You
can’t reinvent the wheel.
This
is a common saying, but is it actually true? As inventions go, the wheel is a
pretty handy one. It has made our life easier by propelling objects forward, as
simple as a wagon or as complex as a motorized car. Although the exact origins
of the wheel remain unknown, I find it interesting that the concept was perhaps
independently and simultaneously adopted in many different cultures. The first wheel
is thought to have appeared around 3500 BC in Mesopotamia (southwest Asia), but
evidence of the wheel also surfaced around the same time period in the Northern
Caucasus (between Europe and Asia) and Central Europe. And the concept of the
wheel continues to evolve.
When I think of the saying ‘You can’t reinvent the wheel’, writing comes to mind. Writing is an established process and there are distinct rules to follow. Rules an author cannot break, from writing conventions to book structure. There is standard structural breakdown. Books are divided into chapters. Chapters are separated into scenes. Scenes are defined by point of view (POV). POV is established though sentences. Sentences must follow the grammatically correct placement of words. Words must be spelled correctly.
I
attempted to creatively circumvent these rules in one of my latest stories. My
story was rejected for publication so, in a nutshell, this departure did not
pan out. Rules are in place for a reason. I was disappointed, but I refused to
remain daunted. I could learn and grow from this experience, and perhaps help
other budding authors, by identifying and correcting my blunders. So, where did
I go wrong?
Expectations.
A book should be divided into different segments. Chapters are the most common
way of achieving this division. Each segment of the book propels it toward its
conclusion. A chapter should end in a cliff-hanger and entice the reader to
continue on.
The
events in my story took place over the course of a week and, instead of using
chapters, I separated my story into days. This choice was not recognized as a
legitimate division by the editor reviewing my work. Lesson learned: use appropriate
(and conventional) chapter headings.
Interpretation.
The author is omniscient. The reader is not. I believe the reader should be
allowed to experience a book with their own imagination, a powerful tool. There
is no room for ambiguity. The author should lead the readers to a consistent, natural
conclusion of events.
In
my story, the hero conveyed his memories to the heroine through flashbacks. My
scene and POV changes were not apparent to the editor. Lesson learned: clearly
spell-out the scene and POV changes.
Context.
Spell-check is a poor substitute for a second pair of eyes. It takes an
objective third-party to find the errors you (and your word processing
software) missed.
I
know this. I do. I’ve emphasized this point in other articles I’ve written
about writing. Breaking this rule was not about creative license. It was about
impatience. In my haste to submit my story to potential publishers, I admit to
skipping this step. My usual critique partners were involved in their own
projects and I didn’t want to wait. This is probably the worst of my mistakes
as it would have potentially caught the first two. Lesson learned: be patient
and have your work proofread.
These
lessons are what I’ve taken away from this particular experience. Knowing the
rules is not enough. Sometimes you have to make your own mistakes before you
can fully understand them. I knew better and still I did not pay heed. It took
a kind rejection note from an editor to open my eyes.
Still,
writing creatively and following convention seems counterintuitive to me. I
need to actively step back after I write my first draft to objectively apply
the rules. I need to understand the ‘wheel’ and my drive to reinvent it. With
practice and patience, I will find the right balance. Like the wheel, my
writing will evolve.
No comments:
Post a Comment