Thank you for answering my Q about the 'rules'

This is inspiring.

I find it useful to analogize the "rules" of writing to theories in physics. Hundreds of years ago, Newton figured out a simple theory of gravity that worked 99% of the time. But sometimes, nature broke his so-called rules (his rules couldn't explain the orbit of Mercury, for example). It took another 200 years for Einstein to come along and discover better rules for gravity. Einstein's rules work 99.99% of the time. But we're still not done. No one knows how to integrate gravity with quantum mechanics, so the quest for the real rules continues. So there's the "rules" on one hand, and the underlying truth of the universe on the other. When authors "break the rules," they're not actually breaking the underlying truth of how writing works. They're showing us that our "rules" are just crude approximations of that greater truth.

Honestly though who wants to read about a character waking up? It's boring. As a writer I've often found that the best advice is noting what I like and don't like as a reader. If I don't want to read prologues then why would I subject anyone else to that in my own writing?

Sometimes we know each other and everything but exercise is most important to me, as well as repetitions must be there for me to get some information from you which is helpful for everyone in my opinion, it's all about for today with you. Thanks for sharing your ideas with me.

Those who break the rules successfully do so with intent for specific purposes in most cases. It is not done willy-nilly. One must understand the so called rules in order to decide how to use them or not. Use what best serves the reader and story.

First line of my novel, Ella’s Ghost: “A blade of dread sliced through her belly when she realised it wasn’t a gunshot that had woken her, but the front door. Slamming. He’s home, she thought.” She’s essentially waking up! 🤦🏻‍♀️ Hopefully it’s more exciting than first meets the eye…

I might be saying what you are saying, only in a different way. But the experience I've had is I'll write something and realize that it actually breaks what some people consider to be a rule. That's very disconcerting, of course. It makes you question whether you're really a writer or not. Not fun. The thing about rules is that they are usually generalized. They are one-size-fits-all shortcuts, and they are not specific, which is why they don't always fit every situation. So what I try to do is look deeper and determine whether that rule actually applies in my specific situation. This means you have to understand the rule really well and understand why that rule exists, and why it might not apply to specific situations, so it does take some thinking. It's important to give that rule deference before you decide to break it. In other words, you have to have a good reason. And then of course some 'rules' are just complete bull honkey. I had one of the 'Internet gurus' try to tell me that I needed to have a difficult dilemma in every scene, between the crisis question and the decision leading to the climax of the scene, or my story just wasn't going to work. Really. He told me that in person. But when I reread my favorite novel, Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep, which is beloved by almost everyone and firmly in the canon, not one single scene had an actual dilemma, or a difficult choice for the protagonist. Philip Marlowe is a seasoned private detective and he knows what to do, and he doesn't need to agonize over what to do, he just does it. So I decided if it's good enough for Raymond Chandler, it's very likely good enough for the rest of us. I think a difficult dilemma in every single scene is just going to be exhausting for the reader. Put them in if they work, don't put them in if they don't. That's my 'rule' 😇. So the conclusion that I've come to is this: a really well-written scene moment transcends all of the minor so-called 'rules'. In other words, if you write a scene moment really well, no 'rules' longer apply, and you can stop fretting about that.

I'm writing a novel where I have a limited 3rd person POV. I switch POV between two characters. I kept the main character's POV narrative subjective, while I kept the other POV character's narrative objective. I know it is something different, but is it good? Or bad? It will be very helpful if you answer this question... Thank you!

Love your videos! Could you work on raising the volume of your vocals, it competes with the music sometimes, and even without the music is often too low.

What do you suggest for an author who doesn’t have a lot of money to publish their book?

❤❤❤

Curious if there is a "typical" # of times a writer reads through their manuscript from start to completion. By that I mean, reading for story, reading for purposes of proofing, etc. In other words, how many times do you read your manuscript to finish the writing/editing while trying to not get sick of seeing your story. 8-)

Not knowing the rules of writing can make it hard to know when, how, and why to break them. But doing so when it's OK is the secret key to a writer's success. Otherwise writing (and following all the rules too much) can come off like an AI's writing.

Great content, but the background music is so annyoing. As if Shaelin would give this lecture in an elevator.

irrelevent comment but you could've ironed your t-shirt before filming ..