choice, but I think that plays into what Ellen was saying. I need to learn why the rule exists and what I sacrifice by breaking it. If I can't answer that, then I need to study up or just stick with what is orthodox.
More simply, if you break a rule to create an effect, but the effect did not require the rule to be broken, then you likely created an unintentional effect. Or at the very least, read as amateurish.
Great video! I'm coming at things from the experience opposite of you, I'm a professional illustrator who's trained at visual art since I was a kid, only just now trying out writing as an almost-30s for the fun of being a Beginner again. I feel like it's helped give me a different perspective than a lot of "new writers", since I don't have nearly the same level of agonizing over rules, failure, and letting my own bruised ego get in the way of progressing, because I already grueled through those exact things while learning to draw lmfaaoooo. Now writing can be the hobby that I can like, experimentally push blocks around until something either falls over and I go "oops! Not like that then", or i step back to look at it and go "hey! that's not bad actually :-)".
Learning the base rules has been enjoyable, because they help demystify what the procedure to Do The Thing even IS. Like practicing with a recipe before slinging random ingredients you like into a pot, or following a tutorial on building a birdhouse before you design your perfect bookshelf, they're helpful for familiarizing yourself with the "tools" at hand before attempting your magnum opus, lol. And like almost everything, while there are some rules you can "know" just by memorizing them, there are many that you don't GET until you try to write something, don't get the effect you wanted, but then you remember the rule and go "ohhhhh okay so THAT'S why". And that's what makes it so fun to me, lol. That transition from Knowing to Understanding is the best in the world.
(It's also very funny to me that, no matter the medium, "but it's my STYLE!" as a buttheaded refusal to engage with the fundamentals is eternal. oh, the memories of kids trying to draw anime in the early 2000s)
I enjoyed this no script video! As a artist trying to be a writer I would have no problem with an art video haha.
This subject reminds me of the two types of English classes I've seen in college. It could be the exact same class level, but you have two types of professors. You have the professor that focuses on sentence mechanics and definitions and you have the professor who focuses on critiquing your work to help you convey an idea better, making your writing more impactful. I see too many people being as rigid as the former than naturally falling into their own place with their own style as the latter. The problem I see with "rules" is that it weighs more subjective by gatekeepers to protect their bottom line than objective for the artform. I think there's more fear to change.
A classic example is when Marvel Comics lost all their big money making artists and writers in the early 90s which gave birth to a new rival called Image Comics. These artists broke from the norm and expressed their art their way that's also appealing and stands out different from everyone else's copy & paste formats.
Thanks Ellen! I watch all your content. Very helpful
Off script works very well for you!
I have a very difficult relationship with rules in writing, mainly because I write what I want to read and most of what I want to read is bizarre, surreal, avant garde stuff that breaks all the rules and in turn alienates most people.
As such I'll never expect to be popular.
I've written four, soon to be five novels and the first two followed all the rules and advice I'd received to the letter. Neither were anything to write home about.
The third broke all the rules and was hated by everyone who read it, even though I thought it was okay, so I learned that maybe following some rules might be worthwhile.
The fourth also broke a lot of rules but is currently looking like it'll be the most commercially viable.
The moral of my story here is don't drink and drive. (I've honestly forgotten where I was going with this comment or what point I was trying to make.)
Writers have rules because readers have rules and life has rules. We don't always perceive them unless they're broken. In every book that "doesn't work," it's because the reader has implicit expectations the author hasn't fulfilled.
More off-script, please! Straight from the heart 💗
as someone who's an artist and a writer and has been trying to learn how to do both better recently i have definitely been thinking about both of these things recently lmao
Hi ! This is awesome to hear, that someone other than me is pursuing both at the same time! What is your style like ?
As a musician / writer, I’ve had very similar thoughts but with music.
Will you make a video explaing about dialogue?
The video is great, and helps a lot, thank you ❤
Everything that’s been created has rules. You might not see it if you haven’t mastered the craft but they’re there. Rules are guidelines until you master them. Master your craft and then you can know how to cheat and bend the rules (never break them). Trying to become a top martial artist without learning the basics overall concept first will get you hurt. Learning every stage is part of knowing how to get to the top of the craft.
Good video, but I also had to think about the plants, both not in a spot suited for them. The left clearly grows to the light, getting longer and longer, the right needing a stem to grow up on. ^^°
But yeah, it's the same in art. The fundamentals exist to help you, but they are guides, not guards. You can and should break them. They can help you understand the human reaction to your craft and give ideas how to achieve them and construct your work. But they are not a prison to work in.
Why do we have "rules" in music? Why do we have musical theory? A musician could ignore them and take "liberty" at the keyboard... but they would find they do not have the freedom of expression had they followed the rules. Thanks for this video!
Chesterton's Fence is at play here: "Before you tear down a fence, pause to ask why it was put up."
