9 Authors Who Break The Storytelling Rules
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2024
- Take a writing course with me: thejohnfox.com/writing-courses/
Need help with publicity? thejohnfox.com/publicity/
Publishing options with Bookfox Press: thejohnfox.com/bookfox-press-...
Buy my book for writers: amzn.to/3U5ul14
Subscribe to my email newsletters: thejohnfox.com/subscribe/
Sometimes an author thinks they are breaking a rule, and are doing something we figured out 5 generations ago doesn't work, with a library of commentary as to why. Life is such a fun cycle xD
Yep! Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it
Who is we and what are you going to do when they break your rule?
@@QEsposito510 "we" here is the general historical community of authors and literary critics. Now, what I wrote is more of a "falsifiable statement" than a rule, so I am afraid it can't be broken. One exercise that is really interesting is taking something that looks "new", or "rule breaking" in pop culture and formula fiction, and then see if anyone did that before, chances are that someone did. One example is starting a story in the middle of it, and finishing before the logical ending, like major characters presented in the middle of an uprising, and then the story finishing up without a wrap up before the uprising being done. Sounds innovative, until you read the Iliad.
A better word for the main character than "likeable" is intriguing.
I think relatable is better still. And this can apply to villains as well.
I would say relatable over likable, and intriguing over relatable.
It’s why intriguing works really well with villains.
Regarding characters that don't change -- yes, of course, such characters are well suited to serialized stories like Jack Reacher or James Bond or Sherlock Holmes -- but it's important to remember that, at one time, there was only a single Sherlock Holmes story, a single James Bond novel, a single Jack Reacher novel -- and if those hadn't succeeded, standing on their own, there wouldn't have been more.
So those stories, with central characters that don't change, have to work on their own. Obviously, you have characters who, when faced with the challenges of the story, need to change in order to accomplish the ultimate goal, whatever it might be. But there are other stories, ones in which the hero embodies some fundamental moral virtue which the events of the story will test -- and the need is for that character to hold on to whatever those virtues may be in the face of ever-growing obstacles -- and ultimately, it's by holding on -- it's by staying true to his nature, that he ultimately succeeds.
And that works in a single story or in a series of stories.
I think I've broken each and every single one of them. You do what the story that you want to tell needs.
prince myshkin made the same mistake the King of Kings made...
"I was ashamed of myself when I realised life was a costume party and I attended with my real face."
all the world is a stage...to be ones self...or not to be...that is the question...
I believe Terry Patchett breaks a few of these rules too and his stories are fantastic!
He's the master of word and his knowledge is so vast you discover new things with each reread. And oh, that humour!
The problem is that many writer do not understand why we have these rules so when they break them it is very often done very poorly. Also many writers do not know how to break these rules so the story work. I think there so little books that break these rules and still it work because it can be hard to do
on the too many character rule- you forgot having too many characters can cause the reader not connect to characters bc they are not given time to breath andso they become so flat
overall good video
The trick is to learn the rules inside and out so an author knows when and how to break them properly, because there is a proper way to break the rules. In some cases, an author may only need to bend the rules to make their story work.
An example would be a villain origin story. To subvert expectations, have it start out as a hero's journey and get the reader to root for the villain. Have them be heroic and interesting and do some good things while planting the seeds for the character flaws that will magnified when they fall and become the villain. Have it when they go through their whole arc and arrive back at to their normal world, nothing is better and everything is worse. Have them go through the whole hero's cycle only to be kicked back down the steps and fall further than where they started. Let them spiral. And when they reach the bottom, let them be so angry and embittered that they rage against the world they tried to help and thrive in and instead try to make it burn. Then parallel the new hero's flaws and story with the villain's to show how similar the two are without having to say anything. Maybe show how close the hero could be to falling down the same path the villain did or give the hero traits that contrast against key points in the villain's personality that caused his fall and show why the hero is different and special. Perhaps you want to keep the villain as the protagonist. Have him go through his fall arc in reverse, overcome the same challenges that kicked him down the first time. Have him overcome the flaws and trials that defeated him before. Then have him go through the hero's journey again to become the hero once more even though they know they could be kicked down again or it might not work out. They do this not because it benefits them, but because it's the right thing to do. There are ways you can play around with story structure to tie into the larger themes of your work while creating something that feels subversive while still adhering to traditional story structures.
