|
ultrachrist posted:EDIT: I'm trying to think of some awesome dialogue writers I like. Salman Rushdie for sure. I've got the fairly standard trinity of Rushdie/Chabon/McCarthy - the first for fantastical, energetic dialogue, the second for snappy, often amusing dialogue, and the third for tense and terse dialogue. McCarthy can sometimes be hit-and-miss (The Road's conversations could get samey), but the exchange between Holme Cullen and the three strangers in Outer Dark was loving terrifying in a way that, at the time, is nearly impossible to describe. Denis Johnson also has a great sense of darkly comedic timing, especially in his short stories. Conversely, I've been reading American Gods and Gaiman's dialogue gets really tiresome, really fast. His characters' voices are laid on so thick they become artificial; maybe it's a comic-book thing? The book's prose is light as air, so it's good for a commute, but not much of it impresses me besides playing Find the Lady with mythological figures.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Oxxidation posted:
Gaiman's preoccupation with a few ideas (world mythology, walls and doors) just bleeds through everything for me. To the point where I can go 'there's going to be a magic door there' and there is. He'd have to be a hell of a dialogue writer for me to see his characters as something other than figurative walls and doors, but I agree that's not his strength. What makes that interesting to me is his career as a journalist. Though I'm not that familiar with his work in that field, you'd have thought that interviewing people would give you more insight as to how people actually talk versus what works on the page.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 11:26
|
|
|
Holy poo poo the Thunderdome reminds me why I should never ever bother trying to upload stuff here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
Well, yeah. When Thunderdome's available, why would you post in inferior threads?  Seriously though, what do you mean? Is it about the (possibly harsh) criticisms meted out in Thunderdome, brief as they are? Is it that you're afraid of being a loser? I can't imagine any other aspects of Thunderdome that would deter you from uploading your writings in this subforum. Besides the reason I made in jest above. toanoradian fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Sorry, but this dialogue looks like 90% of what I see out there. Sure there are some exceptions but I think that we're seeing what is commonly done by authors and it sells and critics seem to like this stuff some of the time. Melodrama and the like is really what audiences want. Of course reality TV is popular, so that should tell you about popular opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:Sorry, but this dialogue looks like 90% of what I see out there. Sure there are some exceptions but I think that we're seeing what is commonly done by authors and it sells and critics seem to like this stuff some of the time. Melodrama and the like is really what audiences want. Of course reality TV is popular, so that should tell you about popular opinion. See, this is where the quote button would come in handy. Assuming you're talking about that slab of dialogue quoted above, it's not even melodramatic; it's got all the emotion and sentiment of a coma patient. People stand around and mouth their feelings like they're nutcrackers getting their levers played with. You see that a lot in contemporary "realistic" fiction that strives to be profound despite not having anything interesting to say. Also if you're going to judge writing based on what quote-unquote "audiences" want, then the only fiction that should exist right now is zombie stories and billionaire erotica, in which case we should all stand in a circle with pistols in hand and headshot the person standing to our right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
I still believe that the market, or at least a certain attitude of publishers due to the market and various cultural connotations of our time, is still a good way to explicate the phenomenon. I'm not sure how the whole book is, I have not read it. But from what I read from the quote it really sounds like a the transcript of a tv-only movie for the lifetime channel. Not only the dialogue, but the whole prose, it gave me in a way the idea of having been predigested for the reader. I have this idea that the current obsession for pleasing the reader, a reader that is ever more lazy (and thrifty) is the reason behind this. A reader that vocally declares: quote:I do believe most readers enjoy something that takes them for a ride, whether it’s funny or not, ie. the success of Gone Girl. Writers who make the reader work for the story aren’t getting the needs of the reader. At the end of a long day, most of us need to counterbalance the daily grind on the wings of a great story. Hence the disappearance of any sub-text and the appearance of the plainly stated, which is the heart of the page-turner. I think we have forgotten that to be a good reader it takes as much effort as being a good writer. That's why we tend to have professional readers (even if now a lot of people argue that critics are useless and the amazon comments are all you need).
