Comments on: Bad Creative Writing Advice

By: Sarah Bee

Sarah Bee — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:10:46 +0000

I don’t think tip 4 is accurate. Artists can certaintly use too much paint. It doesn’t matter what your craft happens to be, overkill is overkill and you have a true masterpiece on your hands only when there is nothing left to add and nothing can possibly be taken away.

By: Kyla

Kyla — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 02:32:57 +0000

I love this post! I hear these recommendations a lot, and I sometimes wonder whether or not I should completely agree with them. In some circumstances, they hold true, but people should realize there comes a time to break every rule. But only if it’s for the good of your writing, of course.

Thanks for this great article. This is going on my writing articles to re-read list, and I might even link to it from my blog. Have a great day, and happy writing!

By: Samantha J Wright » A List of Helpful Resources for Writers » Samantha J Wright

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:52:13 +0000

[...] An article on which writing advice to avoid. http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/writing/bad-writing-advice/ [...]

By: Kris

Kris — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:42:45 +0000

@Emily: Before you teach your next university-level writing class, please review the proper use of commas. “You, dear, reader, might think…” should have one less. Please don’t make me tell you which one; you are supposedly a “many-lettered woman of exceptionalism”. Also, please don’t fall back on the tired old “I was typing quickly and missed a typo” excuse. Anyone who is teaching writing ought to know the value of proof-reading as well.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:10:43 +0000

Missed the forest for the trees.

By: Aric

Aric — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:03:38 +0000

Although I disagree with much of Emily’s disagreement (I thought the initial post was brilliant), I do think that “ejaculate” is a poor word choice to describe anything but actual ejaculation. Of sperm. In orgasm. There are many other words, with different and more specific connotations, from which to choose: eject, thrust, toss, jettison, and hurl, for example. In general, too many adverbial dialogue tags become obtrusive for me as a reader, especially when used with terse dialogue.

“I disagree,” she chortled.
“I really don’t care,” he huffed.
“Well, you should,” she whined.

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:06:12 +0000

@Emily
That was actually a terrific example of how to use all of those things in order to emphasize a point. I thought that Edelman supported his claims very well, especially the one using Pynchon as an example, whereas you, Dear, managed to contradict yourself with a blanket statement founded on a weak argument. To each his own, I suppose.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:14:46 +0000

Your clearly speaking to fiction writers. However, what would you recommend to those involved in the social sciences. Specifically, cultural anthropology which uses ethnography as it primary method of interpreting the human experience, followed by the use of some sort of social theory. I tend to lean toward the idea that anthropology is more of a humanity in which it reads the lives of people like one would read a text. That is, a text that is read as people write it.

By: Emily

Emily — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:01:56 +0000

ohhhhh. . . I thought the explanations were the nonsense found on the web. The tips are pretty good. I am a creative writer and I teach university writing, and if i used ejaculate/exclaim/whisper/breathe in long, convoluted, murkey, complicate sentences, you, dear, reader, might think that I thought a little too highly of myself and be turned away from the execellent prose of a many-lettered woman of exceptionalism.

By: David Louis Edelman

David Louis Edelman — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:45:08 +0000

Thanks for this, Gwen. You’re right, the passive voice is “demonized” too often when it should merely be mildly discouraged.

I’m a writer who likes to write long, complex sentences with lots of dependent clauses and extraneous adverbs. So using the active voice, for me, often has the added benefit of cutting the sentences down to a more easily digestible size.