Basically, the best advice for writers is to craft a story that works. If following the rules makes your story work better, do that. If you need to bend or break the rules to make your story work, do that. Just make your story work. Don't worry too much about it being subversive or innovative; those are passing trends and tacky marketing tricks anyway
The problem is we use the word “rules” which if taken literally means “this is what you are suppose to do” when a better word might be “guidelines or suggestions”
I just found your page. You've got the best advice I've seen yet! I agree 100% with the head-hopping. I take great pains to ensure I adhere to one POV, even in a multi-POV book.
I discovered your channel through this video. Happy Reading! 😎📚👍
I agree with everything you said and have broken all 9 rules, especially the head-hop one. I write lit fic and I like writing in third-person omniscient because I like writing ensemble characters. Omniscient gives me a lot of freedom to juggle my 5-7 characters. I organise my head-hops into different paragraphs (my rule is to NEVER head-hop in one paragraph), and always begin the paragraph with the character's name. Richard Powers does this too for The Overstory.
Great approach, I subconsciously was doing the same :D
Great video. Sharing with my students in Film and Literature!
Pedro Paramo by Juan Rulfo, a Mexican author, is a good example of a story that switches from first to third person narration. It's one of the most astonishing novels I've ever read.
A great example of an unlikeable main character is Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. One of the greatest books ever written! Notes from Underground, by the same author, is another.
As for H G Well's War of the Worlds... Wells had a scientific cast of mind, and he recognised that if we were invaded in the manner described in his story, in all likelihood it would be the bacteria and viruses present on our planet which would finish them off. It's probably what would happen, and that makes it a satisfying conclusion.
I thought Vonnegut or Pynchon were gone to be mentioned on this one. They're really rule breakers hahaha
Love 'em both but will use them for a different videos!
I noticed Stephen King did head hoping in IT, The Tommyknockers, The Stand...And switches POVs in Christine. But, its Stephen King so.....
Also, Brett Easton Ellis does the best POV switch of all time IMO in his novel American Psycho near the end for one chapter it goes from first person to third person. It is unexpected and an insane ride.
King does a lot of things which detract from the quality of his work. His success has never been dependent on him being a great writer, he's first and foremost an entertainer and a guy who comes up with creepy concepts.
Sorry to bother... can you elaborate on the American Psycho POV shift at the end?
Only brilliant King book is Misery, rest is all mediocre to good enough.
A great book is WE APPY FEW, the story of a hundred year old man telling young Henry 8th his account of the battle of Agincourt. It questions the nature of history, truth, language, and politics. Definitely worth a read.
Awesome videos bro!
Just discovered your channel.... subscribed!
Thank you! Appreciate it.
Great advice. LOL, hits all the buttons for my novel.
At 5:43, head hopping, the Ur example of this might be the Illuminatus Trilogy. POV shifts often within the same paragraph multiple times. And yet, it works.
Illuminatus also has a bajillion characters. Wilson does it again in the Schroedinger’s Cat trilogy, and in there he also jumps parallel universes, where the same character can be radically different people with different backstories and personalities.
@@charleholst3881 And let's not talk about the mounted stuffed teleporting penis (Epicene Wildblood's, IIRC) which is the one element tying all the universes together.
About switching from third person to first, check out Immortal Techniques ‘Dance with the Devil’. While it’s a rap, the principles relevant. After pulling off arguably the greatist sick twist in the history of writing- publish or print, he switches to first person for a coda twist. I’m getting teary eyed just thinking about it. You won’t be disappointed.
The Bartimaeus Trilogy by Jonathan Stroud is another amazing example of 1st/3rd person writing.
@@tattoodude8946 A sci- fi fantasy I see? Seeing it involves fallen Angels , a good Segway into a counter apologist, ‘Genetically Modified Sceptic’, position that sci fi is a theology of sorts. The meta theme if you will. I have trouble following sci fi plots, so I’m writing- trying to write, one of my own, that even I can understand.😊
Thanks for telling me exactly how to not do what people tell me to do lol.
Personally I head hop between more than two characters in a scene all the time but I guess that’s because I’m confident I can do it in a way that makes sense for the reader.