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:Holy poo poo the Thunderdome reminds me why I should never ever bother trying to upload stuff here. You seem to have a rather set idea about writing, art, and life in general. I already responded to you up thread about your mythical view of "talent" and I think this one deserves a little attention too. (Even though this is a drive by and you probably won't respond) A big part of writing well is not only hard practice and craft but the people you work with and regularly look over your work. While the act of writing is a rather lonely, singular task the whole process of writing involves repeatedly having better writers and editors look over your work and tell you where you went wrong and if you are doing good or not with what you're trying to accomplish. There are many places on the internet to get critiques for your work but a lot of them suffer from what I call a "hugbox mentality" much in the same way republican politicians have fooled poor people into thinking they're millionaires in waiting these critique sites (deviantart, absolutewrite, to name a few) have policies in place to protect writers from being told what they wrote is crap. Critiquers get so afraid of telling people they wrote straight up crap and suggest new improvements and directions for them that everyone gets stuck in this positive feedback loop where everyone is telling eachother that it's ok, you wrote well just not well enough, keep at it. I like Thunderdome because it fosters a certain good natured hostility towards crap writing. The thread brings in people and keeps them writing far longer then they would have otherwise. They then go out to the rest of CC and critique people but instead of being passive aggressive and subtle the new breed of critiquers coming out of Thunderdome are not afraid to lay bare why that person's writing sucked and then show them ways to improve that. Basically Thunderdome is creating serious writers who write by the skin of their teeth and expect good harsh criticism. We're single-handedly driving the "hugbox mentality" out of CC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
More like you're single-handedly driving FYAD into CC, but whatever gets people writing is fine I guess CC was never a hugbox, I've looked over the past couple of years of forum threads to read the stories and if anything the general tone of responses was even more critical back then. I don't think Thunderdome is a net detriment to the forum or anything, but you're not really providing some Great Service for the overall nature of CC's criticism by participating in it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:See, this is where the quote button would come in handy. Well I'm not saying that it's right or what is desirable. But people want that terribly written drivel and publishers crank it out. Once in a while there is a gem that gets through and is loved. But it's not often. The melodrama I was talking about is just the overall way I view literary fiction (was the book you were talking about literary?) For the most part I feel like they're trying to make ordinary situations interesting and at times it just drags on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:The melodrama I was talking about is just the overall way I view literary fiction (was the book you were talking about literary?) For the most part I feel like they're trying to make ordinary situations interesting and at times it just drags on. Are you talking about big L Literary or little L literary? The labeling system is muddled. An example of little L would be "The Road" which sold well (and got made into a movie), was enjoyed by a wide spectrum audience, and is labeled as "literary". That mostly means that it's well written and more nuanced than your standard sci-fi. Asimov and the like also fall into that little L category. Big L Literary, something like Raymond Carver's "Cathedral", is not very action oriented. It's an ordinary situation that takes place in a room, and it's about two people making a connection and a character changing how he views the world as a result of something you can call a mundane action. Still, it's a fantastic story. Big L is all about exploring the psyche and delving into ordinary lives in the real world. Sometimes crazy things happen in real life, and sometimes simple things like and unintended (but perceived) insult can ruin a life. It certainly has its place and is very interesting. So, in short, "literary" is a measurement of writing skill, nuance, and storytelling quality. You can still enjoy a book with good story telling but largely missing other attributes (G.R.R.M.), but it's not very "literary". A "Literary" story, though, isn't always good. There's plenty of avant garde bullshit out there that lacks all three qualities while the intent is to be "Literary" in terms of its genre. I wouldn't dismiss anything labeled as literary fiction because the terms are all mixed up, and not everyone agrees on what is what. I'm not much of a fan of Academia because they're often the ones responsible for muddying the waters instead of creating new terms to describe things. Still, the majority of the works recommended as literary (big or little L) are genuinely enjoyable to read, and they mix skill with nuance and great storytelling. You may have suffer the occasional irredeemable turd, such as Gertrude Stein's "Picasso", but the net gain