by Anne R. Allen
Last month, I wrote a post with tips about how (not) to write a novel opener. Some readers complained that I was “dictating” how people should write. That wasn’t my intention. I only talked about what agents and editors think has been overdone, and what doesn’t work well in an opening chapter in contemporary fiction. But you can find bestsellers that break all the “writing rules” I wrote about. How can that be?
Because the “writing rules” are only guidelines.
Over the years, Ruth and I have offered tips and suggestions for writing fiction and creative nonfiction that contemporary readers will want to buy.
But we never intend for you to take our word as gospel.
We say “we made the mistakes so you don’t have to.”
But that doesn’t mean we know everything. Or that we’re never wrong. We’re still out here making mistakes. Making mistakes is how people learn, and creative people should always be learning.
You can come to us for pretty solid advice about what are accepted standards in writing contemporary prose.
If you follow basic guidelines, we think you’ll have a better chance of being successfully published than if you jump blindly onto the query-go-round or indie publishing with a manuscript full of head hopping, long, adverb-heavy descriptions, flashbacks within flashbacks, Tom Swifty dialogue tags, and other reader pet peeves.
Breakthrough Novels Break Writing Rules
But the truth is that one of the most successful novels of the decade broke pretty much all the “writing rules” we learned in Creative Writing 101. Delia Owens’ Where the Crawdads Sing is kind of a perfect example of “how not to write a novel.”
There’s head-hopping, long paragraphs of description, numerous flashbacks, and even a “Magical Negro” to save the day. Plus there are an abundance of clichés in story and characterization.
And guess what? Readers do not care.
It’s a great story full of fascinating information about habitat, plus a protagonist so compelling, readers can’t help feeling personally involved in what happens to her.
Clichés Exist for a Reason
People also like it because offers cozy, familiar tropes. As writing students, we were taught that nothing is worse than a tired old cliché. But clichéd stories are well-worn because people like them.
The truth is, most people prefer what’s familiar. There’s comfort in knowing where a story is going. We welcome each familiar twist with delight.
Think about how people prefer reading books in a series. That means there are lots of recurring characters. And the assumption is that the main characters won’t die in the middle of the book. Stephanie Plum may be in terrible danger, but we can be pretty sure she’s going to survive, because well, it’s a Stephanie Plum mystery and we know there are more to follow.
Does that take away from our enjoyment of Janet Evanovich’s books? Not one bit.
How many of us spend the Christmas season wallowing in those Hallmark Christmas movies that tell the story of a successful big-city career woman who returns to her hometown and falls in love with the gruff blue-collar guy with a heart of gold? And a dog. There must be a dog. And snow. They must have that first kiss in the snow.
We’d be disappointed if the film left out any of these tropes.
Familiar stories are like that box of Christmas ornaments from Grandma that you pull out every year and greet as old friends while you hang them on the tree. Each one has a story that’s old and worn, but still beloved.
The Most Popular Novels are a Mix of Old and New
I think Where the Crawdads Sing tapped into a place in the collective unconscious that pulls the reader in like a familiar voice or the scent of home.
As much as the book annoyed me as a writing teacher, after I’ve read dozens of other books since, scenes from Crawdads are still vivid in my memory. I think that’s because the story was a mix of familiar and new. I was reading a familiar story at the same time I was learning fascinating things about a particular ecosystem as well as getting to know a wonderfully plucky, clever character.
Is there a formula here a writer could follow to produce another blockbuster novel like Crawdads? Is there a template for the ideal novel that has the right mix of pulpy and literary writing, plus familiar and new storytelling?
Not likely.
And this is exactly why formulas and tips and writing rules are only useful up to a point. After that, it’s all alchemy. There’s some kind of “magic” that makes one book more compelling than all similar books, and nobody can explain it. Not even the author. Maybe especially the author.
Why Writing Rules Are Made to be Broken
Ruth and I give advice to writers that we’ve found helpful in our own careers. We try to help you write the best stories you can — ones that will reach readers with your message, and maybe even make some money. (Yes, publishing is a business, so filthy lucre is involved.)
But sometimes the rules get silly. People start following them for their own sake, forgetting that the main goal is to entertain the reader, not to please some writing teacher in your head.
As I’ve said before, rules sometimes don’t make sense.
Some of my unfavorite writing rules:
- All adverbs and adjectives needlessly overburden your deathless prose.
- When the passive voice is used, your writing is considered bad.
- There are no reasons to use the verb “to be.”
- Don’t use contractions.
- Sentence fragments: bad!
- Never use a preposition to end a sentence with.
Okay, I’m being a little silly here. But the point is, writing rules are never one-size-fits-all. And they are not carved in stone or issued by the Almighty. They are at best guidelines — tips to help you control your story, not laws to control you.
The truth is, we need to learn the rules so we can break them. What fun is it to break a rule if you don’t even know you’re doing it?
Great Storytelling Trumps Writing Rules
Somerset Maugham famously said, “There are three rules for writing. Unfortunately, nobody knows what they are.”
But pretty much everybody you meet in the publishing business will give you a list of them. (One is “never start a sentence with ‘there are’” — so watch yourself, Mr. Maugham.)
