Editing and Re-Editing, Just Stop it Already

Most writers love writing. That’s pretty much a given. However, a good portion of those writers hate going back and editing. They’d rather continue with the flow of new ideas and just write, write, write.


I’m a little weird, so of course, I’m one that actually does like to go back and read my work and polish it until it’s blindingly shiny. In fact, I sometimes take so much time on editing and re-editing that I don’t work on new ideas. Worst of all, I’ll sometimes go back and start editing a story that’s still not finished.

What that means is that the first few chapters of my story is great, the middle so-so, and the end is non-existent. Not good. At this rate, I’ll never finish anything.

As it turns out, I’m not completely alone. This is a trap that a lot of new writers fall into and it’s a trap that is the more dangerous to new writers in particular. So not only are we susceptible to this, we’re the group it negatively affects the most. Great.

So why is it a trap? As mentioned a couple paragraphs ago, I’m having trouble actually finishing stories. This is why. I’m so wrapped up in editing the beginning, that I’m not writing the end. Bad newbie writer!

Okay, so why is it more dangerous to new writers? I’m constantly learning things about writing. Every day that I write and/or research, I learn more and improve my skills. So, any edits I make now, will probably be changed later as I improve further. Basically, I’m wasting my time editing something that’s just going to be changed later anyway.

But hold on there. Experienced writers can fall into this trap as well. Quite a lot of writers like to spew forth words and write whatever comes to mind, not worrying about grammar and style. All that will be worked out in editing. So, why not start editing right away and help the process along? Well, I’ll tell you why not.

When writing, the author gets in touch with their creative side. Lots of ideas start flowing and plots, characters and other ideas often will change midstream. By the end of the book/story, what you wrote in the beginning might very well be edited out altogether. So if you went in and edited as you went, you just wasted time on editing something that’s no longer included. That’s valuable time (since most of us writers have a full time job to “pay the bills”) that you could have used to write.

That’s what I’m fighting myself over. I really, really, REALLY want to go back and edit and edit and edit some more. I swear it’s like a compulsion. But I’m not getting anything finished.

So here’s what I’m doing. I’m fighting the compulsion. I’m forcing myself to not go back and either write new material or edit finished work only. Yeah, I can go back and reread passages to get back in the flow of things. If I see a glaring error, I allow myself to change it, but I don't go back purposely to edit now.

I have to say, it’s actually working. I finished two stories and have outlined two more so that they’ll be done in about a week. With a little bit of focus, I went from no stories done to almost having four done. That’s quite a difference.

Anyone else suffer from the constant need to go back and perfect your work before it’s done?

In all things, moderation

"To avidly learn is what keeps life interesting," Elisabeth expounded excitedly.  She spent the rest of the day thoughtfully musing over the lessons she'd learned.  The next blog post was written with much excitement.

Did I miss anything?  Can you pick out all the rules I just broke?  I've gone over a few of the more popular rules in my last few posts.

• 'ly adverbs
• Active vs. passive voice
• Show vs. tell
• Dialog tags
• Split infinitives

There are plenty more rules out there.  One of them, that was pounded into me in high school, was not to use "There are".  But these were rules that I'd come across recently and that were still under debate or being discussed.

Now that I've researched and gone over each one, I can say I have a much better understanding of why each rule was put in place.  I know most of the negatives and the positives for each one.  However, I still dislike the word "rule".  I'd much rather use "guideline".

The very word rule implies that there are never any exceptions.  Each "rule" I've gone over recently most certainly does have exceptions (depending on who you talk to).  Guideline implies that you should do it a certain way where ever possible, but there are times when you should do it another way.

Just following some of these guidelines has improved my writing exponetially.  For example, here is my original opening paragraph to my book:

 

Her first thought was, Oh hell no!  Kat had just woke up to find herself tied to a chair in an old, dimly lit basement that smelled like gym socks.  The last thing she remembered was walking down to the corner store to get the milk that her harebrained sister, Kit, forgot.  Kit was always forgetting everything and Kat, as usual, tried to fix it.  This time, however, it landed her in this basement.  Great.  Just great.

