Breaking the rules, how do you feel about it?

I'm talking about the rules of writing here.

I think we all agree on the fact that writers/authors should know the rules before they can break them. They get told what readers hate, what they should avoid and to stick to the rules.

Now I personally don't mind a bit of experimental reading, as long as the author knows how to break the rules effectively.

I saw on one thread that a reader passed on a book because the author stated it's basically an experiment with punctuation, or better the lack of it. I haven't read it yet, but I certainly will give it a go. I know the author had been told, repeatedly, to add punctuation, but he isn't keen. And why should he? If it wouldn't be for experimental writing, for trying out new things, it wouldn't develop.

What's your take on this?

The only rule I like to follow is this one:

if you are breaking a rule, do it good and hard!

But I do agree Stella, you need to know what they are first. There's no fun in being a rebel if you don't actually know that you are rebelling.

I want to know what readers think. Do they need their punctuation? Do they need 3rd person, past tense? Do they need names for the characters?

I think it depends on the kind of book being written the target audience and the skill of the writer. James Joyce broke all the rules, Haruki Murakami often writes characters with no names, Roberto Bolano is known for exceedingly long paragraphs, 'By Night in Chile' is 130 pages long with 2 paragraphs, the 2nd containing only 7 words. Fairly recently I read Goran Drvenkar's novel 'Sorry' where one of the narrative threads is headed 'You' and written in the 2nd person. However, I do enjoy a challenging experimental read, taking away punctuation doesn't ruin a book for me but it does make it more difficult and I need to concentrate far more. No character names is an interesting one, it could work as long as the writer is able to clearly differentiate between them by creating more than one distinctive voice.

Most readers have clear expectations of what to expect with genre fiction, breaking the rules may be acceptable to some but will no doubt alienate many more, they won't see it as experimental just badly written and edited. I agree with your comment about experimental writing, literature has to move forward and without the few brave souls who choose to break the rules it would stagnate. What is experimental to one generation becomes standard for another.

The premise of 'Sorry' sounds intriguing, yet gruesome. Something I can't read as it gives me nightmares. (Yes, I'm such a wimp.)
I'm a huge fan of 2nd person point of view and I also do enjoy a challenge. Like you, I like it when I can exercise my brain. It's certainly a brave move to publish an experimental read, and yes, you'll have a lot of people saying it's irritating, but if done well, I could imagine readers embracing it. I think we humans are always a little careful in our approaching new things, different styles that don't follow the norm.
Writing has changed and progressed, some things have become better, some not, but that's the beauty of it.

I had a conversation with an author yesterday, who said he has a minimalistic approach using commas.

So he omits commas in direct speech: 'Hey, have you seen Stella?' Though, I can figure it out from the context, it drives me nuts. Hate it. I don't know much about commas, but THAT one I know and I want it where it belongs.

What I don't like is authors breaking rules because they think it's cool or makes them a superior writer, when it adds nothing. Sometimes they have to accept their limitations, there are many great scientists but few geniuses.

I also don't like the assumption you need to have "proved yourself" first before daring to break rules competently.

Oh, I would agree with that -- all points.

I broke the 1st person, present tense and the second person rule. Both work fine, so I'm told.

I also broke the no names for the character, combined with second person rule and apparently it works well, too. I didn't do it to break them intentionally, I did it to challenge myself.

I edited a book from someone (first time writer), who tried her hand on omniscient POV. Terribly executed, so I advised her to changing it to 3rd person from each character's POV.

Head-hopping, to me, only works when the reader doesn't feel like there's head-hopping going on.

My book is written entirely in semi-colons.

Young man, I see nothing's changed. ;-)

All my writing is done with shadow puppets.

I think I did bend a few rules, in almost all seriousness. My novel is essentially a series of flash fiction pieces strung together to tell a real story. I don't spend a lot of time in character development. Each character is developed in a more or less 1,200 word chapter.

I think you can bend rules as long as the result entertains and gives the reader a story. Otherwise, you might as well be James Joyce.