Some of the rules show up in any standard writing book or class, but others only seem to get circulated in critique groups, conference workshops, and forums.
And there are all the tricks for analyzing your work by beats and outlines and worksheets. You’re taught to make sure X happens on page 40 and Y happens on page 70.
I fear that if writers spend too much time with these, they’ll end up trying to shoehorn their story into a prescribed template that cripples their creativity.
Sometimes these worksheets and tips and tricks can work like magic to improve our writing. But sometimes they don’t.
Anything that organizes the passion out of your work is probably not going to catch the imagination of a huge number of readers.
Ruth told me a few years ago that she fears new writers can be confused and overloaded by too many how-to-write books, webinars, podcasts, and blogs — even ours.
She’s right. We live in an era where writers have an amazing amount of information available to us at no cost. I think there may be a temptation to search for more and more of this “insider information” instead of learning to write the old-fashioned way: writing a whole heckuva lot of bad prose until we start producing good stuff.
There’s a time when you need to shut down the Internet and just write. And remember that most of the tips and “rules” we offer are most useful during the revision and editing process, not when you’re writing your first draft.
Critique Groups and Beta Readers Are Great, but….
This is true of critiques and beta readers too. Remember what they offer is personal opinions.
As I have written in earlier posts, critique groups are a wonderful way to learn to write well. But they can also give us tons of bad advice. See more in my post “Critique Groups: 6 Ways they Can Hurt Your Writing…and 6 Ways They Can Help.”
I also talk about Stupid Writing Rules, and how they can derail a WIP. Some writing rules work for some people and some work for others. And some are just plain dumb. When writers start following writing rules for their own sake instead of because they help you produce readable prose, it’s time to forget the rules for a while.
Remember that in the end, it’s your story, your vision, and your book. You don’t want a book written by committee. You want your own ideas there on the page. Follow the rules as long as they’re helping you produce a better story, but once they start to squelch your passion, it’s time to let them go.
Yes, even if you use a preposition to end a sentence with. 🙂
If you look at agents’ blogs and interviews, they often say something like “I can’t tell you exactly what I’m looking for, but I’ll know it when I see it.”
Yeah. They’re not looking for a manuscript that fits a mold. They’re looking for something passionate and exciting. So don’t let any of these “rules” rob you of that passion. Let your crawdads sing!
***
by Anne R. Allen (@annerallen and annerallen.bsky.social) October 19, 2025
What about you, scriveners? Do you feel that learning about writing rules has helped your prose? Do you ignore the rules most of the time? Has a critique group or beta reader ever derailed your book with bad or unkind advice? Do you ever feel overloaded with too much writing advice?
Book of the Week
Romance scams are even more plentiful than writing scams. In this Camilla Randall mystery, a romance scam leads to murder, and it’s up to Camilla, her cat Buckingham, and two ‘tween Nancy Drew wannabes to find the killer.
Book available in ebook and paperback at Amazon and Barnes and Noble
and your local indie bookstore can order it through Ingram
ebook also available at Kobo, B&N, Apple, and other online retailers
***
featured image by Andrea Piacquadio for Pexels.
Absolutely! Writing “tools,” not necessarily “rules.” This is what Roy Peter Clark reiterates in his book, “Writing Tools: 50 Essential Strategies for Every Writer” (2006).
With regard to those who criticize you for “dictating” about how to write: It seems to be an obsession among many to assume that, regardless of the topic, what you recommend or suggest is a hard-and-fast rule that they assume you are imposing upon them from a position of superiority. One doesn’t even have to read carefully to understand the difference between suggestion and recommendation vs. requirement and regulation – BUT few read an entire piece thoroughly before flying off the handle.
I think what they don’t understand (or are too lazy to understand or undertake) is that in order to break the “rules,” an artist, in any creative field, is best served by knowing thoroughly the “rules” – technique and style and so forth – before breaking them. Picasso had to know about composition, color, structure, lighting and other aspects of great art before he could get away successfully with “Guernica.” Had that been his first work, it wouldn’t have looked like it does, and he likely would have been booed off the artistic stage. He didn’t break the “rules,” he manipulated them.
Are there anomalies among us, writers with little or no “training” or experience, who break all the “rules” and find themselves at the top of the best-sellers’ lists? Yes, but that’s exactly it: They are anomalies. Their unique voice and story are so strong that readers can’t resist, and waive the adherence to “rules.” We can’t all expect to be the next child prodigy.
As usual, write what you want and how you want about what you want, and the “you should/shouldn’t” audience be damned. Once you have a full draft, then you go back and revise, edit, polish, cut, develop, build voice, etc. That’s when you can contemplate how this might speak to your audience.
But always, you must write for yourself first, not to meet the expectations of others.
Sally–I agree with you 100%. I love the idea of calling them writing “tools” rather than “rules.”
Sally! Thank you for the perfect response to those who choose to scold instead of listen! You saved me from possibly spouting off and doing lots of arm waving… :O))
Agree with everything you said and how you said it.
Hi Anne,
How very true. One of the “rules” I consistently hear at retreats for kids’ writers is “Never start a book with dialogue,” which prompts my response of, “I think EB White did okay with the first line of Charlotte’s Web — “Where’s Papa going with that axe?”
