Yet another beta-reading tid-bit

[lizvogel]

One of the things I'm very leery of when looking for critique is what I call rules-parrots: those people who chant whatever writing "rules" they've adopted, and try to force every story to conform to them by rote at the expense of judging the story on its own merits.

As usual, Patricia Wrede says it better than I do:

"There are always folks around who have memorized a list of no-nos without understanding the reasons behind them, and they will complain bitterly if they notice you using anything on their list, regardless of what you’ve done with it or why."

I don't know whether the drive to parrot rules comes from insecurity about one's own judgment or a desire to boss others around (though I suppose they're not mutually incompatible). I do know it's profoundly unhelpful. Perhaps rules-parroting is a cop-out for a beta-reader in much the same way as using an unexamined cliche is a cop-out for a writer?

Comments

[legionseagle]

I couldn't agree more; it was one of the most frustrating thing in one critique group I was in. Especially where people had absorbed no-nos ("passive writing" and, inexplicably "gerunds" were favourites) which they seemed to be both violently against and quite incapable of identifying.

[lizvogel]

Wrede has a couple of lovely rants on the subject of passive voice, not least the fact that people objecting to it often don't know what it actually is.

And people come up with such odd "rules". Gerunds...? I had one person insist that there's a rule that you can't describe food in a scene. Seriously, wtf?

[legionseagle]

Her blog is very good, isn't it? Thanks for putting me on to it.

I had one person tell me someone couldn't help my heroine down from her horse, because he wasn't the person she had identified as the romantic hero (it was, as a matter of fact, a historical detective story, not a romance).

[lizvogel]

*headdesk*