I was actually thinking about a story in both first and third person - had the plot idea and characters ready, but was unsure when I picked up and read King's Christine for the first time. Great use of it and I was like, "OK - yeah! I can make that work." The funny part was that after I finished Christine, I followed it up with The Amulet of Samarkand by sheer coincidence! I guess the writing gods really want me to write this book in a 1st/3rd person style!
Characters galore? Cloud Cuckoo Land and I am loving it.
Very engaging, thanks)
With the many characters one is… you can have as many as you want… if you’ll use them. If you’re just throwing names for characters that will never show up again… then yeah that’s annoying
A way to break the 1st/3rd person rule is to have an in-world narrator. That character is telling you about another character doing stuff, but can interject with their own perspective and opinions.
Dune has some of the best head hopping I've ever read. It's teleportation quick. You blink and your in a new character's POV. It can even happen multiple times in a short paragraph.
And. It. Is WONDERFUL.
There are no rules in writing, just guidelines and conventions.
Here's the rule that comes from that: the greater your skill as a writer, the more you can get away with diverging from convention.
Hence, probably the greatest writer of the last two generations, Cormac McCarthy, c could do whatever he wanted. And diverge he did.
Hope this video mentions David Mitchell who has made a career out of first person narratives and Cloud Atlas with its anthology like nested structure
I wish I could give you three 👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽for this message
I broke the first, second and the third rules, and my novella is in third person.
You just described the state of literature in the first half of the Twentieth Century. Every one of these rules were broken by the Modernists, such as Conrad, Faulkner, Joyce, and Wolf just over one hundred years ago. These contemporary authors aren't breaking new ground; they are selectively following suit.
Show most of the time but use telling when a character is telling other characters some the reader already witnessed. Transitions are also "telling" but are essential to cover time gaps. You don't need to show a character driving across town unless something important happens on the trip. As for the characters who don't change, they are guides for characters who do change or they change their world in a meaningful way.
Excellent
Just to be clear, these writers have mastered their craft before they broke the rules. They knew how to make up for their rule breaking so that their stories would still work. If you don’t know how to compensate, your story will fall apart.
Reacher works because he changes the lives and opinions of people around him.
YES! Otherwise known as 'the flat arc.' Most main characters in a novel series have them, and they are especially common in the the detective, crime and action/thriller genres, for precisely the reason you state.
And you're also right on the first point too. I can't remember who said it first, but there's a great quote that goes something like: "Learn the writing rules to know when, how and why to break them. Break the writing rules to know when, how and why they matter."
Rules are good. Rules give you a ground to stand on. Break the rules only if you really understand them.
If you break it and fail, all you'll get to hear is 'We told you so'. Be very sure of what you are doing.
And just because you managed to break a rule successfully once, it doesn't mean you can break it all the time.
I would say any rule can be broken, but it's best to understand why they’re rules and why you're breaking it. Just to be different isn't good enough. Hell, I've even seen stories without plots, which is probably one of the more universal rules of story telling, but it can still work. If you want an example of what I mean, Disney's Fantasia (at least most of the shorts in it) is a piece of work without a plot that still works for what it's trying to do. Many poems are writings without plots, etc...
POV changes often annoy me, but i ended up loving it in N.K. Jemisin's The Broken Earth trilogy. It pays off at the end.
commenting for boost. good video :)
Thank you! Really appreciate it.
As a reader, I hate head hopping so much! But admittedly, the first story I ever wrote when I was 17, head hopped all the time. I rewrote it into an omniscient POV but didn't love it.
But with my incoming time travel romance. I broke POV again this time writing it with 1st and 3rd POV.
Another example for breaking rule 8, God Emperor of Dune by Frank Herbert switches between first and third by being third person most of the time with inserts from Leto II's diary.
I'd say Diary excerpts really isn't rule breaking. That's really easy for the reader to understand the POV shift.
For people that would like to try the 'Switching POVS': read The BoneShard Daughter by Andrea Stewart! Very interesting technically. She incorporates 2 first persons and 3 third persons. However, it still works because the characters start off in different places so it's not confusing.
