Topic 1: SLEEPY HOLLOW
November 13, 1999
7:16 a.m.
 The rules: There are no rules. Simple as that. No problem whatsoever. For those of you who haven't seen Myke's rant of November 11, he was reading The Legened of Sleepy Hollow, and it's struck a chord with him as a piece that breaks all the rules and succeeds. The reason for this, of course, is that there are no rules. There is, of course, structure. But then, some pieces do well without structure. (We'll not get into the philosophical discussion of whether to call them stories or not.) I am a proponent of structure. But I want to be careful to not stress it so much that writers lose track of exactly what I'm saying. Structure does not imply "rules." You do not have to follw structure to sell a story. There's a key word in that last sentence. The word is "sell." it begs the question: what are the purpose of "rules" or "structure?" Myke's discussion includes "You must start a story with a bang" as a rule. He also says that "never use a $5.00 word when a $.05 word will do" is a rule--as well as "Always follow a proper story arc." These are not rules--although you'll hear people call them such. They are, however, guidelines. In addition, the first two are different from the last. The first two are "rules of thumb," classic guidelines and sound advice. Myke uses Sleepy Hollow to disprove them. But I'll point to a vastly greater pile of stories that might indicate that the advice stands up as a good "rule of thumb." The difference between the first two, and the advice to always use a "story arc" (defined however you want to define it), is that the story arc is a tool. Story, and knowledge thereof, is only valuable to the writer. In fact, when it's really known to the reader, it takes some of the shine off tales. I would argue that Sleepy Hollow follows a very traditional story line, but it's been awhile since I read it, so I could be wrong. Actually, I've just gotten off my lazy behind, and went over to the Gutenburg Project site to look at the text. Here's the opening:
While not necessarily a "bang", this opening is inherently interesting. It speaks of a dark secret and a dead man. People will immediately raise an eyebrow over such. Next is an intriguing snippet of poetry that piques the interest. Irving then goes on to start the story by describing the setting, the character, and a fairly inocuos little problem that the narrator faced as a child (which, even includes a gunshot). Bottom line, the first three or so paragraphs of the story would seem to follow pretty basic storytelling guidelines--albeit in slightly less than modern day prose. If one were inclined to do a literary study of the foreshadowing effects of the opening chapter, one might even come to think that Washington knew EXACTLY what he was doing with the structure of his story. Which, of course, is the purpose of structure. Structure is a mannequin that we use to throw our stories against, whether they be our silken finest or made of rugged burlap. We do not, and should not, expect structure alone to make a pleasing story--although, I've seen a few well-done mannequins, you know? Part of the problem is a mistaken concept of what the "rules" are for, I think. The "rules" are not given as a magic key to commercial fiction. My opinion, of course. The rules are for making your story accessible. They're for making it more easy for a wider audience to "get" your work. Note the difference between the purpose of a "rule" and the purpose of "structure." It's a fine line, but an important one.   There are a lot of very sensitive topics going around the NAW lately. Almost makes me want to just sit down and piddle with them. So, I will. It just won't be now. Now I have some writing I need to do. Then I need to take Brigid to a event this morning. Then I need to pack. I'll be in Orlando through Thursday of next week, doing a Data Warehousing conference. It should be interesting. I expect I'll update from there. Maybe I'll even have some time available to get my thoughts together before I spew anything too offensive! Have a very good one, okay? Many Thanks to Shannon Wendt for her award   Pokemon Movie: Structure or Pure Inspiration? Daily Persistence is © Ron Collins |
|
"All of this begs a central issue. Why do we feel like we need rules to govern what is essentially an intuitive process, why can't we just admit that good writing is 300% a matter of opinion?" Myke |
BACK TO 
|