Lots of telling, adverbs, etc.  Here's what I have now:

The smell of old gym socks assailed Kat’s nose, waking her. She opened her eyes and scanned her surroundings, trying to figure out what had happened. A florescent light flickered overhead, casting the room and its dingy contents in intermittent darkness. Realizing that her hands were tied behind her and that she was in a strange basement, her first thought was, Oh hell no!

Kat struggled against the ropes, chafing her wrists. It made no difference, she wasn’t about to stay here, no matter how raw and bloody her wrists ended up.

She remembered walking home from the corner store, a bottle of milk in her hand, then a sharp pain on the back of her head. Her harebrained sister, Kit, had forgotten to stop by the store again. As usual, Kat had tried to fix the situation, going out after the milk on her own. This time, however, Kat’s fixing landed her in this basement. Great, just great.

It could still use some work, but it's better.
 
Here's what I've concluded.  Moderation is the key.  Using the guidelines will help inspire a higher level of writing.  Never settle for poor writing.  Anything can be re-written.  The big question is, is it being re-written for the betterment of the piece?

Sure I can follow all the rules, but by following all the rules, did I just lose the voice that makes me unique?  Is my writing now bland and sound like everyone else's?  Or have I added to the description and drawn the reader further into the story?

Only you can answer that question about your own work.  Often we get caught up in writing for other people.  What will the agents like? The Editors?  The audience?  Sometimes we forget why we started writing to begin with.

Of course, keeping the rules in mind will help when dealing with editors and agents, but also remember that you are writing for you.  Write what makes you happy.  In the end, you're the most important reader.

"Dialog tags?" I muttered

What are dialog tags?  I'm glad you asked.  Dialog tags are these nifty little words that tell the reader who's speaking.  The most common is "said" as in "He said" or "She said".

Mary said, "But that doesn't make sense."

John said, "Sure it does."

Mary asked, "How can it?"

John explained, "Simple, you just…"

 

More industrious writers sometimes use more descriptive dialog tags.

Mary panted, "I just ran ten miles."

John gasped, "And you didn't collapse?"

Mary grinned, "Not all of us are as out of shape as you are, John."

John muttered, "I'm not out of shape…"

 

Now, what's the big deal?  The basic rule is to not use them or if you do, use them sparingly.  Well, how do you know who's talking?  That's a good question.  Take the above example:

Flushed from her run, Mary halted in front of John.  She bent over and placed her hands on her thighs, panting. "I just ran ten miles."

"And you didn't collapse?"  John's eyes nearly popped out of his head.

"Not all of us are as out of shape as you are, John."

"I'm not out of shape…"

 

There, no tags, yet the reader knows who's speaking AND it was descriptive.  I'm not saying it's great writing, but it's an example.

Okay, here's the debate.  Those that like to use tags like to use them to add description to their writing.  Using "He screamed" is a lot more descriptive than "He said" and adds another dimension.

Those that don't like to use them say that they are distracting and interrupt the flow of the dialog, especially the descriptive tags.  This group feels that using "said" (and MAYBE "asked") actually blends in better than descriptive tags and the eye passes over all the "saids."  That said, they should still be used as sparingly as possible.

I can see both sides.  Yes, they do interrupt the flow and they should be used very sparingly, but sometimes it works better if I use a "she whispered" instead of an alternative.  Yes, I could rewrite it, but sometimes it's even more distracting describing everything before someone says something.

The argument is that the dialog should show everything, so you don't need description.  If someone is angry, their words should show it and so you don't need a "he spat" or "he pouted".  For the most part, I agree with this.  But how do you show when someone whispers?  Okay, I guess the other character could lean in and / or ask them to speak up.  Even a "They spoke in hushed tones." and then start the dialog would work.  I'm sure there's a way to do just about anything, but is it better for the story and the plot?

