|
Stuporstar posted:As far as long rambling novels go, few beat The Count of Montecristo as the longest page-turner I ever tried to devour whole (took me a whole week). He spent more than a few paragraphs on character description, and most either revealed essential character, or was described from another character's perception to reveal their character (love that done well). I love The Count of Monte Cristo. But I'm sort of torn about just how long the imprisonment section takes. On one hand it's the most boring slog of the book, and it's super early on, but on the other it really does convey the situation very well. As others have said GRR is just a bit much for me sometimes, but I think it's just a subjective thing, as those books are massively popular so some people must really dig it. I guess it can add to the immersion if you are forced to observe all of the minute details. Also, I haven't dived into this board much, is there any kind of place I can check out the work of goons? Anywhere links to ebooks, blogs or anything is collected?
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
In my experience good writing doesn't come about so much from being really good at it, just through accumulating so much poo poo that some of us has to be kinda good. There really is no better advice than persistence. Also just reading and absorbing a lot to learn that way too. Maybe that changes later on, I still feel fairly "young" writing-wise, so maybe you will refine, but that's the only rough advice I have to crises of confidence like that. I can't speak for anyone else but at least 80% of my writing folder is just snippets of the most godawful poo poo I would never want to show anybody. I feel that in interviews and such writers sometimes feel the need to beat around the bush about that, and depending on who they're talking to it's probably a good idea. Like, a newspaper interview vs. a university lecture -- they're usually a lot more honest in the former. But I feel like it's something everyone probably has. It's easy to idealise people as great at everything they do because you only see some of it. All writers are pretty much building on the same essential roots. I think David Almond said something of the sort in a lecture I went to recently and it was really encouraging and refreshing. e: I do hate when people think writing is easy, though. It's like super hard. I'd like to see some of the people that talk down about it give it a try.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Symptomless Coma posted:Why is it so much easier to see what's wrong with someone else's writing than your own? I'm pretty sure it can't just be arrogance? It's not usually arrogance, just being too close to the writing's source. It's a lot easier to edit if you just come back to something after a week or two. Just for the fresh perspective. That's why when you look back at old stuff you think it's all awful.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Thoren posted:I'm pretty sure we went/go to the same college. Mine did too! I think this is pretty common practice. Amongst other writers I know it always seem they find dialogue the hardest part of writing. But I am completely the other way around. I find it weird that people find it really tough, but I do acknowledge it (not trying to be a dick). The only advice I can really think of is to read it back and try and see if it sounds weird or not? Just imagine people talking, and write that. Really reading it back, or aloud, should help you get "flowing" dialogue at least. Also, if you have any interest in scriptwriting, writing out a comedy sketch or two might help you get back into the "conversation mood" if you're just out of whack.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Erogenous Beef posted:Edit: There was a great bit in a writing article I read once, which I cannot find now. Which of these is better? I don't have the actual lines, so these are poorly reproduced from memory. I think the second one is a bit much, but I agree with the point. It always matters why things happen, because writing should mirror real life to some extent. And, "everything happens for a real". The hard part should be in how you chose to convey why things happen, and how much you want to let your reader work things out for themselves. This is especially true for antagonists, I find, otherwise it's dull. Well, any character, I suppose. Characters need a reason to do things otherwise it just doesn't really add up. Even cheap airplane thriller novels usually have some sort of character motivation. I suppose it doesn't always have to make complete sense. There is a certain suspension of disbelief required for most fiction.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
The Duke of Avon posted:If I did manage to write a book I loved, everyone else would probably hate it. There's not really any shame in that. You can only write what interests you, dude. Besides trying to expand your reading I'm not sure what to suggest. If you do want to do that perhaps try branching out from what already interests you. Have you tried historical murder mysteries? What about hardboiled detective fiction (which could lead you to crime, maybe, and onward?). I like to think I could enjoy anything from any genre, as long as it's not boring.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
The Duke of Avon posted:I feel better about my writing now, in any case. I made a rather stupid decision last night to ask strangers to send me their novels for beta-reading. I have done this, and I still do this. At least it makes you feel better about your own writing.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
Stories seem to work best when allowed to grow naturally in some manner. Mag7, from what you were saying in the 'dome it seems like you're a little hung up on planning and "how it should be". The bridge must be there for the conflict, these things have to represent this, and that sort of thing. Just get some corn, load it into the microwave and let it pop. Don't put hand popped (like, you've split it open and tried to force it out yourself) corn into the microwave, because that just makes no sense and doesn't taste good.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 13:26