will be in your favor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:For the most part I feel like they're trying to make ordinary situations interesting and at times it just drags on. I don't even know what to say to this. Do you really think that "ordinary situations" can't make for compelling writing? Sure, there's a lot of mediocre crap out there, but some of the most moving fiction I've read is at heart about ordinary people doing ordinary things. It's the craft, the language, and the insight into the human condition that make it good writing. I get tired really quickly of all the writers who think a story needs to be full of explosions and daring escape attempts and interstellar wars or whatever to be worth reading. Raymond Carver is a good example. Most of his stories that I've read take place in one or two rooms and his characters might easily be our next-door neighbors, but it's artful and compelling writing. Obviously everyone's going to have their own tastes, but disregarding a huge swath of entirely worthwhile fiction because it involves "ordinary situations" is just ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:I feel like they're trying to make ordinary situations interesting and at times it just drags on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHVqxD8PNq8
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:More like you're single-handedly driving FYAD into CC, but whatever gets people writing is fine I guess I don't think he's saying CC was a hugbox - but it was a bit moribund in terms of volume, and the 'dome is helping with that. Speaking of which - do come back, I really liked the one of yours that (bizarrely) lost that time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Erik Shawn-Bohner posted:Are you talking about big L Literary or little L literary? The labeling system is muddled. An example of little L would be "The Road" which sold well (and got made into a movie), was enjoyed by a wide spectrum audience, and is labeled as "literary". That mostly means that it's well written and more nuanced than your standard sci-fi. Asimov and the like also fall into that little L category. I've never even heard it broken into two separate categories like that. But you hit the nail on the head to what I was describing more or less, that avant garde type stuff. squeegee posted:I don't even know what to say to this. Do you really think that "ordinary situations" can't make for compelling writing? Sure, there's a lot of mediocre crap out there, but some of the most moving fiction I've read is at heart about ordinary people doing ordinary things. It's the craft, the language, and the insight into the human condition that make it good writing. I get tired really quickly of all the writers who think a story needs to be full of explosions and daring escape attempts and interstellar wars or whatever to be worth reading. Raymond Carver is a good example. Most of his stories that I've read take place in one or two rooms and his characters might easily be our next-door neighbors, but it's artful and compelling writing. Obviously everyone's going to have their own tastes, but disregarding a huge swath of entirely worthwhile fiction because it involves "ordinary situations" is just ignorant. And not all genre fiction has explosions and daring escapes. The difference is that usually in genre fiction I feel like I am getting something going on, some kind of conflict other than the mundane. Sure there are examples out there that transcend that, but I would much rather take my chances with other things. I have my non-genre stuff I enjoyed, but it's much fewer and far between. I don't usually get that out of literary fiction and really I don't care as much about language and insight into the human condition as I do plot and compelling characters. In fact I would say language, as long as the person is actually writing well enough to be understood, is one of the things I am least concerned with and that language is probably why so many people think all writing is pretentious drivel. I'm a huge fan of brevity when it comes to language. I'll have to watch this later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:And not all genre fiction has explosions and daring escapes. The difference is that usually in genre fiction I feel like I am getting something going on, some kind of conflict other than the mundane. Sure there are examples out there that transcend that, but I would much rather take my chances with other things. I have my non-genre stuff I enjoyed, but it's much fewer and far between. I don't usually get that out of literary fiction and really I don't care as much about language and insight into the human condition as I do plot and compelling characters. In fact I would say language, as long as the person is actually writing well enough to be understood, is one of the things I am least concerned with and that language is probably why so many people think all writing is pretentious drivel. I'm a huge fan of brevity when it comes to language. You seem to be trying to make this into an either/or thing when it doesn't have to be. I've got Ramsay Campbell's The Doll Who Ate His Mother sharing shelf space with Chabon, McCarthy, and Dostoyevsky; my Stephen King books get shelves all to themselves. Good language is good language, regardless of "type." When it's bad in literary fiction, it results in lifeless, self-important blocks of talk or narration