Also, here's a little pet peeve of mine (and I know several others are in agreement with me on this).  Sometimes these descriptive tags don't make sense.  The most common one to bring up is:

He laughed, "And that's when I told him, that's no goat, that's my wife."

How can you laugh and speak at the same time?  You can't (at least not well).  Either you are laughing or you are speaking.  How to fix this?  It's just a matter of adding a period instead of a comma.

He laughed. (period and begin new sentence.)  "And that's when…"

If you are going to use descriptions for tags, please please please take this into consideration so that your tag at least makes sense.  In the above version, he laughed and THEN he spoke.

To boldly split an infinitive

I asked myself a question that spurs most of my researching.  "What the heck is a…?"  In this case, I wanted to know what the heck a split infinitive was.  What indeed.  My next question was, "What makes split infinitives so evil?"

Ironically enough, I wrote a masterful split infinitive in the very forum post that caused me to ask the question to begin with.  I didn't even realize what I had done.

"My goal is to one day, many years down the road, have some of this…"

So, what is a split infinitive?  Heck, I don't even know what an infinitive is let alone how to split it.

Infinitives are the base form of a verb usually proceeded by "to".  Examples:  "to be", "to go" or "to run".

Split infinitives are where you split the "to" from the verb by adding words in between:

"I would like to, eventually, leave this place."

 

"To leave" is split by "eventually".  A way around this is:

"I eventually would like to leave this place."

 

So my original example of where I split an infinitive, without even trying, could be rephrased like:

"My goal, one day many years down the road, is to have some of this…"

Now, why are split infinitives so evil?  That's a question that has been under debate for a very long time.  There are good arguments on both sides of that fence.

In simple terms, the split infinitives are evil crowd thinks that the "to" should never be separated from the verb.  It's grammatically incorrect and just plain wrong.  Don't do it.

The pro-split infinitives crowd says that it's not really grammatically incorrect and we only think it's wrong to split it because that's what's been pounded into our heads.  The rule goes back to Latin where it is grammatically incorrect to split an infinitive.  Problem with that line of logic is that in Latin infinitives don't have the equivalent of "to."  So it's impossible to split them, even if you wanted to.

There are other pro/con arguments and I could make this an extremely long and boring post.  Don't worry, I won't do that (at least not more than I usually do).

Where do I stand?  As with the other rules I've been learning, my feeling on the matter is to try not to do it.  It might not be grammatically incorrect, but it is still considered poor style.

However, one of the most famous split infinitives just wouldn't sound the same and the rhythmatic flow would be hurt if it were "fixed."  This is for all my Star Trek geek friends out there!

"To boldly go where no man has gone before."

To go is split by "boldly".  But, it just doesn't sound right and it loses impact any other way:

"Boldly to go where…"

"To go boldly where…"

So yes, avoid them, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

The business of show (not tell)

One of the first rules I ever encountered was:

Show, don't tell.

Again, my mind screamed, "What does that mean?!"  Aren't we writing stories and, therefore, telling a story?  So isn't it always telling?

Well apparently not!  Here's what I learned.

Telling is more…well…telling the reader what happened, whereas, showing allows the reader to read it firsthand.  For example:

Telling - John called the sheriff and told him about the crime.

 

Showing - John picked up the phone and dialed the sheriff.  "Yes, Sheriff?  There's been a crime."

 

See how the showing example involves more action? It's a boring little detail, but possibly necessary for the plot that John call that sheriff.  They both relay the same message, but the showing version draws the reader in and involves them in the action instead of just telling them about it.

There is quite a debate about show vs. tell.  The theory is that showing is more intense and will draw the reader in.  Telling will just bore the reader to tears.

A fact that I found interesting is that showing didn't really become popular until the early 1900s.  Before that, the standard was to tell.  So what I wonder is, how much of these rules are really just a product of the preferences of the readership at the time?