|
|
|
I'm constantly being given step by step breakdowns of my sex mistakes, so speak for yourself.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas has some pretty great stream of consciousness drug writing, but that's a pretty unique level of both drug use and writing. I'll second this. Thanks to that book I'm too afraid to ever use drugs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Goat Bouillabaise posted:EDIT: And yeah, the above fellow is correct. Don't follow that line that you have to take drugs to write about their effects. That poo poo is wrong. Maybe it is for people who have no imagination and/or no capacity to learn things second-hand. e: I'm not implying that's true of anyone in this thread
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
crabrock posted:I edited it out already but it was something like: "just make sure this doesn't trace back to me." Why would someone who does crime not request it's not traced back to them? Or is just a little cheesy? Please enlighten me with your criminal wisdom.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
I tend to say anything goes in speech, and I'm willing to accept anything. I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I have seen some good writing do some pretty crazy stuff with speech to make it obvious it is the speech of an actual person. If it worries you people won't notice and will think it's bad I suppose you could always make it more obvious?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
My #1 tip for speech is to just write it out how the voices in your head are saying it. That's we all do... right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Icon-Cat posted:If anyone's looking for an agent, the Twitter hashtag #MSWL might interest you today. I wish there was something like this all the time. Thanks for the link earlier, Chuck Wendig seems pretty cool. Will check his writing on writing books out, though that's the kind of thing I usually hate to read. Just usually, though, not all the time. Say, are there many cool places to get self-publishing information from people that have, like, done it? Besides Goonreads, I mean. Might as well ask due to a summer/university project (I have to make a "plan" for self-publishing something). PoshAlligator fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Sherlocks Holmes is male, but he is super intelligent and also a boxing master and stuff. But then he is a drug addict and has like Asperger's or whatever (undiagnosed). It's not really so much they can't be good/capable of things, just that they have to be fleshed out characters with real personality flaws because it must mirror reality to some extent to be believable. ^^ Yeah like Chairchuckler said. To put it in terms of Sherlock Downey Jr. movies he uses his intelligence there to help plan fights and stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
I just wrote up a blog post about Live Writing. I'm not sure if that's an actual thing many people have done or if I'm in the minority. Essentially it's writing live (via Google Docs or whatever), and using it to gauge pacing and reader response and stuff. I sort of come to the conclusion that it's pretty good for things like comedy writing, but only in certain situations. But when it works it really works. Was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts or opinions on it, as I had a real blast and found the experience tremendously helpful with the piece I wrote using it. Just a rough first draft, mind you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:I read your post - and, so, you write and people react WHILE you write your story? Does that suck if there's only one person following you? Or none at all? And I guess it's more like performance art than writing? Strip away the comments that happen while you're writing, and does the document make any sense at all? I'll be honest, I'm not super popular so I had like 7 people watching tops. That actually probably let me keep an eye on it better. I suppose you could do it in a more performance-focused way, but the way I wrote my thing was just traditional. The main thing I got out of it was being able to gauge what people thought as I wrote it, and being super conscious of losing people if it was boring. You could read it and not know it had been written that way, though. I guess it's kind of like watching a movie with friends as you make the movie. The book is pending approval on ebook distributor sites right now if you're interested in how it turned out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Haven't there been some cases where actual courtroom proceedings have been recorded for the public recently? There's definitely actual transcripts, but I'm not 100% sure on the best place to get those and sometimes you need to pay a fee. I haven't seen Law & Order but I wouldn't bet on it being exact. But then, there's no reason you have to be either if it's not some law specific thriller.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Organisation and planning can go a long way but it's definitely real easy to fall into a pit of worrying too much. Be it character archetypes or where your story will fit into the market. Just try and tell what you have in you and you'll write your best.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 13:56
|
|
|
I usually find that the people who have problems with ebooks are the people looking for problems with ebooks. I know what you mean about a house full of books, though, and I don't think it's uncommon for people to own a load of ebooks as well as physical books. With that said, I don't think ebooks will ever replace physical books. Ebooks just replicate physical books, and don't offer anything new, so they can only really go along in tandem. As far as reading goes, I don't think there's any difference unless you let there be one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