Studying Beethoven (great classical composer who created the Romantic Period) and studying Magnus Carlson (world's greatest current chess player), I've found that breaking the rules is a key component to their success; however, it is only done with great intentionality.
Carlson is an important one to look at, because chess is not a matter of preference. The rules of chess aren't opinions, -they're testable. You either win or lose the game when you apply the rules of chess well. But if that was so, then Magnus Carlson would be a terrible chess player for breaking the rules, and yet, he's the world #1. So there is another layer of breaking rules.
The thing about Magnus is that he doesn't discard the rule book to do his own thing. He knows the rules like the back of his hand. Half of the games he plays are by-the-book, -using a proper opening, ect.. He knows the rules. But more than that, he knows the function of the rules. He knows why the rules were made, and so if he sees a very unique situation where the application of the rule doesn't accomplish the intent of the rule, or he sees a better move than the rule, he has the intelligence to subvert the rule for a better outcome. (Not to mention his other Grand Master opponents are so used to opponents that play by-the-book that it throws them off.)
But Beethoven is different in that music is a matter of taste and preference, but it all still applies. Beethoven didn't "mess up" on the rules. Most of Beethoven's Symphonies follow form as they're supposed to, but he knew to listen to the music to know deeper insights. He wisely recognized that he had too much energy going into the Coda of the Finale of his 5th Symphony. So rather than wrapping up quickly, he needed to disburse the energy, which he did by extending the Coda (by a lot). He wisely recognized that the Finale of his 9th symphony was too grand to build up to it with a conventional 3rd movement, so he swapped the roles of the 2nd and 3rd movement, to come at the grand finale with tact.
The ironic thing is that it's always the people who idolize these rule breakers who end up destroying their art. "Beethoven broke the rules, and I want to be like Beethoven!" But you're not Beethoven. Until you learn to think like Beethoven, you should follow the rules. And now that you do think like Beethoven, you respect the rules.
Thank you for these examples from other fields! I always find it extremely interesting to learn the reasoning behind the choices of people who know their art or field of study very well. Beethoven's idea of extending the coda sounds very smart, and something similar can be applied to extending certain plot points/beats/phases of a piece of fiction. Very cool! And yes, breaking the rules in an informed way can create extremely inspired and inspiring work that others want to emulate, but it takes a long time to get to the point where someone is able to put good reasoning behind why and when they're deviating from the rules.
@@EllenBrockChesterton had a low opinion of free verse. He said you might as well sleep in a ditch and call it "free architecture."
Thank you
beautifully explained! THANK YOU. :)
I like to use the semicolon to illustrate this point. Because semicolons are not used very often I most fiction, any semicolon you use will necessarily draw attention to itself - which is good, if that’s what you want. If it’s not what you want, though, then maybe just stick with the popular trend of avoiding semicolons.
It kinda reminds me of Clockwork Orange. For the first few chapters, I was really struggling to internalize the unique slang terms, so a lot of my energy was spent focusing on those (which seemed to be the intention). As the story progressed, I got accustomed to the slang terms and was able to focus more on the story. Then, around CH12 I think, he throws in a couple brand new slang terms, and I’m back to focusing on them. So that’s nifty.
Good point about the semicolon. I think playing around with punctuation can be effective when you want an impact, but most of the time we want punctuation to get out of the way and be invisible.
What genre is the book you're writing, Ellen?
Could you let us know when it's finished?
It's psychological horror. I will definitely be talking about it in the (hopefully not too distant) future!
I would say you're safe to go off script. That was great. Also, when it's hot and the power is out, put your feet in a bowl of cold water. (Something learned on a trip to India 😆)
Off topic, but your hair actually looks really pretty with the little curls.
this was great Ellen, thanks!
Great talk. Since the 19th century, the visual arts had to compete with cameras, and this is why impressionism and abstract art was invented to help visual art survive. Writing is now facing ChatGPT. In order for human writers to continue to be a thing, they will have to invent very human forms of writing that the latest renditions of ChatGPT can't accomplish. Rules aren't going to do this, because ChatGPT can follow any rule that can be written down.
2:07 George R. R. Martin: “Six years? Hold my typewriter!”
Artist and writer here. I see "rules" more like bases, how things work, you must know how they work before tweaking and altering them. Because if you don't, they will not work. The artists who "don't use the rules" or break them, got a deep grasp of how they work, a natural understanding, that they can make the whole art piece or book function "without" it.
And the only way to do this is repeating the rules till they get under your skin. And how long that process is varies with each person and their own artist journey. There's no formula neither calendar to achieve it. Just doing it and progressing piece by piece
I wrote an essay on this topic after a writer's group member argued that his bad prose was his style and perfectly fine. He was confused about what style is and why the rules enhance style. His prose remains a stumbling block.