I was reading a book series where the author just loved to tell everything.  Lots of telling and very little showing.  I love the world and the plots were okay.  However, I had to put the book down several times and nearly stopped reading altogether because the telling got old quick.  The only reason I kept reading was because the world the author created was extremely detailed and my OCD kicked in and I wanted to finish the series.  That and the later books got a little better on that front.

I won't get into a big debate here because that's been done and redone too many times.  My goal for this post is just to point out what Showing/Telling is and to state that it's the preference these days to show and kick tell to the curb.

So, show and NEVER tell.  Of course that gets my brain whirring.  I swear, just use the word "never" and that alone will jumpstart my little brain and get me thinking of examples where telling would be more appropriate.

What if, my brain asks, there's a long passage of time, say a road trip, where nothing really happens, but it's important to know so that the reader knows there's a passage of time, not to mention how they got to be 500 miles from where they started.

How about something like:

The road trip to Phoenix was uneventful.  John and Mary made the trip in record time.

That's definitely telling and, depending on the plot, possibly necessary to the story.  This doesn't bore the reader into a coma with showing scenes of them driving in silence for 500 miles, occasionally stopping for gas and bathroom breaks.  Yes, that's exciting stuff!  Maybe, to really spice things up, they buy Funyuns at one of the gas stations. Perhaps there was a Cheetos vs. Funyuns debate.  Oh boy, now we're talking some action. If we're really lucky, there'll be a showtunes scene.

Yeah, the reader doesn't need to know all that detail.  Who cares if they had Cheetos or Funyuns (or both for that matter)?  It's not necessary to the plot.  It's just extra fluff.

The pro-show side of the audience is now screaming at me.  A counter-argument to this tell example would be to put in a scene break and then show what happened.  Supposedly, this is a dying artform.

John grinned.  "It's decided.  We're going to Phoenix."

(scene break)

John pulled the car into the driveway.  He turned to Mary and said, "Wow, it sure is hot and dry here in Phoenix, but we made that trip in record time."

Mary nodded in his direction, but remained silent, obviously still upset.

John opened the door and stepped out, muttering under his breath.  "I still think Cheetos beats out Funyuns any day of the week."

 

Okay, so I added a bit of flair to that example.  I couldn't help myself.  It doesn't have to be so cheesy, but it's just an exaggerated example to prove the counter point to the telling point I made previously.

I thought up another example from one of my own works in progress.  I have a scene where the main character goes to the bathroom.  I know she's fictional, but I wanted to give her a little privacy, so I didn't show her actually using the facilities, I told.  I know, I know…put the cuffs on and lock me up in writers prison immediately!  And before you ask, yes it was necessary for the plot that she go to the bathroom.  If you must know, it proves how tight security needed to be and, ironically enough, showed her lack of privacy during that particular time.

The counter point to my point was that just because you show doesn't mean you have to add more words.  It doesn't have to be all purple prose and flowery.  Sometimes simple is better.

So instead of the several sentences I used to tell about the process, I could have just written something like:

"I'll be right out here if you need anything."  Denny's voice came from the other room, the open bathroom door affording little privacy.  Her sister stood in the doorway, in view of them both.

Under her sister's watchful eye, Kat attempted to go about her daily bathroom routine without being too self-conscious.  Geez, does everyone need to see me pee?

 

Believe it or not, this version is quite a bit more concise than my telling version.  The above example is showing and it's actually a lot less verbiage.  Okay, okay, there is a little bit of telling still in there, but it's much less than before.

So…maybe there's something to this whole show, don't tell thing.  Just don't tell the pro-show people that.

The blog was written in the passive voice...

Active voice vs. passive voice is one of those things that I'd heard bantered about, but never truly understood.  I gathered that it was a way of writing and that it was preferable to write actively as opposed to passively.  That's about as far as I ever got.