I think when books eventually start to really embrace the ability to be digital we'll see a move away from physical, but only if that actually happens. If anything, physical books limit ebooks too much due to the replicative nature of them. Another way to look at it could be that if ebooks increase in market share enough we're start getting more books that are only really possible in digital. I don't really understand it either and it's weird, but that's what all of the digital fiction lectures I've attended have spoken about. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:I had a big head-exploding paradigm shift over the weekend. Many of the articles/books I've read break writing into categories, books and not-books: (short stories, novellas, etc). I'd say 50k is a little on the short end unless it's YA (for print). If anyone is interested an agent told me (so this is just what they'd look for) 90k-100k for general, commercial fiction. 60k-80k for literary fiction. Historical romance 90k-110k. Contemporary romance 80k-105k (though romance is pretty varied, series romance is shorter). Cozy mysteries 60k-80k. Bigger mysteries 85k-105k. Big thrillers 90k-105k. Scifi/Fantasy 90k-150k. YA 50k70k. Non fiction is all over but generally 60k-90k. That's just one person's opinion I guess, but it might be of some interest to someone I guess so I'm putting it here. There is a definitely bigger market for shorter works via ebook than physical, though. I suppose the cheaper prices means that people can spend a few dollars on something short and not feel ripped off.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Martello posted:What do you mean by the "replicative nature?" I mean, I get that ebooks are supposed to replicate regular books, but they definitely aren't the same thing. Just the simple fact that you can highlight a word and look it up in the onboard dictionary, or on Wikipedia, changes the reading experience tremendously. With a physical book you'd have to type that word into a computer, look it up in another physical book, or use your phone or whatever. With an e-book you just highlight the word and off you go. Their point was that at their heart ebooks are just meant to give the physical experience digitally, as opposed to offering anything new due to format (though your points are valid, they arguably don't change the book itself). I just thought it was an interesting lecture. I wish I could remember more of it. I guess it's like Snickers and Snickers Fun Size. Sure, Fun Size has benefits, but they're just meant to be like Snickers anyway so original Snickers won't go away unless Fun Size begins to offer something unique about Snickers that Snickers simply cannot do.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
I'm really in love with novels that have Parts lately. It really helps me break up the acts in my head and makes sure I'm on the right page. I may try to utilise them myself.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
ViggyNash posted:I don't know about KILL YOUR CHILDREN, but there's a quote of a British author in Writing Tools which says bluntly, "Murder your darlings." Butcher those you love.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
As a famous philosopher once said: "just do it". I believe it was Nikeletes? Thanks for the wall of text though, Funk In Shoe, was good to read.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
To chime in with my own handy dandy productivity tip: no matter what you do one day you WILL die. Get going. As I lie in bed at night, the darkness kept at bay only by the red light of my digital alarm clock noting the early hours, I mourn the loss of each precious minute as it seems to hurtle like a steam train gone wild counting down the seconds to my personal doomsday. Every change of the clock is an acknowledgment of my insignificance and worthlessness, a marker of my inability to complete anything or do anything with my life. I grab a bedside pen, hastily scribble down a few illegible notes on some sort of surface, gorge myself on leftover cold chili and drink down a stale tasting whiskey remaining from some day prior. Eventually, I collapse on my sheets, hoping upon hope my brief delirium will result in a dreamless night so as to not be subjected to the inescapable fear in the traps of my traitorous mind. But if that doesn't work for you, you could also draw up a schedule to write a bit a day I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
I haven't heard of one, but mobile, syncing Scrivener is a drool-inducing thought.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Jeza posted:It sounds stupid, but the most important thing a writer should be focused on is writing a good story. The meaning will already be in there. I agree with this and want to put my two grains of salt into the pile for what it's worth. Unless you're some sort of bad writer themes and morals and things will probably arise naturally from the story and characters and everything else. If you plan your thing around a moral there's a high chance it will end up preachy. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm sure it has, but I'm sure I didn't notice it. The best advice I can give is write your thing, and write it good. If you're not sure where to go try shaking it around. Think of it not as, "how can I draw up my blueprints?", but more "how can I get these seeds to grow?" -- perhaps they need different soil for the time being, perhaps they need to be watered differently, I don't know, it's just a metaphor. I've gotten out of funks before by changing my setting to be more comfortable to my writing style, changing the style to be more like something I can write, or sometimes just cutting and ending scenes early because they were boring to write, with a mind to come back to them later but then finding out they weren't really necessary anyway with the other stuff. Really though, skipping about has been helping me a lot lately. Both project to project, and scenes/chapters within the projects themselves. If you're writing a long thing and feeling the blues then no harm can come from finding a competition or a magazine/journal looking for short stories, tapping something out and sending it, then coming back to your other thing later. To go back to my seed metaphor, don't put all your seeds in one... seed place.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Guys, he knows about the cult. Maybe we should just give it up? I can't help but feel the best way to go is less imparting an idea or a message to the reader and more exploring concepts and ideas with the reader through your story. Acting teacher/student with the reader sounds a bit pretentious. I'm on board with making the reader think about things, but not so controlling. If you think you've never read anything written without the express purpose of putting forward a message then you probably don't read too widely. Burn. Burn the nonbelievers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
