Instead of actually writing stories, I've decided to teach everyone else about what I've picked up over the years. I'm learning this too, so I propose everyone contest with what I write, so I can learn too. Feedback is appreciated, and I'm here to answer specific questions between main updates.

Let's fun.

1. Introduction

I'll keep this brief. Most people reading this are fairly competent writers, so I'll just keep this short. The number one rule of writing is that every subsequent rule can be broken, and writers are encouraged to do so. In fact, you could even through proper grammar, spelling, syntax et cetera IF it contributes to the piece. That big if is the catch though. So I guess the rule should be revised to say that they can be broken, if they're broken for a reason. If the theme of your work is a satire against bad writers who disobey basic fundamentals of writing, then by all means do so. If it's a statement of how poetic devices bog down stories, make each paragraph riddled with convoluted imagery and metaphor. Sounds all well and good, right? So if it's done with a reason then that means it's okay to go. Not quite.

A simple rule turns out to be a pretty complex thing. But it'll make sense in a second. What happens if an author's reasoning behind breaking rules is simply for the sake of breaking rules. A perfectly decent passage could get completely ruined. The theme of this example is that Romantic Imagery detracts from overall story telling

>>>A lion's roar shattered the still of the night.
The hunter symbol of the invincible
>>>man cried out like the !scream! of a child having just been weaned from his mother and thrust baptismal like into the sea of humanity and the modern >>>world:
He turned to run but a root lashed out across his ankles and sent him >>>tumbling by the hand of natureDust and grit flared around his eyes as terror bit
down like the hunter's" own clenched jaw, locking him with the twist roots of >>>life as the powerful lion, now the hunter loomed above with yellow eyes gleaming.
>>>And the man got eaten, in a typical Hawthornian fashion.

The imagery is satarized by being over the top drama, lengthy, and in the end drawing out the events with an unsatisfying ending, so the central theme is well covered. But what the crap is going on with the language and random characters? Breaking standards of English convention has completely destroied a viable idea and segment of writing. So the rule has to be changed yet again. Last time, I promise.

All rules of writing may be broken IF they're broken for a sound reason and it doesn't detract from the overall product.

And that brings about the conclusion of the first key-concept of writing. The second one to think about is balance. Often times when new authors get ahold of an idea, they'll think of applying it wherever and whenever possible. It's all well and good to use knowledge, techniques, et cetera, but too much of a good thing is entirely possible. Here is an example of something stuffed with too much metaphor and allusion.

I lept forward like a jackrabbit at my foe. It was the ultimate example of a David and Goliath situation where in I was the meek and humble one. Vastly the underdog, I behaved as the Zergling would.

Or even worse, people over do thematic ideas in each sentence.

Funny how death can grip a land. My village suffered, but perhaps our monarchy was to blame. The racist ruler outlawed almost all other cultures, one of which might have cured us. Yet the sands of time never cease, and we challenged the gods and lost.

Focuses on device over content is a huge issue with some writers. Think of all techniques as aides designed to help your content show through, else your content might just become a vessel of your ability to flaunt your knowledge of lame techniques. Everyone can write an analogy, but few can apply one, if you catch my drift. This leads into our concept of balance as being over-balance. Under-balance sounds worse, but in actuality is a bit more tolerable.

He grabbed his sword. He raised it above his head. His enemy felt bad. He brought it down. The battle was won. Great salutations came when he returned.

I'm bored to tears, but at least the story moves along. So what's the trick to balance? Well, it's pretty simple. Find a balance. What's the trick to finding balance? That's the tricky question. Whatever suits your style most as a writer will cue you one how much or how little of whatever you want to use. Practice plays greatly into this, sad to say. If only writing boiled down to a formula, we'd all have an easier time.

In these examples, I focused on balance with devices mostly, but balance plays into EVERYTHING in writing. Character development : Under doing it creates somebody uninteresting. Over doing it creates somebody we're sick of reading about. Plot : Under-foreshadowing leaves us clueless. Over doing it makes you predictable.

As an author, you have free reign to tweek the balance of some aspects of your writing, but whatever you decide on ultimately has to be balanced. Hemmingway is a famous example that comes to mind. He rarely employed poetic language or even interesting sentence structure. However, he balanced this with great character development and plots, which is why he is considered a great author to this day.

So what's rule number 2 in writing then, in relation to balance?

Properly balancing everything is essential to making a story. And I lied, rule number 1 doesn't apply to this. So sue me. You can try breaking this rule, but the results will be painful.

Third and final major concept of the introduction is a nice short one. Please, we've all read stories. At least pretend to make whatever you write look like one. Nobody in their right minds will submit something like this:

Hullo frank weelcome

*he gets up*

I've got to stop it right here. If your writing and your IRC chat look the same and you don't get complimented on your beautiful word play, then you've got some re-writing to do. For the love of God, please obey this rule.

3. Don't write like a European.

3. Don't write like a European.

HEY >O

I thought it was a rather interesting article up to the point where I read about rule three, you suck!

D=

I only meant it in pure American ethno-centricity.

On the writing of the article, I think it'd be easier to read if the examples were in some way differentiated from the normal text.

I suppose I should rewrite all of this at some point, as I decided to do this on whim and in under and hour.

I suppose I should rewrite all of this at some point

It doesn't get much more ironic, does it?