According to Wiki:

The passive voice is a grammatical voice in which the subject receives the action of a transitive verb. Passive voice emphasizes the process rather than who is performing the action.

But what does that mean?  I didn't really know.  So I did a little homework and found out that active voice is when someone does something to something.  Passive is when something happens to something else, possibly by someone.  And yes, there is a difference!  Examples:

Active – John picked up the paper

Passive – The paper was picked up (by John – optional)

Notice how when using the active voice, John is the subject.  John is doing something to something.  It's direct.  He picked up the paper.  The sentence revolves around John and what he's doing.  Go John!

When switching to passive, the paper is now the subject.  Something is happening to the paper.  The paper isn't doing anything.  It's just sitting there waiting for something to happen to it.  John is optional at this point.  Who needs John anyway?

Passive voice is used more in business and/or scientific papers.  Like when writing about a reaction to some chemical interacting with another, example:

Active - Charlie poured the chemical over the other, causing a reaction.  (Charlie is causing the reaction by pouring)

Passive – Chemical A was poured over Chemical B, causing a reaction. (Now it's Chemical A's fault that Chemical B reacted)

 

In the above example, the chemicals and their reactions have more significance than who actually poured one over the other, so poor Charlie being left out is probably a good thing in the scientific world.  Here it would be better to go with passive voice.

There are many more examples where passive is used, but I'm going to try to stick to fiction.

Speaking of fiction, it's usually better to go with the active voice.  Most stories are character driven to an extent.  Switching to passive voice keeps focus on objects and away from the characters and what they are doing.  Example:

Active – John picked up the lamp and threw it against the wall.

Passive – The lamp was picked up and thrown against the wall (by John – optional).

 

The active example is very violent.  We can tell that John is mad about something and taking out his frustrations on the innocent lamp.  (We've shown he's angry without having to say so, but more on that in future posts!) The focus is on John and his actions.  The lamp is secondary.  It could have been anything that John happened to be close to.  Just happened to be a lamp.

The passive example loses some of its umph.  We don't really get that John was upset, but more that the lamp got smashed to smithereens.  It's all about the lamp.  The fact that John threw it is inconsequential.  In essence, you just took a possible main character and made him take backstage to a lamp.  Must be some lamp! Maybe it's Tiffany's…

So, passive is bad, very bad.  Must never write in the passive voice! Never ever!

This is where my brain started whirring like it usually does when I hear the word "Never".  As a story teller, what if you WANT the focus to be on the lamp?  What if John IS inconsequential?

What if Mary owns the lamp and it's her most prized possession?  John is just some random guy who happens to be there and we're never going to see him again.  He doesn't even have any lines!  He just comes in and smashes the lamp and leaves Mary heartbroken.  In this case the lamp really is more important than John in the grand scheme of things.  Who cares about John and his anger management issues when Mary's priceless lamp has been smashed?!

It brings me back to the infamous example:

Active – The car struck the child.

Passive – The child was struck by the car.

 

Which is more important?  The car or the child?  On which do you want to put more emphasis?  I'm sure if you were the child or a parent then you'd put more emphasis on the passive version.  Even though it's passive, it's more emotional and dramatic.

So how do you go about finding out if you are using passive voice?  There's always going to be a form of the "to be" verb.  Examples:

The lamp was thrown

The lamp will be thrown

The lamp is being thrown

The lamp had been thrown

The lamps were thrown

The lamps have been thrown

Etc.

 

If you are writing in the past tense, do a search for "was".  A lot of times, you'll find some passive voice strewn in the midst if you find "was".

Now, here's what I really learned.  There's nothing wrong with passive voice.  It's grammatically correct and as long as you use it correctly, it's fine.

However…same as with 'ly adverbs, you can do better.  Let's take a few of the examples above and rewrite them, but keep the same meaning:

The lamp was thrown against the wall.