Stories should be internally consistent, but they can be wild and crazy otherwise. IMO
When is the novel coming out?
My entire novel is in third person limited of one POV. However, the climax technically requires 3 different POV’s. I’ve decided it must be a rule that it’s forbidden to only switch POV’s within one chapter randomly, so I’ve decided to try to work around it
Update: I worked around it. Wasn’t that bad!
Many artists, were classically trained to follow the rules, and then created new movements by purposely subverting the rules. In fact, I think it's natural over time for the rules to change even, with whatever is trendy.
If you want a book that fits current trends better than it can be beneficial to just learn how modern books are expected to do.
That being said, I feel like rules are man-made. Different cultures and art movements had different rules, and as long as you are consistent and understand why you are doing what you're doing, it can work out. Shakespeare, Lord Byron, Austen, and Hemingway all wrote completely different.
What I would say is, once you become a writer (have the ability to write without effort), then it becomes easy to develop your own rules and start getting creative with how you set things up and how organize everything and you basically stay consistent with within your own rules. Similar to how Tolkien made up his own languages. Most people won't do what Tolkien did. He wrote ina very strange and overwrought way, but he didn't care, because he wanted to sound alien and epic.
I will say that in our culture today, randomness and a lack of standards is pretty common. In music, for example, the standards are so low, with lyrics and songwriting, it almost seems like it doesn't even matter. There's so much content being thrown thst people people have developed a taste for mediocrity. At the end of the day, when it comes to popularity, sometimes just giving people what they want is more important than doing proper things. That's why you might have a pop star that can barely sing, be more popular than an opera singer that is classically-trained. So the same is with writing. Sometimes, people just want something that's skmple and easy to read. We live in weird times.
Anyway, thanks Ellen for sharing about rules. Obviously, as an editor, you have a good understanding of the structure of books.
now im interesting in hearing about your 6 yeats writinng book
What I don't understand is when you get non-professional writers who not only break the rules but have no semblance of what the rules even are and nobody complains. Michael dobbs, michael crichton and these youtubers turn writers come to mind
To break a rule, we first need to understand who made the rule and why. Some rules exist to help us write a psychologically satisfying story; we can consider those rules to be made by readers. Other rules are made by publishers for the purposes of exploiting authors' work for profit. And then there are the rules we make for ourselves, the ones that define what we want our art and legacy to be.
You have kind, gentle eyes. Did you know that...? ❤*Ahem!* Right--writing rules. Yeah, what's up with that? 😅
Amazing vid as usual!
Rules are a framework. Once that is established, there are plenty of ways to step beyond those boundaries, as many famous writers have proven. =^[.]^=
i wrote 3 novels without knowing the rules the story ideas original but they weren't well written one i day wanted to go back and rewrite them but right now i am working one a story i wanted to get published knowing rules is making my story better but it's slows me down thinking if everything is how it should be
You're right. This is no point in having writing rules.
I just have one reading rule: don't read that which is blazingly stupid.
Just curious did you delete my comment? I came back to finish the video and it was gone :(
No, I don't delete comments. I don't have any idea!
Actually, I see a comment from you that is still visible. I don't think it's gone.
If every set of stairs used its own rules, rather than the universal mathematical standard, every stair user would trip. One never needs to think about how to step while climbing stairs for that reason. We are acclimated to the standard formula. The same idea applies to writing. What good comes from tripping the reader?
Writing rules are there only to be learned. When you learn these rules of creative writing and storytelling then you can learn when to break them. Rules are just guidelines.
I have (very) recently finished the first draft of my 100.000 words fantasy novel, and this video was very helpful, I can't wait to hear more news about your book!
Additionally, this is really interesting because my experience is the opposite to yours, I come from a visual arts background and have recently been going towards writing. As for the rules-breaking, for visual arts this is completely true, you cannot make anything 'special' without breaking a few rules to spice it up, but while you break them, it is of utmost importance to know why you break them intentionally.
I made a video on my channel detailing my statistics of how I wrote my book in about 100 days. All along the process, I kept referencing a lot of your videos, especially about the quarters of a novel, how to keep it interesting, and I will continue to do so during the editing phase that is coming up. Thank you Ellen!
Thanks for mentioning my videos!
Ironic to go off script for this topic!
I see people raging against structure in both music and art, my two other hobbies.
“Why do we need all this stuff with anatomy and scale? Just draw what the eyes see!”
“Why do I need music theory, just play from the heart!”