Thanks for another fine post.
CS–There’s always an exception that proves the “rule.” 🙂
A very good post, Anne! I always say to my classes, ‘you need to know the accepted rules so that you know when it’s worth it to break them.’ And sometimes it is worth it. Sometimes. I think that covers my point of view. 🙂 Melodie
Melodie–That’s so true. If you don’t know the rules, where’s the fun in breaking them? 🙂
Great title to the post, Anne. Guidelines are very important, especially to new writers. However, there are those who want to bake the guideline into a hard and fast rule.
I was told once that I should never have a prologue in a novel, but it seems to me the author should do whatever serves the story best. Sometimes a prologue serves that purpose. As CS mentioned, beginning a book with dialogue may be the best way to start.
However, I think you’ve given me an idea for a good blog post. Thanks!
Kay–I’m so glad I inspired you! I get a lot of my blogging ideas from other blogs. I start a comment, then realize it’s too long and it’s really a blogpost.
You’re singing my song, Anne. I read a lot of those “rules” and eventually they started to bug me. So I developed a theory: people who read a lot of written submissions (editors, contest judges, and teachers of writing) see the same tics, clichés, and tropes until they’re ready to scream. Then some of them write posts saying “Don’t do this, this, and this. Ever.” But regular readers, who don’t read as much or under pressure, just skim over that stuff or accept it as familiar.
But I agree that a great story has to have something else. Whatever that is.
Audrey–I think you’re exactly right. I see a lot of these “no-nos” on lots of agent blogs. If something will get you rejected on the spot, writers need to know that. It doesn’t mean your book won’t be read, but it won’t be traditionally published.
I do wish I knew what that “whatever” is. Anybody who figures that out will make millions. 🙂
Great post, Anne–as usual. I’m cracking up at the Maugham quote: “There are three rules for writing. Unfortunately, nobody knows what they are.”
And I loved your line:
“Anything that organizes the passion out of your work is probably not going to catch the imagination of a huge number of readers.”
Hear, hear!
Sometimes I feel like we Californians are consummate rule-breakers, and I pride myself on being both. But I do stop at red lights for obvious reasons. And I do try to follow the basic rules of grammar and punctuation because those are the road signs that help readers safely journey along with you through your story without getting lost (or T-boned at an intersection).
Thanks, as always, for sharing your wit and wisdom.
Debbie–I think you’re right about Californians. Our ancestors who came out here from the east were mavericks, escaping the old ways for something new. They were willing to go through a lot of hardship to get here, so they taught us to be tough. Resisting authority is kind of a way of life here. 🙂
One reliable writing rule is that Anne and Ruth’s blog is always worth reading. Also, if a writer attends every online lesson and every learning opportunity to improve their writing, they’ll never have time to write.
Stephen King has said that road to hell is paved with adverbs. I do find that if I read some of my writing and discover a lot of adverbs, the writing does improve if I reword the sentences to eliminate them.
Ha ha – writers don’t attend every online and/or in-person learning opportunity: wannabe writers do!
Thanks, Fred! 🙂 I know writers who go to dozens of conferences and workshops a year and never finish their grand opus. Over-workshopping your work can make it into an awful, unpublishable mess. In my opinion, fiction can’t be written by committee.
Excellent advice! That’s exactly why we have to spend so many years just writing – to figure out when those rules can be broken. And most of them can be, but it takes practice to learn when.
And no contractions? Why were they created if no one is to use them?
Alex–The “no contractions” rule drives me nuts. I recently was trying to edit a piece that originally came from the UK and some kind of UK grammar check attached. They dinged every single contraction, and this was in dialogue. I guess the “rule” comes from business writing, but even a business letter can have contractions.
Awesome post, Anne. THANKS
Elizabeth–You have my permission to break all of the stupid writing rules!
Thank you for this! In my books, I break every one of those “rules” you mentioned.
I read Save the Cat Writes a Novel, and was dismayed that my stories did not fit that model. Likewise, they don’t fit the Hero’s Journey.
But then I found The Heroine’s Journey by Gail Carriger and saw that my sci fi series fits right into that.
My critique group gives me excellent feedback, but I probably use only about half of what they recommend.
I must be doing something right, because tomorrow I’ll be touting my books at a local bookstore, along with other local authors.
Mike–Congrats and best of luck at your book event! Yeah, once I tried to follow the Hero’s Journey and show my protagonist in her “normal” world before the call to adventure. My editor cut that crap so fast! “Get to the story!” is what he said. I have read excerpts from Carriger’s book, but not the whole thing. I should probably look at it again.
That’s one I haven’t come across before. What an absolutely ridiculous rule!
I meant the one about not starting a kids’ book with dialogue – my reply seems to have jumped away from the comment!
Annabelle–The rule is don’t start any novel with dialogue–not just children’s books. This is because it’s generally better to introduce the characters before they speak. But lots of good authors break this rule.
I did! (I will leave it go readers to judge whether or not I am a “good writer.” Although I did have squirrel critics of my first novel. Yes, the rodents