Lately I’ve seen some discussions on loops about breaking the “rules” of writing. I use parentheses because I’m not convinced there are hard and fast rules—more like guidelines. Everyone has an opinion. Not everyone agrees. Writers have their preferences. Readers their own. And certainly agents and editors have their special sets of rules and expectations. Some things are universal. But what about the rest?
Writing is so subjective.
I’m not necessarily talking about grammatical rules—though I have had one contest judge tell me I couldn’t have my heroine say “Let. Me. Up.” The punctuation was too contemporary for an historical. Really? You don’t think a person living in 1815 could enunciate each word while being ground into the cobblestones? Not even a possibility of rigid speech? I for one choose to believe that speech patterns haven’t changed that much. Unfortunately that contemporary “blunder” was egregious enough for me to lose points in the grammar category . . . See? Subjective. It’s not as if I went completely out of period and had my heroine say, “Yo, get up off me, jackass.” Though, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, jackass would technically be period appropriate. LOL!
The debate I personally find the most intriguing—and the one that can get my blood pressure up—is about historical romances and whether or not the heroine should behave like a woman would have in the 1800s or if it’s acceptable to have a more contemporary heroine. Frankly, it’s not the opinions that get me riled, it’s the opinion that there is only one right answer. I like reading Jane Austen. I love her heroines. But I also really, really like a slightly more contemporary heroine. Why? I like to read a story and see myself in the heroine’s shoes. I like to connect with her. I like a sassy heroine—hello, I’m Sassy Mama for a reason! I don’t want the ordinary, I want the extraordinary. What I find so intriguing about Regency-set historical romances, is that you are bound by the rules of society. There were strict rules, and there were rules for everything. Seeing those rules get stretched or broken by a sassy heroine and her rakish man is fun for me—maybe because I am not much of a rule breaker myself? Hmm. Something to explore later.
Does that mean I don’t ever like breaking the “rules” of writing? Well, sometimes it just has to be done. How much history should be included in an historical romance? How much can or should history be bent? How much research can you possibly do without time traveling? Again, this is another example of “to each his own.” Personally, I like the story to be as historically accurate as possible, but sometimes I don’t mind if something has been changed a little. I’m not talking about changing the outcome of Waterloo (unless it’s an alternate history story—which I happen to love!) I’m talking about letting the bride and groom kiss at the end of the wedding ceremony (something that WASN’T done in England during the Regency.) I suppose I have a line I’ve drawn somewhere in the sand. Not sure exactly where that is, but it’s there. Some research I’ll let slide, but some lack of research can drive me insane because it feels like the author either didn’t do their homework or they decided it didn’t matter because it would have ruined their entire plot, like, when a storyline calls for a bastard son to inherit the title (not possible.) I guess I like my books the way I like my basketball refereed—don’t call the ticky-tacky fouls, but don’t ignore the blatant ones.
Fiction is fiction. Pure and simple. But the amount of criticism I see for historicals is interesting. Where does history take a back seat to the story? Can it? When I set out to plot my current work-in-progress I was very careful to mark pages in my research books. I did this because I could see someone telling me that what I’ve plotted never could have happened. Uh, yes it could have, and often times it did. I just have to make sure it will work for my story and the Regency. Create plausibility! Plausibility—and explaining how and why—goes a long way with me.
Not historical related is point-of-view. One of the first things an aspiring writer learns about is head-hopping, and that it is never okay to write using it. (Unless you’re universally loved and accepted for doing so.) Most writers have the “rule” that if we’re changing from one character’s point-of-view to another’s then we have some sort of break—a chapter break, a couple of blank spaces, ***, a transition sentence, whatever. I for one like the distinction and don’t care how it is made. When I suddenly hop into someone’s head and then jump right back to someone else’s it really is confusing. But even having those designated breaks can be jarring. I recently read a popular author’s book and he had an action scene where he jumped between three different POVs. They were all separated with a symbol similar to ***, but what the author did differently was write very short sections. There were two or three sentences, and then they jumped to the next person. Result? There were something like eight POV changes on two pages. Eight. Technically, the “rule” had been followed, but the sheer number of transitions felt, to me, a bit like bending the rules. A bit like head-hopping. Did it work? I guess so, though it pulled me out of the story enough that I had to interrupt my husband’s Excel-spreadsheet-making-fest to point it out and get his opinion. Kind of takes the wind out of the sails of a good action scene . . . But that’s MY problem. I’m sure for others it wasn’t a big deal. His editor obviously wasn’t bothered by it. And it certainly didn’t get in the way of my loving this newly discovered author! I can’t wait to read his backlist!
Yes. I’m a stickler for following the rules. And I get really angry when others don’t follow them too. But with writing, it’s a whole other story (ha!) I like seeing all the different styles of writing. All the different ways people bring their characters together and play out their plot. Along the way I learn what I like and don’t like. What I would like to try, but tweak to my own specifications. It all helps me mold my writing into the style I see for myself. Some rules I follow to the T, and others I either ignore or bend. And I’m okay with that. Hopefully someday an editor will be all right with that too!
How about you? Are their “rules” you love? “Rules” you hate to see broken? “Rules” you’ve heard about that make you laugh or cringe? I’d love to hear about it!