about nothing in particular. When it's bad in genre fiction, it manifests as endless zombie stories or fantasy/crime novels that read like something scraped off a Hollywood B-list studio's latrine. But their good qualities can inform each other as well; lit fic is less susceptible to the usual lineup of genre-fiction character cliches and can make for more interesting characters, while genre fiction tends to convey action and movement more often and the better examples can keep lit-fic prose from feeling too turgid. I don't know what argument you think you're making, but right now you come off as someone with super-trashy taste who's never bothered looking into alternatives and calls that ignorance a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:You seem to be trying to make this into an either/or thing when it doesn't have to be. I've got Ramsay Campbell's The Doll Who Ate His Mother sharing shelf space with Chabon, McCarthy, and Dostoyevsky; my Stephen King books get shelves all to themselves. Good language is good language, regardless of "type." When it's bad in literary fiction, it results in lifeless, self-important blocks of talk or narration about nothing in particular. When it's bad in genre fiction, it manifests as endless zombie stories or fantasy/crime novels that read like something scraped off a Hollywood B-list studio's latrine. But their good qualities can inform each other as well; lit fic is less susceptible to the usual lineup of genre-fiction character cliches and can make for more interesting characters, while genre fiction tends to convey action and movement more often and the better examples can keep lit-fic prose from feeling too turgid. I didn't know brevity was a trashy taste and liking plot and characters over use of language was trashy taste. It's not an either or thing, but I can put up with a lot for a really compelling story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:I didn't know brevity was a trashy taste and liking plot and characters over use of language was trashy taste. It's not an either or thing, but I can put up with a lot for a really compelling story. Brevity and plot/characters aren't limited to genre fiction (gently caress's sake, Hemingway is one of the most renowned authors of literature in history and his name is synonymous with brief, terse writing). This is where the ignorance bit comes from. You come off as someone who doesn't even know what books are outside of your own little bubble.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
How about you two pigtailed tutu-wearing schoolgirls take this little dance-off into Thunderdome and have it out? I know Oxxidation is a good writer already, I'd love to see what the Tube Knight's capable of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Brevity and plot/characters aren't limited to genre fiction. This is where the ignorance bit comes from. You come off as someone who doesn't even know what books are outside of your own little bubble. Sure they aren't. There are authors known for their brevity all over. I do reach outside my comfort zone with reading, especially when a book is recommended to me. But I just like what I like. I just get bored easily when it comes to any form of entertainment. Martello posted:How about you two pigtailed tutu-wearing schoolgirls take this little dance-off into Thunderdome and have it out? I know Oxxidation is a good writer already, I'd love to see what the Tube Knight's capable of. I don't know what the Thunderdome is, but not much right now I'm afraid. I've been suffering from writer's block for the past few months and am struggling to get myself past the 3K mark today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
I'm personally plugging away at a larger project that should've been finished a year ago, but I keep my eye on TD to see if any of the prompts grab me. I'll be back eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:I'm personally plugging away at a larger project that should've been finished a year ago, but I keep my eye on TD to see if any of the prompts grab me. I'll be back eventually. I guess I should check this thing out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
You've got an avatar too, so it'll be great. "I have to write something this week or I'll have wasted $10" isn't a huge incentive but it's enough. Very little I've written for TD is publishable in any way but it's got me into the habit of writing regularly. I think that's why it's so popular: everyone just wants a little bit of a push to break their writer's block.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:I didn't know brevity was a trashy taste and liking plot and characters over use of language was trashy taste. It's not an either or thing, but I can put up with a lot for a really compelling story. I didn't know literary fiction sacrificed characters for language, thanks for the heads up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
Mike Works posted:I didn't know literary fiction sacrificed characters for language, thanks for the heads up. Not saying that. I just said that in a race between vivd, verbose description and plot and characters the plot and character side of things wins for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:Not saying that. I just said that in a race between vivd, verbose description and plot and characters the plot and character side of things wins for me. You have an odd view of what literary fiction is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
