Few things irk me – like hardcore irk – more than people spouting the rules of writing like they were scripture. However, my opinion on that is not this post, and will probably be at least one, if not many, others.

However, I realized last night that I do think there’s one rule of writing that is absolute. Or as close to it as a non-absolutist can believe (did I even use that right? Prolly not. Oh well. ^_^). This is something I learned early on from two of the critique groups I belonged to.

The short version of this rule, understanding that it doesn’t stand on it’s own without expoundment (am I making up words this morning or is my brain just that far gone into SQL-land?):

If you have to explain to the reader what your story meant, outside of your story, you didn’t do your job as a writer.

And now, I will expound. (Seriously, I’m starting to question my vocabulary. I should have gotten the coffee instead of the diet coke).

I understand that some stories are meant to be interpreted. I think that’s fantastic. I love an ambigous ending, or a loose end that’s intentionally left open so the reader and follow their own logical conclusion.

However

If you are ever published by forces and wills other than yourself, hell, even if you do self-publish, you will probably not have the opportunity to sit down with every reader and say “Well, in chapter six, she’s supposed to be pondering the meaning of goldfish and how they may have been responsible for her pet bunny’s death. The narrator sees this on her face and decides not to ask her out for brownies after salsa dancing.”

Why do I mention this? I see countless people in critique groups respond to a review with very similar justifications. From where I sit, that makes sense if you’re brainstorming. If your point in defending your intentions is to get help in clarifying them. It makes no sense if you don’t plan on fixing the story.

Don’t get me wrong, there are people who just won’t get it. Don’t make the story stupid for their sake and overly-in-your-face for the rest of us. But if half, or three-quarters, of your advanced readers are saying “I don’t understand why he decided to go to the racetrack instead of asking her out for brownies after salsa dancing”, there may be something that needs clarification.

It’s a hard instinct to overcome, I understand that. Defending ones own art is a deep-seated subconscious reaction. Do you agree? Do you think my stances on this being a rule are maybe too harsh, or not harsh enough?