One of my favorite works is one where the author pretty deliberately breaks probably most of the classic storytelling rules in some of the craziest ways; Homestuck. I know it has a... reputation... (and the fandom even more so), but I definitely recommend it to almost any writer, even if just on the basis that there's nothing else quite like it and it shows how outside-the-box ambitious you can get if you're willing to break the rules. Some people hate it (and honestly, that's a perfectly understandable reaction), but some people (myself included) love it; and you can never really predict which people will be which until they actually read it.
“Heroes much change” is bullshit and utterly ignores the option of a flat character-arc. I break this “rule” regularly, mostly by making it so the hero is already a pretty good person and the only way for them to change would be for the worse.
hey i have a question, can you explain how to make a good love story in your original story
Oh, I've broken most of them over the course of my series. The one I break most continuously...and gleefully...is the head hopping commandment. I like Omniscient for the greater opportunity to introduce situational irony. When I delve into another character's mind, I always broadcast which character's mind we're about to delve into by grounding the scene with an action tag beforehand. And I don't do it indiscriminately. Most often it's to show the character's internal turmoil being at odds with what's visible from their composure.
I really don't think "show don't tell" should be taught, ever. Teach them how to properly pace scenes, how to transition over moments that don't serve the story's progression. That trite expression serves only to confuse, not clarify; all because some of us were too lazy to be bothered explaining the concept properly.
Head hopping is literally my through line
Life is story ,to box life into categories like the status que, is blocking the real deal 😮
While I understand the anti head-hopping rule, I feel like it's more of a contemporary thing - reading books older than 80 years, let's say, shows that there was a way of going from one character to another in the same scene that's no longer common in today's fiction. Take one of the parties in Atlas Shrugged for instance - I don't remember the details - but the author takes us from Dagny Taggart to Hank Rearden to Francesco D'Anconia... and it's not all separated neatly by breaks like it would happen in a book written today. Or Pride and Prejudice - one younger friend of mine even told me they felt confused while reading it because of how the author changed the 'head' all the time.
By coincidence, i recently started a reread of Dick's DO ANDROIDS, which i read, once, long ago. I liked, and remember, MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE better.
But aren't the husband and wife androids themselves, or have computer chips in their heads that make the android-like?
I only ask because that would explain the head-jumping. Androids could be built and designed to read each others' "thoughs," and chips-in-the-brain could allow humans to read each others' minds.
Many British mystery writers that I enjoy reading "head hop," but it's clear whose head the reader is in.
At 8:38, Martin naming every character who is alive in that universe. That's OK, most of them apparently die at some point.
Ha ha, so true!
The main character not solving the problem is what you call a tragic story to use Aristotle. It is quite a big genre... Great content though! Just me being big headed/ besserwisser
All of these are more like guidelines than actual rules. However, writers need to understand why they work and why they're so successful before deciding to break them purposefully.
Honestly it only comes down to the story and if it's to enough peoples liking. There will always be some who say it's good well others will say it's bad.
Spoiler alert: Not a book, but Martin and Charlie Sheen's movie "The Way" broke almost all the rules. Definitely no hero's journey, just a journey, which was the point of the it.
In all seriousness...I was never a great fan of rules when it comes to writing. And I am even shocked that there ARE rules and people who follow them. The most interesting books are unconventional trying new things. Im a pantser and its near impossible for me to follow certain writing rules, exept for a few: Continuity, chapters and keeping it understandable, yet interesting. Thats it. I never worry about character arcs and all of that. The story tells me what to do, when to do it and why. And its a nightmare for me to go and plot like crazy. My imagination just doesnt work like that and a create WHILE writing, not beforehand. Sometimes I even get to surprise myself with new ways, new things and even characters, I thought would be around for longer, died very suddenly 🤣 So, yeah, I can say that I write more or less rule-free.
You don't have to have character change. You have to have an arc, and a flat arc is also an arc, but the world changes instead of the character
This guy kinda reminds of that actor in hangover. Forget the actors name. Think the characters name was stu
And William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury?
and As I Lay Dying, and Absalom, Absalom, etc.
In my opinion H.G. Wells didn't want the Martians to win. He wanted to show the irony of a species that was powerful enough to take over 19th century London and decimate the human population being defeated by the lowliest lifeforms on Earth, but maybe I read it wrong.
If you want to write a story (not necessarily for publication), then just write it. There really are no rules if you just do it for yourself.