I Am Hydrogen posted:You have an odd view of what literary fiction is. What I've always thought it was basically shapes up to being fiction that's not in one of the genres and usually involves realistic situations, though occasionally I guess there are some exceptions for that. Though wiki says it should be critically acclaimed and serious, not sure if that's the same way everyone here means it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Apologies in advance for the long post, and thank you if you have the patience to read it all. I haven’t really posted anything in this sub-forum, criticisms or suggestions of any sort, because since I am not a native English speaker, I feel like I don’t usually have anything to offer that is not already covered by someone else here. Nevertheless, as a struggling writer (and laughing at the loving cliché it is just to say that), there are some doubts in my mind that I need to dispel before carrying on with my current story. Bear in mind that I know that nothing is good if it’s unwritten, and I believe that if one’s storytelling is good enough, whatever they choose to write about will be enjoyable by all. That being said, I want to write about the Praxe. It’s a Portuguese academic tradition whose origins date back centuries, and in some form or another, still lives on in these days. Yes, it’s hazing, and there are ton of things wrong with it. There are also many things it does right, when they are properly done, and I know it intimately. I know of few other subjects that can be so polarizing in a discussion such as this. I just graduated last year, and throughout my academic years, I have found myself involved in its various forms inside and out my university. My own stance toward it shifted a whole lot and I think I have the necessary maturity as a writer to approach it dispassionately, while knowing it so well. The subject matter of the story is not the problem, nor is its general outline or the characters within: I want to portray the life of a student, from his first year of college until the last. I want to make him grow as a person (but not only him, of course), while he finds himself immersed in the particular world the Praxe has to offer him. His story is, however, just one of many in that university, and I will also write, both in the background and foreground, about a kind of Praxe war among students that develops throughout his years. This is no series of physical battles, however. As the very nature of Praxe is, this war is philosophical in nature, headed by a few poignant figures that feel the heart of the tradition should be interpreted solely as they do, and any opposing view is categorically wrong. My problem arises with the conceptions I have about the very nature of storytelling: is it even feasible to write a novel with no action? That is to say, if the nature of the confrontation is moral and not physical, and shall be resolved as such, can I only rely on my wit and intelligence and skill as a writer to engage the reader? The main events of the plot are, well, plotted, and while some are repetitive and a few can be cut, their existence served to drive further that pervasiveness of some characters’ continued actions. To increase the odds, to make things even more dire, should the protagonist’s views and stance fall into disuse and abandonment. I mean, truth be told, at first sight, and not involving any deep ethical themes into the fray (which I plan to do, of course) there’s not much that can be told about games, hazing, booze, dinners, sex, arguments, and general student shenanigans. I aim to combat this fault by coating my “facts” into a language of mysticism. This Praxe is a world of its own, self-contained and exclusive, and it ends when it ends, for each that partake in it. While the main characters will grow as individuals, and most minor characters as well, some are caricatures and figures of legend, and will be addressed as such. Their orders will be divine commands, their advice will be wisdom and their past actions myths and legends of that world. Basically, what amounts to a little costumed fantasy in real life, will be adorned with the speech of fantasy. I don’t mean to overdo it. Its use will be deliberate and just enough to achieve the desired flavor. The main thing I’m asking, I suppose: is this approach enough? What are the dangers of engaging in such a thing? Another, smaller thing: as is to be somewhat expected in a story set in such an environment, the cast of characters is big, a few major ones, a bit more secondary ones and a ton of one-off ones. Most characters will fade away towards story’s end, reflecting their graduations or quitting, and each year that passes in the plot, I will introduce a few more. Am I shooting myself in the foot with this? I want to do it this way because I want the reader to feel that each character, no matter how small his impact on the overarching story, has a background of his own, his own fights and struggles. Enfim. Is this concept salvageable at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
