I dunno – people breaking #4 have provided me with some legendary belly laughs. cf. “Oh, if only I had scrod.”

Anyways, every single writer I’ve heard give the writer’s advice, has something different to say. Which tells me, there are no rules. Never will be.

Could you give me an example?

[...]

3. [...] If your computer tells you that your average word is more than five letters long, there is something wrong. (19 words)

It is only when a writer can understand and master the craft within such boundaries that breaking the rules becomes artistic rather than cringe-worthy. Like with all art, breaking the rules is okay, if you know that you’re breaking the rules and why you are breaking them.

Learning correct usage is an ongoing project for all writers, I should think; who knows the OED cover-to-cover?

1. Swedish rule of thumb. One chain of thought, or thoughts connected by one feeling –> one sentence. If you try to do that in English, usually it is plain impossible due to the rigid sentence structure, or the text either get very wordy, with lots of empty filler words that make the reader get lost, or if you shorten the sentence by removing words, you lose all logic (like a speech by Bush Jr.). English is a staccato language. Swedish sentences are usually as long as English paragraphs (and provide more information). Studies show that experienced Swedish readers have easier to read long Swedish sentences then short ones. Short sentences lack “melody”, perhaps not important in languages that are bitonal, like English, but most Swedish dialects, when spoken, rely more on tonality then anything else to be understood by a listener (unfortunately, tonality is only hinted at in written Swedish).

2. English is a fuzzy language, I have yet to read one English sentence that state one clear statement. Usually English writers needs lots and lots and lots of sentences and words to express one clear thought. Making English even more of a staccato language and even more wordy.

3. Big words, what kind? In Swedish, compound words, within limits, is easier to understand then many short words. When you use words with more then 4-8 components, you should consider if your reader will be able to visually scan the word with ease, longer words should always be broken up. But long “fantasy words” (unfamiliar words readers wouldn’t be able to create by them self from very common non-compound words and the Swedish language rules) is harder to understand. In Swedish those long “fantasy words” are loan words, albeit some of them centuries old, it is a good rule to avoid those words. Although most modern English words are “fantasy words” (most of them inherited from historic English and created by word composition rules available at that time), I’m still a bit surprised by this advise for English writers, as the English language contains a (very) simplified Latin (a language within the language), that can be used for primitive word composition, shouldn’t those Latin-like compound words be easier to understand than many short words for an native English reader? Short words == staccato language, to a Swede you sound very angry, stupid, or like you talk down to a child/idiot/deaf.

4. Good rule in any language. In Swedish it also good important not just what the word mean, but also its historic background, as it is important for how it can be used (different grammar, different contexts et.c.).

5. Another fault of modern English, again best illustrated by the blather from Bush Jr. In many other languages, you can use adjectives and adverbs without getting incomprehensible. They are important because they allow you to use other words that bring the right (your) feelings and visions to the reader.

6. Why? Is the reader mentally handicapped? Swedes get insulted if they are spoken/written to as if they were idiots. Or does he by “abstract” mean fuzzy?

7. Yeah, if you want to become a children’s book writer, or write in English.

In Swedish we use a readability index called LIX ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIX ), that (despite its simplicity) measure conformance to all(!) the rules in the article. But it is never so simplistic that a lower index value always provide better readability, it depends on how familiar the reader is to the Swedish language and to the subject at hand. For Swedish text, there have been many studies done as for what LIX intervals is most optimal to what readers in different contexts.

In Starcraft 2, it’s called Funday Monday :)

I mean, come on. This is stylistic stuff. He wants all writing to sound like dialogue from Star Trek (TOS) being read by William Shatner.

In some cases, literature suffers. It dies. Alone. In the dark. There’s no flow to it, no chance to create rhythm with your words.

My wife, on the other hand, who does hard news journalism, writes like Naipaul suggests. Which is fine, but I wouldn’t want a novel written like that.

” 1. Don’t
2. No, really don’t
3. DEFINITELY don’t — I mean it.
4.Whatever you might be imagining about a life of writing, it’s not like that.
5.OK, if you’re going to anyway, if you’re going to be a writer of any quality, you will have to commit yourself to writing — which is something that, when you’re young and idealistic, sounds incredibly easy to do, but you should commit yourself to writing almost as if you were some ancient Greek or Egyptian commiting yourself to a god.

If you do right by the god, then the god may, at some point in the future, reward you. But if you slack off and don’t do right by your talent or your god, then you are heading for a world of immense and unimaginable pain. If you have a gift that you choose to pursue, then you have to pursue it seriously. Don’t be half-assed about it, but realize what that commitment means.

Committing yourself to writing will mean, to a certain extent, your writing will become the most important part of your life — and that’s a big thing to say. It can have a distancing effect upon other relationships. It can be sometimes quite a solitary life. If you’re committed to your writing, you’re going to spend most of your life indoors in a silent, empty room, concentrating on a pen and a piece of paper or their equivalent. Be prepared to take it seriously and be prepared to follow where it takes you, even if that takes you to some very strange places.

This is by no means the most glamorous profession.

Don’t say that I didn’t warn you.”

I refudiate that.

And who wants to read fiction without adjectives? Try The Erasers by Robe-Grillet – he does just that. An interesting experiment to read, but you can kind of see why there wasn’t ‘The Erasers – the Twelve Volume Epic.’

These rules seem great for anything that no one’s ever going to read.

The linked article contains the sentence, “It may even be getting rid of the bad language habits you picked up at the university.” Writing advice should be exemplary when written, but this breaks at least the first two points. The sentence, “It may rid you of bad language habits picked up at university.”, would be better.

What’s wrong with using the dictionary and learning and using words that have an exact shade of meaning? Why shut off a large portion of the amazing amalgamation of linguistic roots that is the English Language just because some mythical “average reader” won’t get it.

Let the average reader watch TV. Oprah can help them find a coloring book. Where Jane has a Dick.

At 19 words, that sentence significantly exceeds the suggested 10-12 word limit.

“Here’s VS Naipaul’s seven-point program for *beginning writers* who want to get better at writing”

I like these rules, because they shift the focus of writing from the words themselves to the thought process behind writing — what happens (or should happen) in the writer’s mind before the words even hit the page. Vonnegut wasn’t a good writer because he used plain language. He was good because he knew exactly what he wanted to communicate, and had a keen sense of how to find the quickest, cleanest path to his destination. By the same token, more florid writers like Lovecraft, fundamentally, are no different from Vonnegut — they have a clear sense of what effect they’re going for, and know the right path to that destination.

The mistake many novice writers make is focusing too much on form — finding the right word, or trying to mimic a particular style, thinking that it’s the words themselves that convey meaning, not the way they’re implemented. Naipaul’s advice forces us to lose the bag of tricks and just say what we’re trying to say. It’s probably a good idea to master that basic level of written communication before moving on to anything fancy.

Do you know who VA Naipaul is?

“Write with your own voice.”

Oh goodness. Yet another person that believes that nonsense.

In any case, how do good beginner’s rules mess up “your own voice”[tm]

“Beyond all that even, is it not possible for a writer to give new meaning to a word based on context and use?”

Not in general. Language is used to communicate with others, trying to redefine words the way you envision is not a safe way of writting for beginners.

“how could a writer not know what the word they’re using means. Doesn’t it necessarily mean something to them unless they’re just spraying noise on paper?”

There are lots of writers that use fancy words without fully understanding what they mean. Mastery of the language is not a matter of wishful thinking, it is a matter of hard graft, which is what the rules imply.

Some of the comments are so dismissive that is quite amuzing.

Dismissing somebody of the stature of Naipaul require more than a dismssive sentence.