To Hell with the rules...

Let me warn any possible readers of "Think I'll Call it Morning" that there are curse words. None of the big ones, but you will find a few "Hells and Damns" sprinkled in the storyline because they fit into this inspirational fiction tale. There's no sex, but that's because I've not felt a need to date to write about the act of sex. So far it's not my emphasis and not something I've been all that interested in writing about. There were no curse words in 'Morning, but as soon as I decided to publish it myself I added 'em in, because I felt no longer bound to "the rules." One of the most frustrating aspects of writing today are all the rules. I mean there are genre rules, fiction writing rules, rules that apply only to black writers, rules for female writers, etc.

One rule that's become a mantra is that writers should be reading as many new fiction works as you can or at least every author in your "genre" thought to be good/great. If you're not reading some question, "How can you know what readers are interested in?" Umm-- how about because I read profusely for 2/3 of my life which encompasses about 40 years (more than some writers life-span) and because I still read when time allows and I'm interested. A writer who's work I respect, read TOS and 'Morning and commented that in her opinion, they are reminiscent of Bebe Moore Campbell's writings. I'd only read one work (Brothers and Sisters) of Ms. Campbell's when I began to write, but that story lodged deep into my psyche because it was the first book I'd read by a contemporary black author that combined social issues with fiction and I loved it. Because the story resonated so deeply with me, I could see it influencing my writing (along with Koontz, King, Paretsky, and other pop fiction writers I love) and I am honored by the comparison.

Honestly, I think all of this "mandatory" reading of each others work by writers has set in motion the sort of comparative described well by W.H. Auden in this quote, "The critical opinions of a writer should always be taken with a large grain of salt. For the most part, they are manifestations of his debate with himself as to what he should do next and what he should avoid." ~W.H. Auden. When done by rote, I think the purpose of these "readings" for some is to assess whether "my work is better than yours," which to me is a ridiculous waste of time and anyone over 50 knows that time is precious. Besides, why in the world would anyone purposely set out to write like someone else? They're offering their own creative dynamic--what's creative about making their model, "your" model? To my thinking, it would lack authenticity to write from someone's else's worldview or purposely mimic another's style. I write what I like to read-I don't set out to write a book for a certain group, or that I think will sell well--I just write about what I care about and innately structure the work in the accessible storytelling styles I enjoy as a reader.

In the Creative Writing course that I've developed, one of my first suggestions is that folks don't get too obsessed with the rules. Writing is a creative venture. Yes, we want to keep passive phrasing to minimum--just finishing a final check on that with 'Morning, we want to make sure we loosely fit a genre mold, stories should have structure and flow and we want a book to have some literary quality, but worrying too deeply about the rules is anti-creative to me. Note that there is passive phrasing in every writing, authors successfully stride genres and create interesting stories that are well-liked, many break structural rules and it works quite well for them and what's literary to one reader can be simply boring to another.

I agree writers should always write within limits, but I say enjoy being creative, telling stories that matter to you and to Hell with the rules.