I think the rules are made for insecure, beginning writers.
Good writers don't need rules.
Bad writers like rules, but don't realize they can follow every single rule to the letter and they will still be bad.
Beginning writers trying to find a voice and figure out the limits of the form are the only ones who might benefit from rules, because they can maybe skip overblown crap they will only have to cut later. Trying to avoid adverbs, for example, might make them really look hard at how expressive their dialogue is.
Still, it's an awfully limited subset of writers who will find them at all helpful.
Robin, that was a superb breakdown of it.
You (we, you, universal, us) have to take the personality and reality of the writer into consideration, as well; the surest way to get me to to flatly refuse to do something under any circs at all is to tell me it's written in stone.
Because I'll find a creative (edit: and usually infuriating) way to show that it isn't.
Beginning writers trying to find a voice and figure out the limits of the form are the only ones who might benefit from rules, because they can maybe skip overblown crap they will only have to cut later.
Unfortunately, it's those beginners who take the rules as absolutes rather than the guidelines they are. Though I guess that's not really
my
problem except when I draw an absolutist contest judge.
Really
rethinking this whole contest thing. Only if I final in one of the other two I've entered and get a request for a full from the editor judging the final round, watch me change my tune in a hurry.....
"Badges...we don't need no stinking badges."
Can you believe I gave in to the desparation of being able to finish a stupid story in Word and went out and bought a new computer? Yeah. Wow. But, it's pretty loaded for a laptop, so I'm happy.
Huh.
I just got an email related to a query that was rejected months ago. Apparently it was still floating around somewhere, because I just got an email from an assistant editor who does one of the front-of-the-magazine department sections wanting me to submit on spec.
Mind you, I'd rather not write on spec in an ideal world, but it'd make a great clip for my portfolio, and it's a magazine I'd love to have in my list of places I've been published.
Here's my plan:
1. Thwap self over head for throwing out all copies of said magazine in my last cleaning frenzy--DONE.
2. Try to look up appropriate department of magazine online to get a feel for how my idea would fit into that length and format. Or drive to mall and buy copy if necessary--DO RIGHT AFTER FEEDING HUNGRY CHILD.
3. Email editor back. Ask when she wants it, and how much she'd pay if it was accepted. --DO NO LATER THAN TOMORROW A.M.
4. If answers are satisfactory, write frantically.
Does that sound like the appropriate, professional way to handle this?
No. Number 2 makes you look like an amateur.
Have husband buy copy of magazine on way home from work.
(tangent) Does anyone know why, or how, or when, the word "amateur" got saddled with such negative connotations? Because it comes from the Latin root "amat", meaning love. So an amateur is someone who does something for the sheer love of what it is they're doing. I can't for the life of me figure out when that became a negative. (/tangent)
For me, it's only a negative when it is used as the opposite of professional, and professionalism implies a certain level a accomplishment. An amateur birdwatcher or lathe-turner or sax player in a jazz combo would all be cool things to be and imply that level of passion for the work you were talking baout.