Heresy is fine
Ignorance sucks

comma usage and frequency of meaningless, intrusive, words, such as "that" and "which" combine to produce that quality regarded as 'authorial voice'. To play with such components is to produce a distinctive identity (or in commercial terms, better the word 'Brand' - How many James Patterson novels in the last year?)

Fashion, fad and trend all move about a bit, and this year's ferocious intellect on the biting edge of forging our century's literary identity becomes the next era's McGonagall. Flares and platform soles seemed a pretty good idea at the time, and there are still people that praise modernism, and that highly,

Fiction is entertainment. If it works it will find an audience, if it's hard work to read that audience will be a smaller one, but probably a more self-regarding one, therefore more likely to back up their critical judgements with repeat buys of further works. There are plus points to writing for either constituency.

Experiment is the cream of life

It's like everything else. You can make it work: *if* you have the talent.

That I agree with 100%. Hi, Gille, by the way.

Couldn't agree more, Gille.

There is rarely a good reason to break the rules.

And there is never a good reason for overuse of exclamation marks!!! OR SHOUTING.

Sometimes they aren't rules, just guidelines...

Hi, John. How are you?

Well, sometimes you need to break the rules and swim against the stream. Nothing wrong with it, if you break them properly and with style.

rules - if there's a reason for them fine but some seem to have no logic. i've always been one to question "why" in response to some arbitrary rule. Back to art - i'm self taught and if i'd known how many rules i was breaking i'd never have had so much fun with my paints but - some rules are there for a reason - acrylic paints over oils is a no no - because the paint will flake off in time. having said that i've not tried it myself so i don't know from experience although i have used acrylics over wax and thats supposed to be another no no but mine are fine several years later. and hung wax paintings over my cooker just to ensure they wouldn't melt - they dont btw :) but rules like using spray on varnish over oil pastels are good as from expenrinece i can tell you the brush on sort melts the pastels and spreads em all over the painting!! may not matter if that theeffect you want but if you've aimed for delicate precision art its a no no. so, rules - use your own judgemt and look at what outcomne you want

as for writing - grammar and spellings do help understanding and free running of writing. our english teacher at school ( gives away my age they're all Tutors now and students not teachers and pupils) was insist on not using words such as "nice" and never repeating words in same sentence and i find even now when i'm writing reviews i have to keep using thesaurus to find an alternative word if i've used one already a few lines past....picky maybe but its instilled in me now.

i tried to read one book full of errors in spellings and grammar and had to give up as i couldn't follow the plot - it may have been fantastic but the mistakes - whether deliberate or not - were too distacting. lack of commas etc can also lead to senteces being misrtead - meaning things which are not intended - much as the lynn truss book "eats shoots and leaves" points out( though every time i see that title it reminds me of naughty schoolgirl jokes about pandas....)

i guess its what you intend for your writing as a target - if you want to produce a turner prize equivalent rather than a traditional painting then break all the rules - "write" a book of blank pages or repated words or one where no commas or fuill stops used or something. just don't expect it to be a mass market seller though you might win orange fiction prize or something!! i've read a few "prize winning" novels and to me they are very much critics darlings in the same way as art critics laug turner prize etc entries yet the public says " what the heck is all that about" and lots of us artist despair at what passes for Art....

Funny how your perception changes when you become familiar with the 'rules'.

Don't know why, but I just looked at James Fey's book A million little pieces. One that had me glued to the book (paperback back then) and one of the first books I read in English. I hadn't even noticed the absent dialogue attributes. Interesting. I may attempt to do that, too. Perhaps with the lit fic novel, as there's hardly any dialogue in it anyway.

WHO ARE YOU TO TELL US WHAT'S OVERUSE???!!!

(Personally I think the question-exclamation mark mashup is even better.)

I hope I won't regret asking this - but do you mean to say your first language isn't English? What language did you read in before?

OI!!!!!!!!!!! CAN'T YOU SEE? HE'S J. YASIMOTO!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, my dear. My mother tongue is German and that's the language I read in before. I consider English being my first language now since I deal with it daily.

And why the heck would you think you'd regret it? Gee, I must come across as if I would seek people out and punch them in the nose or worse. Your life is not in danger. I repeat: YOUR LIFE IS NOT IN DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just to get John winded up.