 

What do we really want to point out here?  We want to point out that Mary's prized lamp is being smashed.  So why are we focusing on the lamp again?  Don't we really want to focus on Mary's feelings?

Mary watched in horror as John threw her prized lamp against the wall.

 

Or even the less flowery/purple prose version:

Mary watched her lamp hit the wall.

 

How about:

The child was struck by the car.

The child's face filled with terror as the car's tires screeched on the pavement in an attempt to stop in time.

 

Or the even less flowery/purple prose version:

The child went limp as the car hit her.

 

Either example, the direct one or the purple prose version brings more to the story than what the passive example brought.  Focus was brought back to the main character and how they were feeling/reacting.  Each example was more dramatic and descriptive.

Long story short, passive isn't evil, but just because it's not evil doesn't mean it can't be rewritten into something even better.

'ly Adverbs/Adjectives. Are they really so bad?

Two things happened that sparked my curiosity about this little guideline.

1. Someone critiqued a story of mine and mentioned that I should get rid of an “ly” word.
2. I was lurking on some writer’s forums and they were joking about using “ly” adverbs.

My initial thought was, “Is it bad grammar to use ‘ly words?” That didn’t make sense to me. Why have the words if it’s incorrect to use them?

Faced with a puzzle, my interest only grew from there. I did a web search and ran across several grammarians who are adamantly against using these infamous ‘ly words in fiction.

The information on the websites boiled down to the fact that they are NOT incorrect grammatically. It IS considered bad writing to use them, in fiction especially. They are perfectly acceptable in the eyes of those grammar police out there. However, the thought is that adverbs and adjectives are superfluous and detract from the verb or noun that they are attempting to enhance.

I read many examples and many arguments for and against. I thought back to my own writing and realized I have a nice big smattering of ‘ly adverbs/adjectives throughout. But still, what’s so bad about them if used properly? Many published and famous authors use them profusely.

The main arguments against are:

• They are usually redundant and because of that redundancy, detracts from the potency of the point you were trying to make in the first place.
  
  Example: He angrily stomped away.
  
  Okay, so he’s stomping, and typically when someone is stomping, it is implied that they are angry. The ‘angrily’ is an extra word that’s not necessary.
  
  
  
• They take away the strength of the verb they are trying to enhance and usually only create more vagueness.
  
  Example: He quickly ran away.
  
  How quick is quickly? Is he Olympic dash quick or need to pace yourself for a marathon quick? The word ‘ran’ already implies that he’s moving quickly. Actually adding the word ‘quickly’ brings more questions and vagueness. Other verbs could be used here that would add more description and meaning. Like, “He rushed away,” “He hurried away,” “He ran away so fast that he broke the speed limit.”
  
  


• It’s considered poor writing. Now this is the one that got me thinking. I can see the points of the other two arguments, but I could also see using ‘ly words that would add more description instead of detracting from the sentence. How is it considered bad writing?
  

Mulling all these points over, I went back to the first paragraph in my book. Sure enough, the second sentence had one of those little buggars in it.

“She had just woke up to find herself tied to a chair in an old, dimly lit basement that smelled like gym socks.”

Still not completely understanding why I needed to, I thought about how to go about rewriting this. I tried many different things in my head. After all, ‘dimly lit’ is not redundant. It’s simply explaining that it’s actually not very well lighted. I don’t care about the potency of ‘lit’ because the room isn’t really lit.

I toyed with the sentence and tried out a few rewrites:

Taking out the ‘ly word - “…old, lit basement…” But it isn’t a lit basement. It’s not dark, but it’s not bright either. This implies that it’s bright. No good.

Leaving the ‘ly word without the ‘ly and taking out the word it enhanced – “…old, dim basement…” This just didn’t sound right to me. Yeah, it was accurate in describing the basement, but it just didn’t flow for me.