You don't need action, no. You can write a gripping tale without any bullets, bombs or brawls, but the conflict has to be important enough to engage the reader. The stakes and consequences have to be clear. In the case of hazing, some such consequences might be accidental death or suicide due to humiliation, or students who can't cope might leave the school (that last one is a bit weak though). Those are the kinds of things that might spur arguments, like the uproar over the recent Australian radio DJ prank that made a nurse commit suicide. (The DJ's didn't intend any real harm, should they be held accountable for her death?) How big a cast are we talking about? There's only so many characters a reader can keep track of. You should keep your scope under control. A cast of a dozen major and minor characters, well fleshed out, will probably work better than 3-4 dozen characters who are nothing much more than a name and a line. We don't need to get to know the entire school, nor do we want to. No one will give a poo poo about Bobby One-scene-background-extra. I also don't really understand what you're trying to do with the mysticism factor. Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jan 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Nycticeius posted:I just graduated last year, and throughout my academic years, I have found myself involved in its various forms inside and out my university. My own stance toward it shifted a whole lot and I think I have the necessary maturity as a writer to approach it dispassionately, while knowing it so well. Sounds interesting, but do you need to approach it dispassionately? This will be a novel, I'm assuming, so why write it as if it were an academic paper? Why not be passionate, it's drawn from your experience. That "objective viewpoint" that's expected in a more academic report or even some non-fiction would just seem out of place in a novel and might drain it of the energy it needs to hold a reader's attention. Maybe I'm wrong on this or misunderstanding what you mean, but either way, feel free to make the story personal. When I read a story, I don't necessarily want accuracy, I want a viewpoint, feelings, biases, anything that makes the story have a voice. Of course, you'd still want to get the details right for the setting and characteristics of this tradition, but present I'd still want to see an interpretation of these things rather than just dispassionately presented facts, at least for a novel. Like how you say your stance towards Praxe changed over time; that's what I'd want to know about as a reader. Action is important in a story, but only to the extent that it results in change. Change is really one of the most important things in a story (even if it's just in the reader's perception of things).
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:(good advice) The stakes are, as I define in the opening chapter (in portuguese, of course): "I began [speaking] at dusk and ended with the dawn of a new day, removing from my shoulders the weight of a thousand things that mattered not to the world, but were the world for us." Any and all stakes I put in the story will have to matter to the characters alone and, by proxy, to the reader as well. If I build believable characters, even in an unbelievable world, they will do their job properly. At least that's what I'm counting on. Thanks. As for the cast, I'd say you're about right. About 10-15 characters, I'd say 5 main ones and the rest in support roles, with some development. I'm reading "Among Thieves" by Douglas Hullick at the moment, and he does something that I like: the more he characterizes a character that shows up, the more it'll matter in the story. It grips one's attention when that happens. I'll include more characters in my story, but they are as they are and their presence, even if superficial, won't detract from the plot but help characterize the world. I'm not trying to pull a George RR Martin or even a Tolkien, with legions of minor characters and their sons and horses. Just adding flavor. The mysticism part... well, might be the language barrier acting up. Some characters are larger than life, and will be represented thus in the POV of the main character. As he grows more mature and starts falling out of love with the concept of Praxe, so to will this kind of language fade away (and he will notice other, newer students will begin regarding him in this same fashion, as he once did his elders). It's kind of complicated to explain, but I hope I'll have enough judgement to see if I'm overdoing it. I'm not afraid of rewrites. yoyomama posted:(more good advice) Again, the language barrier acting up. I'm not planning to write a thesis, but a story, yes, with passionate characters with unique and conflicting points of view. I meant to say that I've seen some poo poo in my years there, and I think I've reached a point where I can dissect the heart and very concept of the events and underlying traditions that took place, and see what made it work, what didn't, and why it had the effect it did on us. I am of course planning to have an opinionated POV, and I want the book to have a statement, while showing both sides of the matter. Thanks to you both, for the advice and support!