Writing about writing about writing

In the past few days the Guardian's list of Ten Rules for Writing Fiction has been quoted and referenced all over the book-related blogosphere (what I think should be called the bookosphere). It was also discussed on Slate's Cultural Gabfest and has been imitated by other newspapers like the Globe and Mail, who invited a few Canadian writers to make their own contributions. As a self-proclaimed "person who tries to write sometimes", and a fan of literature in general, I was excited when I first saw the list of rules. It's entertaining and even instructive to see what such a wide variety of prominent (some more than others) writers advise. But after a few days I've started to grow tired of seeing references to it, if nothing else than because seeing the same few rules quoted by several people has given me a worrying sense of a lack of independence of thought amongst readers of the Guardian's books page. Being intellectually superior to any adherent of such popular phenomena, I have, of course, chosen to stay aloof of the entire discussion.

And yet, I now find myself being dragged down into the muck of this literary conversation. Regardless of the fact that it is now well-covered ground, the rules have occupied my mind for the past few days (most likely because I keep seeing references to them). And so, as part of my continued effort to actually do more writing - thus developing my own skill with the English language while also enriching the world by sharing my wisdom with it - I have decided to throw my hat in the ring* and add my own comments on these same Rules for Writing Fiction.

With a few dozen writers contributing to it, much of the advice is predictably contradictory, and often not at all helpful; much like the Bible, it is not the place to look for rules on how to live your life. However, some of the rules did stand out more than others for me, such as the unfortunately-named Michael Moorcock's:

Find an author you admire (mine was Conrad) and copy their plots and characters in order to tell your own story, just as people learn to draw and paint by copying the masters.

While you can of course learn quite a bit from creative writing courses or other, more formal instruction, I think there's something to be said for imitating the masters. As you can see by my own writing, this is not a rule I would apply to myself (not successfully, at least). But the writers I enjoy reading the most are those who are conscious of the history of literature, and their place in it, and in whose works I see signs of having learned from great artists of the past. I'd include Philip Roth as an exceptionally successful example of this type of writer because of the way his writing combines pleasure-inducing elements like character development and plot with an attention to form and style that, on its own, would make his work worth admiring.

But that's just my opinion as a reader. The rules were directed towards writers, and while there was some nonsense and a lot of contradiction (read, don't read, eat, don't eat, etc.), there was one very simple rule, given by A.L. Kennedy (whose work I'm not familiar with), that would be impossible to ignore for anyone who aspires to writing fiction:

Write. No amount of self-inflicted misery, altered states, black pullovers or being publicly obnoxious will ever add up to your being a writer. Writers write. On you go.

That's it. If you want to be a writer, just take some words, put them down and, like E.I. Lonoff, re-work them until they sound the way you want them to. You may not be happy with the result, or maybe you will be the only person who is, but that's what writing is. It doesn't matter if you have a laptop or a pen and paper - just get the words down and you've done it. Being unfortunately acquainted with a person who has opted for the 'publicly obnoxious' approach, I found a great deal of joy in reading Ms. Kennedy's advice.

Before getting to the writing, of course, it's necessary that you spend some time reading books to see for yourself what fiction actually is. This is something I spend much of time doing and thinking about, and it's something I think is important, so I was pleased to see that several writers recommend reading widely and deeply as a prerequisite to writing. While not part of the original 'rules' I think Will Self put it best:

Stop reading fiction – it's all lies anyway, and it doesn't have anything to tell you that you don't know already (assuming, that is, you've read a great deal of fiction in the past; if you haven't you have no business whatsoever being a writer of fiction).

I don't agree that a writer shouldn't read while working on a novel or story, but the second part of that statement is pure gold as far as I'm concerned. If you don't read fiction - in fact, if you don't love reading fiction - then how can you possibly expect to write your own? Or, really, why would you want to? I once had a conversation with someone (see "publicly obnoxious," above) who describes himself as a "real writer", but I had to press him to come up with the name of one writer he likes. He claims to read a lot - or, more accurately, he owns a lot of books - and yet has nothing to say about anything he's ever read. Needless to say, this doesn't do much to pique my interest about whatever it is he's writing.

But as for the methodology of writing itself, I will conclude by sticking with Will Self, who concludes his list with simple advice on how to make writing feel like the working world that the majority of writers - indeed, the majority of people - are most familiar with:

Regard yourself as a small corporation of one. Take yourself off on team-building exercises (long walks). Hold a Christmas party every year at which you stand in the corner of your writing room, shouting very loudly to yourself while drinking a bottle of white wine. Then masturbate under the desk. The following day you will feel a deep and cohering sense of embarrassment.

*This not being a contest per se, I'm not sure this is the right metaphor to use here. Feel free to suggest any substitutes.