# Writing and Tolkien



## Nenya Evenstar (Aug 30, 2005)

The other day I was listening to three authors on the radio who were giving people their advice on writing fiction. Some of the advice they gave was good, but some of it made me step back and think, "What is this world coming to?" Here are four of the "rules" they gave:

1. Whenever your characters speak, always finish their sentences with the word "said". Never use any other word besides "said" because these words are unnecessary to your text.

2. Never use any adjectives following the word "said" (i.e. "I love you!" Peter said passionately). This adds unnecessary words to your text as well.

3. Never begin your chapters with descriptions of the weather. Some people can pull this off, but few can. It usually ends up being boring.

4. Avoid describing things too much. Nobody wants to read that.

I look at these suggestions and think of my favorite authors. Tolkien broke every single one of these! Also, if you look at many other authors such as Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Jane Austen, and George MacDonald, you see that they broke them as well. However, these are classic authors. As you move into the later Twentieth Century you see a definite change away from this style of writing. And now it has come down to a recommendation of keeping things at a simple "said" and that's it.

I think numbers 1 and 2 are just plain silly. I can see the logic behind numbers 3 and 4, but my favorite authors are very descriptive. I think I'd like to group among those that _can_ write that way and pull it off. However, looking back at my past writings I am scared to see how many of them actually do start with the weather! I'll definitely keep that suggestion in mind! But I like descriptions. Of course they have to be written in the correct way, but what would Tolkien be like without them? Or Mark Twain? I will say that I dislike what Jules Verne did in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" when he described the underwater landscape for paragraphs on end. I hated that. 

But the short of it is that I see this huge dumbing-down of writing that is happening. I remember the authors on the radio saying that people don't want a book that has words they don't know. They want a book to entertain them. In other words, they don't want to have to think about what they're reading (or research in the dictionary to find out). But is this any different than TV? TV is not necessarily considered "intellectually stimulating", so why would reading books that do not cause you to think be any more intellectually stimulating?

Here is a quote from the foreword of "Roverandom":



> That Tolkien also included in "Roverandom" words such as "paraphernalia", and "phosphorescent", "primordial", and "rigmarole", is refreshing in these later days when such language is considered too 'difficult' for young children -- a view with which Tolkien would have disagreed. 'A good vocabulary,' he once wrote, 'is not acquired by reading books written according to some notion of the vocabulary of one's age-group. It comes from reading books above one'.



I believe the same is true of adult literature.

Please share your thoughts! What do you think of the four "rules"?


----------



## HLGStrider (Aug 30, 2005)

I blame it on journalism. 

I had two writing teachers when I went to the community college who dealt with style (the third mainly dealt with research because the point of the class was to write a research paper while the others dealt mainly with essays). My first bit of writing with the first professor went automatic A's. I could do no wrong. He loved it. He was a fiction and short story writer.

My second professor gave me C's on my first essay and I had to figure out his style in order to up my grade for the next papers. His was a cut, slice, exacting style. He used to be a print journalist.

With the advent of creative non-fiction the line between fiction and non-fiction styles is thinning. A lot of journalists go on to write creative non-fiction. A lot of creative 'non'-fiction turns out later to be fiction when someone stops to ask the journalist how exactly they were in Thailand and New York on the same day underneath a full moon when actually there was only a new moon on Sept 2nd, 1987. . . etc. 

Anyway, I have been trying to follow the dialog tag rule 1 since my first writing teacher but 2 is new to me. I think I instinctively follow it because when you are dealing with simply "said" it kind of sounds repetative to tack on another word after said. You can sigh brokenheartedly, but said brokenheartedly sounds . . . silly. At least to me. However, I break the tag rule whenever I think emotions are high enough to justify it. Some things need to be snapped or yelled. Said doesn't imply vocal tone. 

Anyway, about good author's doing it, I've always been told good authors can break the rules because they are good authors. You learn the rules. Then you break them. 

3 is simply a matter of opinion. Weather is an overused discription, I think, but I wouldn't hold anyone to it.

4 I disagree with totally and do think it is something to do with dumbing down and low attention spans. 

However, American authors have always been known for being briefer and more to the point than their British counter parts. I haven't read Hemmingway, but I have heard he is known for this sort of bam, blunt, bang style. This is probably why most people who love English literature don't have much to say for American. It's just different. Our authors are cynical and depressed and drink too much and commit suicide. OK, so a lot of authors of all nationalities do this . . . Did you know poets are more likely to die young than people of other professions?