I wouldn't say it's a question of not having themes of morals, but more a question of those themes and morals being the specific intent behind writing the story. Of course, this all seems kind of dumb at this point after having some drinks, and I think we can all take some things from either camp on this point, though accusations of cultish behaviour might be a bit of an exaggeration. My thoughts on this really boil down to a point a Film teacher of mine used to make about how he really hated (with a passion) sad music in films. He hated it a bit too much, actually, it was a bit much at times. But I could see where he was coming from with the manipulation and being told how to feel. For me, there has to be a level of organic process to it, to the point where it's not expressly noticeable but encourages thought. Not necessarily just to the reader, but maybe even to the writer to. Writing through a thought process, then editing it into a presentable form. I'm not saying that's the only way to do it, and I'm all for debate (I thrive on the stuff). Accusing one way or the other of ignorance of cultish behaviour seems a bit much. Sorry to stick on the cult stuff so much, but that's the main thing that stuck with me throughout the evening.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:I was hoping to get the opinions of you guys on a particular aspect of writing (sorry if you've already discussed this at length, let me know if so). What do you think of the idea that the inciting incident MUST come as early as possible in a story and MUST be something that forces the protagonist into action, rather than the more broad definition of the incident that sets up the central dramatic question/plotline? Well "must" is stupid so I have to disagree with that. What I get from that line of thinking is to get going as early as possible and not have a slow and boring start. I think hooking someone at the beginning of a piece is important, I suppose.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
I agree that I think one of the most important parts of crit is simply identifying the problem areas and then trying out how to fix it mostly on your own. With small tweaks, anyway. Sometimes some gold stuff can come from throwing a ball back and forth with another writer regarding plots or jokes or something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
A writing tutor once told me that they thought third-person past tense was the most "invisible" to the reader.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Don't read Shakespeare. You should not ever read Shakespeare. Go find a theatre company and watch them perform Shakespeare, you will have a much more satisfying time. While it's not for everyone, I enjoy reading Shakespeare. I like to read it and then go see it, because knowing the source material makes me feel like I can appreciate what they're doing with it more, because Shakespeare is one of those things that can be so different each time you see it. But that might just be me. I also enjoy reading scripts in general. I'm only now just thinking that is kind of weird after all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
Stuporstar posted:I know you probably don't need this advice, General Battuta, but I've noticed some of the most unintentionally offensive writing comes from dudes who have a male proxy character fixating on their far more interesting female character, because they're too loving scared to write from a woman's POV. I've told several of these people to scrap the male character (with zero personality except horny for the interesting chick) and write from the girl/woman's POV instead, and they always wuss out and walk away from the challenge little boys. It's loving frustrating when they've managed to come up with honestly amazing female characters, but refuse to get inside their heads. Oh man, I've been planning on doing this. There is no asexual attraction between the characters, though. I was going for a more Watson/Sherlock thing, where the female knows things that the male and therefore the reader don't, for like, intrigue or something. I dunno. I was considering having some sections be first person from the got, and others switch to third for other characters, which could include the female character.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
I definitely know what you mean about test driving, I find it so hard to get a feeling for any writing without just getting stuck in, even if it's just for a little bit before I pull out and see what's working. You've definitely given me stuff to think about, but I currently feel it's justified. The male character is also returning from being away for a long time, and a lot has changed in his absence, so I feel that outsider perspective is nice to have. Funnily enough, as a dude, I try to write from a female perspective wherever possible. I think because I am not female, I have to stretch a little more when thinking about female characters, and I think that pays off in the end and stops me using dumb shortcuts by making male characters that are just quite similar to me but a bit different.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
I quite liked Camus' The Fall, which is entirely one guy's speech in a dialogue spanning days, so I don't see why it couldn't potentially work in a short form.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
I haven't been in the TD for a while (I've been damned busy, sorry, I yearn in my heart), but the one time I had a flash rule to write in the second-person was both my worst entry ever, but also possibly the most informative entry. Take from that what you will.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 01:08
|
|