I agree. Wells wrote this book in reaction to the plight of the Tasmanian Aborigines who were being wiped out. He shows (to contemporary Western readers) what it is like to be at the other end of a superior force ... and then he turns the tables and shows that superiority can be easily overturned from unexpected quarters. In particular humans of all stripes can be brought down by a bug.
The secret history has loathsome characters. They're so horrible you keep trying to find someone to like and give up. It's a ton of fun
The Psychic Detective was all about head hopping
Got a like at the division of two Marys.
I find rulebreaker stories generally only work once then they become boring or unreadable when the author tries it again
Wouldn't Nero Wolfe be considered a passive character?
Yes, he's a passive character in terms of not moving, but he is directing Archie Goodwin on what to do, which makes him active.
Jake reacher is a flat arc character
For 1. in antique litterature, I believe character arcs wasn't that much of a thing. I read a collection of Icelandic sagas (=early Middle Age) and the editor commented on one of them that it was one of the earliest examples of character development in litterary history. Odysseus, Gilgamesh, Prince Rama ie don't change much in their stories. I don't know exactly when it became common, maybe in Shakespears time (in the West)?
.5 I was guessing you would bring up The Idiot, but I''m not sure I agree. Myshkin has no moral flaws, but he's not at the same time super-CAPABLE, which is part of the Mary Sue concept. He's not actually an idiot, but he's hardly a genius either, he's a bit naive iirr.
.7 about books not being movies is such a great point.
Love that insight about Icelandic sagas and how most books didn't have character arcs. You're absolutely right -- it was the birth of the novel when that become a more mandatory part of storytelling -- epics and sagas definitely had different storytelling rules.
True, he's not a Mary Sue, and you're right that Myshkin isn't super capable. But he is 100% good.
I think Gabriel Garcia Marquez broke every single one of those rules in The Fall of the patriarch. He changes narrative perspective in the middle of a sentence and also the story is told chronologically backwards.
Malazan Book of the Fallen by Steven Erikson.
James Joyce can break the rules. If you're no James Joyce, follow the rules.
Yes, for beginning writers, it’s usually a good idea to follow the rules until you understand them well enough you could break them.
@@Bookfox No. 99% of writers should follow the rules.
Pretty soon, AI will be able to write novels better than people. I tried imputing popular novels into ChatGPT and it spat out a pretty good novice unique story incorporating elements of what made these popular. It was trash obviously but you can dynamically tweak it. Almost like your own ghost writer. Good for an outline for an idea at least. With the knowledge of all the worlds books out there in the future and the ability to make decisive alterations and have its own creative input, watch AI make a better book than humans in a couple of years with the amount of money going into AI research.
The main character doesn’t have to be the main character. In The Great Gatsby, Nick tells us what he sees, but Jay Gatsby is the only one worth watching.
John McClane from 'Die Hard' is an example of a character that doesn't change by the end of the film. He's the same arrogant a-hole at the end of the film that he is in the beginning. I've found that stories with fixed protagonists are generally resolved _due_ to the lead character's unwavering personality.
Sounds like Malazan.
Head hopping? You need to read some Brandon Sanderson
Working through stormlight right now and this was my immediate thought
War of the worlds was a terrible ending. The rule break didn’t pay off in my opinion.
Yeah, that’s the danger with an ending that breaks the rules - there will always be people that feel like it was unsatisfying.
Show don't tell is on like every writing video on YT lol... like that is literally an elementary school level concept! Like the only people who need to hear it clearly have never read a book...
Rule 10 - Say "points of view" not "point of views".
🤓
All of your examples have good reasons not to follow them.
Yep, they sure do. All of them are dangerous, and difficult to pull off. Still, some authors do it successfully, and their books stand out as a result.
I cannot stand PoV shifts. It's a fad. As a reader, I find it horribly annoying. I also don't like the him/her swap between chapters in romances. Ugh.
Do you mean from 1st to 3rd, or from one character to another character?
The humans didn't win in 'The War of the Worlds', the bacteria did. 🦠🏆
Ha ha, true.
@@Bookfox It's the most extreme example of David vs Goliath I can think of. Apart from Bruce Willis vs A Bloody Great Asteroid.