----------



## Arat Macar (Aug 31, 2005)

I find "rules" like these to be very frustrating. I find good and entertaining books that are written now a days but I so rarely find them written in language that is beautiful anymore. I miss this. I would much rather read a story witten in beautiful language than on that is simply straightforward and without flourish.

My favorite writing advice comes from one of Tolkien's best friends, C.S.Lewis in a letter to a young girl who write to him in 1956 asking his advice about grammer and writing style. Lewis responds so kindly including these five bits of wisdom.

"What really matters is:
1. Always try to use the language so as to make quite clear what you mean and make sure your sentence couldn't mean anything else.
2. Always prefer the plain direct word to the long vague one. Don't _implement_ promises, but _keep_ them.
3. Never use abstract nouns when concrete ones will do. If you mean "More people died" don't say "Mortality rose."
4. In writing, don't use adjectives which mearly tell us how you want us to feel about the thing you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us a thing was "terrible", describe it so that we will be terrified. Don't say it was "delightful", make us say "delightful" when we have read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers, "Please will you do my job for me."
5. Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise you'll have no words left when you want to talk about something really infinite."

In my opinion, this is honest usefull advice and I always try to keep it in mind.


----------



## e.Blackstar (Aug 31, 2005)

That's stupid!

#1 and #2 are just plain dumb. Period. "said"...*grumble grumble*


3 is kinda true, I guess. I don't know...

4 is okay. You don't want to describe things TOO thoroughly...but you DO want to give them a clear picture. Duh!


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Aug 31, 2005)

Wow, I like C.S. Lewis's quote! Very good advice! I too miss beautiful language (which is why I read old books and ignore the new ones, so I guess I don't miss it too much ).

Elgee, don't you find that "said" gets a little repetitive? I'm going to do an expiriment now and look through four different books to see how they use "said."

First "guinee pig" is _Anne of Avonlea_ by L.M. Montgomery:
I find _asked, concluded, laughed, queried, wailed_ and of course _said._ _Said_ is the most common (I'd say it's a ratio of about 2/1). Most often the _said_ is followed by an adjective such as _enthusiastically, admiringly or dreamily_. 

Now for _The Return of the King_ by J.R.R. Tolkien:

Wow, Tolkien uses _said_ much, much more than he uses any other word! He sticks in an occassional _laughed,_ _muttered_ or _answered_ but he might use eight _saids_ in between! He rarely follows his _said_ by an adjective. 

Ok, now we'll look at _Catch-22_ by Joseph Heller:

He rarely uses _said_. 
I find _yelled, shot, shouted, called, repeated, bellowed, announced, purred, taunted_ and many others. _Saids_ are few and far between.

And now in Harper Lee's _ To Kill a Mockingbird_:

Her dialog runs along quite smoothly without any form of _said_ or any other word whatsoever. It's just dialog When she does use a word, she uses _said_ most often, but will occassionaly add a _concluded_, an _ask_ and the like.


So, I conclude that some people use "said" and come up with great literature. Others use more than just "said" and come up with equally great literature.
So what is the benefit of using just "said"? Also, most people do modify their "saids" (at some point or another) with an adjective.


----------



## HLGStrider (Aug 31, 2005)

I think the benefit is that I don't hear cartoonish voices in my head. When someone hisses something in a book, I hear Gollum or Nasty Spy, for instance.


Other than that, I just do it because writing teachers tell me to. . .

But Harper Lee's way is actually better. . .but it can be confusing. Who said that? Sometimes it is obvious, but put three people in a conversation and it becomes less obvious. 

Anyway: I have another question:
VIEWPOINTS!

Do you think a book should be written in one character's view point? In my writing classes I got knocked down because things were written in multiple simultaneous viewpoints. We saw what the main character saw, but if someone else saw something, I said he saw it, if they thought something important, I typed that they thought it. . .etc. Writing teacher said it shouldn't be done this way. . .I said, humph. . . 

But since then I have written two exclusive view point books and I like them a lot. However, with my old stuff, I think the multiple view points works.

I have been reading a lot of Dosteovsky lately and he breaks this rule all over the place. Some books, however, are built on view point. The view point is from one character, they tell the story or you see the story through them. 

But I like knowing what everyone is thinking!


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Aug 31, 2005)

Aahhh! I'm going to have to go read some Dostoyevsky now! I have "The Brothers Karamazov" on my shelf but haven't read it yet. I'll make it my next book!

I don't know if I agree with your writing teachers.  It's probably just like everything else in this world. For example, at some point in time it was considered healthy to sleep standing up (this was somewhere in Europe -- I forget where) so people actually tried to sleep that way. Now it's considered bad for you, so now people sleep laying down. We do what people tell us is good for us. Maybe I'll just be a rebel.  

