Breaking Rules

The next couple of days will be spent in a discussion of Kate DiCamillo's writing. If you have not read her books, I highly recommend that you do so before you read this. I'm not going to post any spoilers, but I am going to talk about her style. As with any author's work, it would be better to come at it without any preconceived or jaded ideas. So, off to the library with you. This will still be here when you get back.

At this moment, Kate DiCamillo is the author who ranks highest on my Oh-my-gosh-I-love-their-work List.Reading her books is what I imagine drowning in chocolate syrup might be like. Dying, but loving every minute of it. Her mastery with words makes me fall in love with language all over again. Am I gushing?

Her skill makes breaking the rules possible. It also confirms a suspicion of mine: when you're good enough, you don't have to follow the rules.

For instance, a number of the sources that I have been studying suggest that an author should pick one genre and format and stick to it. Very few people can write both picture books and novels and get away with it (or so they say). That obviously doesn't apply to Miss DiCamillo. From picture books and easy readers to YA and adult novels, she can and has written it all. And she is good at all of it.



Another rule relates to dialogue tags. You know, the he said/she said bits that tell you who's talking. When you're writing, you're not supposed to call attention to the tags by using anything other than "said". No chortling, wheezing, gasping, or whispering your words. No doing so smugly, questioningly, haltingly, or any other "ly" word either. Just he said/she said.
Unless you're Kate DiCamillo and are writing a Mercy Watson book. Then that rule goes out the window because the exaggerated tags become hysterical--especially when read out loud. (Now that I think about it, those tags might stand out more because they call attention to the names of the characters, not the way they are speaking. I guess it's back to the library for me too.)

Speaking of adverbs...that's another no-no. Over-using adverbs is a red flag that identifies you as a novice writer. I have long suspected, though, that if your writing is good enough, people would ignore it when you break the rules. Or perhaps, it's more about knowing the rules well enough that you can break them with precision to enhance the story.
This suspicion led me to an experiment. This past weekend, I read The Magician's Elephant (Kate's most recent book), and then I read Because of Winn-Dixie (her first novel). The Magician's Elephant is rife with adverbs. Winn-Dixie has virtually none. Which leads me to believe that when you are writing a break-out novel, you have to stick to the rules much more than you do once you are a best selling author. Once you've established yourself, and people are going to buy whatever it is that you write, you can do so with some impunity.

That is not to say that The Magician's Elephant is any less well crafted than her other books. In fact, I think that the use of the adverbs gives the story a voice that is unique from her other works.Which brings me back to the question of precision. Can you make the rules work in your favor? Can they set you free instead of just restricting your writing?

What do you think? Do you know of an example where breaking the rules was liberating and not simply rebellious?