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:You don't need action, no. You can write a gripping tale without any bullets, bombs or brawls, but the conflict has to be important enough to engage the reader. The stakes and consequences have to be clear. In the case of hazing, some such consequences might be accidental death or suicide due to humiliation, or students who can't cope might leave the school (that last one is a bit weak though). I didn't even hear this radio DJ thing, I'm going to look into that story. How do others here deal with "triggers". Never really heard them called someone else, but I have had some complaints about different things I have written and posted online having things that made people uncomfortable. Part of me thinks people shouldn't be so super sensitive. Like in one of the stories a character had a glass of wine and then drove somewhere and this person freaked out about drunk driving being a trigger when I didn't even consider that someone would be drink after a glass (Drinking Level: Catholic). But after something I posted about cutting had a friend in tears...I want to be slightly cautious. Putting a warning in a book seems like an odd thing to do and a bit spoilery if the person doesn't know what they're getting into and that's part of the surprise. But how much is too much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
I don't think it's a matter of "too much" or not, just if you handled it well. Like if you used cutting for shock value or to denigrate a person or something along those lines instead of treating the subject matter respectfully. This is going to be a deal breaker for some people, but you that is going to be out of your control and it's simply impossible to cater to everyone's trigger points.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
ultrachrist posted:I don't think it's a matter of "too much" or not, just if you handled it well. Like if you used cutting for shock value or to denigrate a person or something along those lines instead of treating the subject matter respectfully. This is going to be a deal breaker for some people, but you that is going to be out of your control and it's simply impossible to cater to everyone's trigger points. Well the thing I posted about cutting was an article and a picture, so I admit there blood and the like but I didn't even think about it. It had to do with the Bleed for Beiber thing. It was the pictures that did it more than anything else. In the case of the drinking example I gave there wasn't really anything bad about it. The drinking wasn't a major plot point or anything and while it occurred I had written it, it didn't register as anything. I guess with things like that there's little you can do besides have a lot of beta readers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:I didn't even hear this radio DJ thing, I'm going to look into that story. One thing to consider is how much of your audience is potentially going to react like that--it's hard to toe around every trauma every reader might ever have encountered, but when it comes to stuff that's really prevalent, like rape and self-harm, it's a fair bet that if you have any readership at all some of them are going to have a history with that subject matter, and approach it with that in mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
 People who claim to need "trigger warnings" are usually insane. (especially if they claim so on the internet and ESPECIALLY so if they're on tumblr while doing so) Ignore them and do your thing. I can't emphasize this enough. An author should not in any way give a second thought about offending the Internet Butthurt Brigade with his or her fiction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Chillmatic posted:
Dude, how can you say that? Trigger discipline is the cornerstone of firing accurately. While I agree that the trigger as a part is not as necessary as newbies might suggest (really, the heart and soul of a firearm is the barrel, imo) Wait, what are we talking about? Trigger warnings? Oh, yeah. Those people are idiots/need mental help and not cuddling. In any artistic format, no thought should be given to the topic of tastefulness when it comes to their opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:Like in one of the stories a character had a glass of wine and then drove somewhere and this person freaked out about drunk driving being a trigger when I didn't even consider that someone would be drink after a glass (Drinking Level: Catholic). Ignore, ignore, ignore. The dubious legitimacy of "trigger warnings" aside (and you've given an especially frivolous example), you're writing fiction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
FauxCyclops posted:Ignore, ignore, ignore. The dubious legitimacy of "trigger warnings" aside (and you've given an especially frivolous example), you're writing fiction. I was going to say this. The point of fiction is to elicit emotional response, good or bad. While trigger warnings do have their place (and yes, are easily overblown/abused), I don't think there's any situation where you should restrain where you're going because someone, somewhere might get upset if they read it. That said, make sure whatever terrible triggering content you have has a purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
FauxCyclops posted:Ignore, ignore, ignore. The dubious legitimacy of "trigger warnings" aside (and you've given an especially frivolous example), you're writing fiction. Yeah the drunk driving thing is really a bad example. I think that if I had a glass of wine and drove, I could easily do so, I could easily pass any test the cops gave me and the like. And I am a bit of a lightweight. I kind of figured that you would all say this, I wanted to make sure I wasn't being an rear end in a top hat as I usually am.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 22:35
|
|