Well, the rules aren’t arbitrary, they’re breaking down reality into understandable points. Learning the rules is never a negative. It doesn’t take away your raw beginner mojo or whatever. Which I think a lot of beginners say to justify not putting the work in. You have to learn the rules before you can intentionally break them creatively. Otherwise it’s a crapshoot
In other words, learn them but don’t necessarily follow them
I think the idea of doing art "from the heart," as in sitting down and creating a masterpiece from the soul is such an appealing thought, but in actuality, you don't want to see/hear/read anything that comes straight from the heart (without editing, planning, refinement, finetuning) because in the vast majority of cases it's going to be pretty weak. Many excellent pieces of art that feel "from the heart" took years of study and effort to create. It's interesting to look into the processes of artists/musicians/writers to really see how many times they failed to convey what was in their heart. Usually there are dozens of iterations that end up on the cutting room floor.
Dont want to be negative, love this channel. but 6 years working on a single book. Have you been cowriting the winds of winter with j.R.R. Martin?
Well she also works as an editor and she makes videos for this channel, so her time to write is limited.
@@thisoldgoat3927 Yea, i know. Meant no disrespect, dont forget, some authors write less than 250 words a day avrage.
I have a chronic illness so there were some gaps where I didn't work at all, but I also went about writing it in a way that was not efficient (which isn't the end of the world) and also not effective (a much bigger problem). I'm planning for a video on why it took me so long, what I would/could do differently, etc. I learned the hard lesson that there is a big difference between knowing what you're doing and knowing how to actually do it on a step-by-step, day-by-day level. I've conveyed a lot of my conclusions/solutions already - many of my videos on editing in the last couple years have been born from being on the writing side instead of the editing side. And no, it's not an epic fantasy. It's a fairly simple psychological horror told from three POVs which (sneak peek into my myriad of problems) I did not plan in advance and paid the price. ha ha
@@EllenBrock As i said, there was no disrespect meant. But its grate that you are writing your own book, I belive it will be an enhoyable read, I prefer JRRMartins books over all other english writers he takes his time, and i belive the wait it worth it once it all comes out.
@@stebbigunn7690 No disrespect taken at all! I think talking about process is important. My slow writing speed is something I'm eager to talk about in the future! 🙂
Any chance of you watching Star wars the Acolyte and giving your opinion on the writing? 😅
I've heard the opinions about that show from The Critical Drinker, Echo Chamberlain and a few others.
It sounds like those shows aren't even stories, just a masterclass in how not to write.
Speaking of hot, I had to exist in 115º, 116º, 114º, 111º, 115º degree days in a row.
The thing about writing rules is that you have to understand them before you can know when, where and how you can break them without breaking your story. A lot of low budget horror movies try to break the rules by, say, having the monster not follow any particular rules with how its abilities work. That can work but, more often, it just makes the movie seem poorly thought out and incoherent. A lot of them seem to be trying to create some distance between the audience and the characters. I am guessing it's so that people don't feel too bad when the characters get killed. Most of the time, the end result is that I don't care about the characters at all and don;t care what happens to them. If I don't care about the characters, I don't care what's happening in the movie. Oh no, not...that guy. Is this thing over yet?
I agree with all your points here. Horror is particularly difficult to balance. There needs to be rules to the villain/monster, but also some horror takes that too far and spends a tremendous amount of time explaining the rules, which can be a distraction, tedious, or can betray how illogical the rules actually are. Characterization is the same. Some horror spends so long setting up the characters that it's exhausting and tedious while other works of horror give no characterization at all and treat everyone like sacks of meat or they make every character so unlikeable that you don't care if they die. Maybe writers are afraid of making the viewer/reader too sad when the characters die (A24 is on the polar opposite side of that). I've also noticed in recent horror films a struggle between hiding the villain/monster/ghost far too much and showing it way too much. There is a necessary balance. If we see the monster/ghost/whatever over and over, it stops being scary. If we never see more than a tiny glimpse, in most cases we don't have any sense of what we should be scared of. Of course, like the premise of this video, exceptions exist all around us!
@@EllenBrock Excessive explanation of how the monster works is something I see more in horror novels while having the monster be able to do or not do whatever the plot demands with no consistency is more something I see in movies.
I watch a lot of horror movies and the number of movies that seem to go out of their way to make their entire casts as unlikable as possible is astounding. The found footage sub-genre is really bad for this. I have lost count of how many of these I have seen that don't have a single character I can care about in the entire cast. It's to the point where it's a relief when they start dying because I don't have to see that character any more. Internet based found footage movies are the worst for this. I blame the success of Unfriended.
👏👏👏
If you need someone to beta read critique your book, I've read over 400 novels in 3.5 years. I've written a lot of novels, but unpublished.
this goes with everything. music, REALLY ANYTHING.
Edit: Well not exactly.
Wise, as usual!
14:00
You are so beautiful
First comment 😊
2nd.
You must follow the rules, or the writing police will get you! I KnOw... BeCaUse I HaVe SPent Half MY LiFe IN RightErs JaIl whEre TheY Sent ME tO BeD WiTh (out) SuPPeR. (DinEr). fEmdowm rfmer fEfmeEf. (I don't like spelling rules either). HaVe A NiCe Day. =].