All writing advice given by an author are the product of a qualitative study with one data point: themselves. No author will ever give you advice that they do not think will work. And what works for one writer might not work for another. The reverse is true as well, if it works for one, it might not work for another. That is not to say that no advice is good, it might be great. But all tools are not suited for all hands, and writing advice are like tools; we take them up only when we need to. Some tools are more specialized than others, some can be almost universal. “show don’t tell”, “write what you want to read”, “you can always edit later”. These are known and good, we know this because they are embraced and repeated many times by many people in the craft. I’ve come across an advice that reads: “avoid alliteration always”. That seems specialized, not always applicable. There are entire literary traditions that rely on alliteration. Then again, it can be problematic partaking in prose or poetry put in parts paired with the same letter. “schedule time to write” is another. It might be good for some writers, is it therefore necessary for all? How true is that advice? Defend it. I want to give some meta-writing advice; advice on advice. I want to make it snappy, to the point, like a slogan or a catchphrase. How about:
“Take only what works” ?
Meaning that you can safely ignore what the best and brightest say about writing you don’t think it would improve you. Or maybe this one, a little more abstract:
“The imperative must be defensible” ?
Because all writing advice come in the form of imperatives. like, “thou shalt do it this way.” But unless you can defend that statement, die on that hill, it is no good.
you can take these, my two cents, or leave them, that’s my whole point.
Comments