Writing is a means through which one shares their ideas, thoughts, feelings with the world, through works which can be categorized in two big genres: fiction and non-fiction.
It is a tool that allows the author to express themselves and share their inner world with everyone, a way to communicate through language, therefore being a reflection of the author’s inner world - an image of their deepest feelings and opinions, entirely unique to each individual.
So then, why should people be told how to write their story? How to organize it and which things it should or should not include?
In my opinion, writing is a form of freedom, of doing things your way, without any restrictions. Creativity needs to flow, not be contained. The author should not have to worry about things we consider necessary, such as: character arcs, plot twists, plot points, words, genres and their so called promises. And most importantly trying to please everyone should not be this important.
Still, these guidelines do exist. My aim in this essay is to argue against their absolute necessity in the writing process and to highlight subjectivity in opinion when it comes to what is considered ,,good” or ,,bad” writing.
Since the beginning of time, humanity has followed certain rules, certain norms. Their role is to maintain structure, which help society function. Yet the question remains, does the same thing apply to art?
Understanding the subjectivity of art is the key to the answer of this question.
Psychology tells us that our perception of stimuli is different, depending on a number of factors, one of them being personal preferences and interests.
This can be properly illustrated through the following example:
Person A reads ,,The little Prince” and they enjoy it, saying that it is one of the best books ever. They praise the idea behind it, its ambiguity and the author’s writing style. This opinion would lead to a 5 star review on a website such as Goodreads.
Person B also reads the same book and they absolutely hate it, dismissing everything person A said about its qualities. They rate it a 1 star on the same website.
Person A has found this book to be the most interesting read of their life, while person B will neither open it again, nor recommend it to friends and family.
Through this example we can reach the conclusion that, since they both had different opinions, they both perceived the material in another manner, thus understanding the subjectivity in opinion when it comes to art.
Now another question arises: are the rules we impose on authors supposed to be that strict, if everyone has a different idea of what a ,,good” or ,,bad” book is?
To be able to answer this question as well, the analysis of more examples is needed.
First of all, the most common thing one thinks about when picturing a book, is the main character.
According to E.M. Forster, who first theorized this, characters can be categorized in two dimensions: round or flat characters. Round characters are complex, human like individuals with a lot of nuance in their personality. Flat characters could be described as the exact opposite, usually being the embodiment of an archetype, such as fairytale characters.
So, when thinking of the main character, one thinks about a complex person, with both negative and positive traits, although it can also be the other way around. Usually, in discussion forums, readers and writers alike argue about how the perfect main character should be, often giving out contradictory advice.
But what truly makes a great main character? The way they’re built, their complexity? Or is it rather personal taste?
In real life, one has people they dislike. This reflects in the way we take in a story: if one dislikes bossy people, they will dislike a bossy character.
Endless fights about who the best main character is in terms of construction are therefore useless, for personal opinion will always triumph.
So, to conclude, rules in terms of the construction of the main character do not guarantee that readers will find ones story engaging, for their view is their own and will remain that way.
Another rule that seems to come up a lot in discussion forums and social media is that the author should not write a certain type of scene, for it bores the readers or is too repetitive.
My statement includes scene such as: dream sequences or slice of life scenes.
The latter type mentioned is one that is argued about because it does not drive the plot forward.
Before an analysis one needs to take a step back and understand the type of story they’re reading: is it plot-focused? Character-driven? Is it an autobiography?
Only then can we analyse such a scene. Usually, they have been included because they permit the reader to take a peek in the daily life of the characters, the purpose being to get to know them better through mundane situations. It gives the story credibility and adds important details to group dynamics.
A very well done scene of this type can be found in ,,Morometii” by Romanian author Marin Preda.
He is a author who breaks a lot of general guidelines and rules, that are seemingly very important today: there is no character description to be found in the first chapter of the story, it is dialogue and narration centred, it uses swear words in every line, there are characters who show up once and never come back etc.
The first chapter contains a meal scene in the Moromete family, in which the members of the family talk to each other while having dinner together.
The narrator tells us what every character is doing and how they sit at the table, without offering elaborate descriptions. The scene is highly interpretable, though it seems simple and unnecessary and is considered to be very famous in Romanian literature.
It is a great example of a scene which a lot of readers would find boring, as character driven stories might not be their personal taste. The necessity of this types of scenes in particular is therefore subjective.
It is not right to impose a rule such as ,,do not write this”, because, as mentioned before, it is really up to the reader if they like it or not. This story does not follow general guidelines, yet it still manages to be one of the most appreciated stories in Romanian literature.
The quality of a work is, in conclusion, your own view and ability to connect with what is written, not something that can be measured through universal rules.
An example to also further deepen this point, which shows the impossibility of rating a work of art objectively can be found in the movie ,,Dead poets society”.
In one of the scenes the character Neil Perry is asked to read the introduction to their English textbook “Understanding poetry”, written by Dr. J. Evans Pritchard, Ph.D., a fictional character created specifically to criticize people who seek to put art inside of a box.
The introduction Neil Perry reads out loud informs the reader about a method through which the “greatness” of a poem can be measured: by using mathematics. It talks about a formula which evaluates, on a graph, its perfection and importance.
This is a great scene filled with irony and satire: It shows us that we are so focused on rating and placing art into a set of already given coordinates.
Art is beauty, grace, feeling- not a math exercise with a clear result: ambiguity, metaphors, colours, symbolism are all there to remind us what it’s like to feel something again, after being trapped inside strict rules, with no way to reach the true meaning of art.
Before shifting towards the conclusion, I would like to also voice an opinion on reviews and the current system.
I want to argue that reviews lean more towards the scale of personal enjoyment and how well the author has crafted the story according to guidelines, rather than a healthy discussion and your personal interpretation of the story.
As proven by the examples before, ones point of view towards art is what makes it ,,good” or bad”, and we have no way of objectively measuring.
Instead, I would like to offer a solution, to both the review system and to the currently existing rules.
We could change the review system into an opinion forum, where everyone can share their thoughts, without the need for a grade (1 star- 5 stars).
There, we could all enjoy the books we liked, while discussing deeper points, metaphors and characters, without giving a final, subjective grade to the author’s hard work.
As for the rule system: I would not eliminate them completely, as I understand that sometimes, one just needs a little help towards reaching their destination in their writing journey.
But I would “loosen up”. Young authors need to be reminded that they have access to their own canvas, which they can pain however they want, without feeling the need to please an audience – there are always going to be people who enjoy your story, no matter which rules it follows or not.
Experimenting is the key to unlocking ones full creative potential.
To sum it up, we need to be more open to unconventional stories and discussions, allowing us to discover new perspectives.
