I found myself smiling all the way through this, @almightymelon. It's nonsense that actually seems to make sense, and moreover it gets me thinking again about what prose and fiction and story structure really are.
Whenever I write about writing rules (and I have written many many articles about writing rules), I try to be sure to make the point that rules really are made to be broken. The way I look at them is this:
- They provide a track to run on. This is absolutely necessary for fledgling writers.
- When a story feels fundamentally flawed, turning to the rules of writing can help untangle the problems and make the story more effective and compelling.
- Learning the fundamentals of fiction writing is important so that when you break them and go off the rails, you do so consciously, not due to a lack of skill or knowledge.
Picasso did not develop his style because he could not draw well. No, he took all the classic training and was a highly accomplished artist in the traditional sense, and he made a conscious choice to veer off that path.
My thanks for the feedback. Being compared in any way to Picasso is fantastic. I'm a huge fan of Gertrude Stein's Picasso-like writing here:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/55215/if-i-told-him-a-completed-portrait-of-picasso
He painted a portrait of her that you could find as well. Sadly, I'm not sure he treated all women with as much respect.
I hope I provided sufficient "track to run on". Writing about writing can so often end up sounding like "I hold this pen above this page" stuff. I think I'm concealing my actual lack of understanding of "the fundamentals of fiction writing" by half-heartedly mocking them.
I'm glad it made you smile.
Ha ha. Love that.