Viewpoints! My absolute favorite is how Robert Jordan writes. He only writes from one person's viewpoint at a time, but he will switch from viewpoint to viewpoint. He always switches at the beginning of a chapter or at a changing place in the story (i.e. when he changes to a different place in the story). This way it becomes absolutely fascinating! You may end up seeing the same story from two different people's perspectives, and you get to know every character intimately. It's interesting to see how the characters view themselves and how they view their co-characters.

Once I read his books I started to write that way in some of my stuff.

Some books are just great when they are written from one viewpoint. Take "To Kill a Mockingbird". If that book were written with multiple viewpoints it wouldn't be half as good! Seeing what happens through the eyes of a child is what makes it great.

I don't know about switching viewpoints during the middle of something. That's why I need to read some Dostoyevsky! Robert Jordan always switches at a defined moment (i.e. one character is at the sea and you see what's going on there from that character's perspective, and then he'll switch to another character at an inn 200 miles away. The next time he goes back to the sea, he may use a different character's viewpoint). Ack, I hope that makes sense!


----------



## Hammersmith (Aug 31, 2005)

I am shocked and saddened.

Who were these three writers? What were their names? What were their addresses? Why?

I've broken rules 1 through 4 thousands of times (literally), and I am proud of every single instance. Lewis' rules seem much better. I may ponder those, though I think that I do adhere to them most of the time. But honestly! The one thing guaranteed to put me off a book is an endless stream of saids.
Unnecessary to your text??? These people sound like Bolshevik planning officers. "I'm sorry sir, your four chapter has been summarily demolished for the common good of the people." Nonsense.

And description? What's wrong with description? Writers like these complain about lack of character and location depth, they complain that the reader has to do too much work. This rule is directly in contrast to Lewis' number 4. If I want to read an interview, I'll read an interview. If I want to read a book, I'm going to expect meaningful description everywhere on everything. Get these morons out of my sight. Any writers reading this thread, I implore you to ignore these misleading and foolish directives.

Edit:


HLGStrider said:


> Do you think a book should be written in one character's view point? In my writing classes I got knocked down because things were written in multiple simultaneous viewpoints. We saw what the main character saw, but if someone else saw something, I said he saw it, if they thought something important, I typed that they thought it. . .etc. Writing teacher said it shouldn't be done this way. . .I said, humph. . .


You're 100% in the right, Elgee. The only time I've ever stuck to one perspective is in my rare first person work, and even then I've included what the other characters were _probably_ thinking. I don't know if I've ever read a book where only one character's point of view was offered. Even the first person work I've read transmits other characters' thoughts through dialogu_*e*_. Stay true to the way you're doing it. You're right, honestly.


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Sep 1, 2005)

See, that's the thing. I don't know who the authors were, where they're from, or even if they have any books of repute published. I heard them on NPR but turned the radio on too late and off too early to hear their names. And if I did hear them I wasn't paying attention!  I do remember they quoted some good books and talked as if they knew the New York Times bestsellers very well. Two authors were hosting and they were interviewing the third, who gave the "rules." I know that he has books published, but since I don't know his name that does us absolutely no good!


----------



## HLGStrider (Sep 1, 2005)

I actually do think the limited view point has its place. Like Nenya pointed out, Robert Jordan uses it quite effectively. 

Smitty, you've read two of my books (_The Three Isles_ and _The Tale of Sir Percival_.). In Isles I broke the rule all over the place. In Percy I kept it religiously. I think it does make a huge difference. . .however, it depends book from book. I would never have written the Isles the way I wrote Percy. However, I think some of my books would benefit if I switched them to Percy style. . .and others would benefit if I broadened the view points.

Each work is different.


----------



## Zale (Sep 2, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> VIEWPOINTS!



I'm being bizarre on this one. In one piece I'm working on, I'm doing first-person from the main character's POV, but 3rd person from several other characters. Best of both worlds, and you can imagine what I could do with dramatic irony. 

But otherwise, I use either.


----------



## Hammersmith (Sep 2, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> I actually do think the limited view point has its place. Like Nenya pointed out, Robert Jordan uses it quite effectively.


While I'm not familiar with Robert Jordan, I think I did express that I've read stunning books from a single point of view; I'm not condemning it. I'm just aware that I may have a more exacting idea of what a single viewpoint consists of. As I mentioned to you, I saw more than one viewpoint explored in Percy's book.

Zale, does that style not mean that the third person could seem very similar to the first person? I'm trying to wrap my head around it...any way we could have a peek?


----------