Changing the sentence completely – “She had just woke up to find herself tied to a chair in an old basement that smelled like gym socks. A fluorescent light flickered above, casting the room in intermittent darkness…”

…And that’s when the lightbulb in my head came on. I had my “ah ha!” moment and complete understanding hit me.

It’s not that it’s bad grammar or poor writing. It’s that you can do so much better. Yeah, I can use “dimly lit basement”, but, with a little more effort, I created a sentence that was so much more descriptive and hands down better (yeah, it still needs work in other areas, but that's for the next post!). I still got my point across and my writing was drastically improved.

So is it wrong to use ‘ly adverbs/adjectives? No. Is it better to not use them? Yes. I know it’s hard if you’re like me and used to using them all the time, but my writing is leaps and bounds better when I don’t use them.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s very hard to not use them. I actually have to use my brain and think of better, more accurate verbs (i.e. "He gripped" instead of "He tightly held"). I have to stretch myself. But then, isn’t that the point? I did want to be a better writer. The exercise of tossing all those ‘ly adverbs/adjectives definitely helps me towards that goal.

Now, every time I run across a ‘ly adverb/adjective, I think to myself, “You can do so much better than that.” And I can.

Rules? There Are Rules?

I'd been plugging away at now two, not just one, novel.  My mind was reeling with plot lines and characters and all sorts of fantastical things.  It's probably the most fun I've had in quite some time.  It was extremely easy to get sucked into these other worlds my mind thought up.

So, it was with a bit of reluctance that I started to research more about the techniques, styles and rules of writing.  I wanted to write, not study about writing! 

My biggest fears regarding writing were that I hadn't known grammatical rules and that I was breaking them all over the place and not even aware of it.  This was the fear that I was determined to overcome with education.  Having been self taught with most things in my life, I viewed this as no different.

I viewed it as a challenge and I hit it head on.  Not even knowing where to start, I stumbled across several websites.  A few were helpful, many were not.  Finally, my fingers clicked across The Critique Circle website.  Everything until then had been just words and definitions, most of which still didn't make sense to me even after reading it several times over.  I was truly a beginner.

I joined this new website I had found and proceeded to lurk in a manner that would impress any industrious forum troll.  It was here, among other ordinary people who had similar questions, that I started to finally understand what I was missing.

It wasn't that I didn't know the rules of grammar.  Actually, I did and quite well.  I just didn't know the terms.  The mere mention of participles, modifiers and compound phrases sent me running for the hills in fear, when I really knew what they were, at least in the abstract.

What I didn't know, and still have a hard time with, were the writing rules.  When I started writing, in my mind if it was grammatically correct, then that's all that mattered.  Turns out there's a whole world of rules and guidelines that have very little to do with grammar.  This revelation opened my eyes quite a bit. 

One of the first rules I came across was not using adverbs.  My logical side wanted to buck the system.  Why have words if you shouldn't use them?  That just didn't make sense to me.  And what the heck is passive voice and why shouldn't I use it?  Showing?  Telling? 

I quickly gathered more terms that I feared.

Gathering what courage I could muster, I dived in and have since wrapped my brain around quite of few of these rules.  Although, I still want to call them guidelines rather than rules.  To me, the word rule implies no deviance at all.  In reality, authors deviate from these rules all the time, some successful and some not.  What I have realized is that the rules/guidelines are there for a reason, many of them good reasons.  They are there to strengthen and enhance writing by not letting writers get lazy.  By following some of these rules/guidelines in my own writing, I've made my writing better by leaps and bounds if only because it made me think. They gave me a fresh perspective when looking at my writing and allowed me to grow.

Over the next week or two, I'll go over a few of these rules/guidelines that  learned and accepted.  Some of them include: 

• Use of Adverbs/Adjectives (especially the dreaded 'ly' ones).
• Using active vs. passive voice.
• Showing and not telling.
• Using tags in dialogue.
• Split infinitives (this falls a bit more into the grammar side of things. It's still a big debate, but it came up while I was doing this other research.  So here it shall remain!)