|
Hey Maugrim, just wanted to say thanks for the crit. I've noticed people commenting on my sudden shift into 2nd person and how it's disorienting. It's a personal conversational habit I have where I use "you" in the rhetorical sense. I'll say "you wouldn't do x" or "you don't expect x" whenever I'm expressing something that ought to be common knowledge and it's bled into my writing style. Should I abandon this weird tic in my writing, or is there any way I could refine it?
Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Mar 6, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Ancient Blades posted:is this creeping sense of dread normal I'm pretty new to TD, but the way I look at it is a baptism by fire. Every week I gently caress something up, the judges and people who crit me will yell and burn effigies of me in the street. I take what I can from that and try not to make the same mistakes again and apply it across all my writing not just my dome entries. I might lose a poo poo load of TDs over the next few weeks but as brutal as some people might be critiquing my work, it's the harsh truths I need to be a better writer. Ol Sweepy fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Bompacho posted:I'm pretty new to TD, but the way I look at it is a baptism by fire. Every week I gently caress something up, the judges and people who crit me will yell and burn effigies of me in the street. "Trial by fire" is pretty much the theory -- if one could say there is one -- behind Thunderdome. The kayfabe helps, too. It's easier to take harsh criticism when it's covered in a veneer of even greater harshness. Practice and seeing honest reactions to your writing are both very helpful -- I would argue mandatory -- when it comes to improvement. Thunderdome is one way to get both. You do have to actually take the critiques to heart to get anything out of it, though. And then on top of that, you have to learn how to take a critique to heart without trying to please everyone all the time, which is impossible. And how to have a thick skin, but still be able to accept criticism....
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:Hey Maugrim, just wanted to say thanks for the crit. I've noticed people commenting on my sudden shift into 2nd person and how it's disorienting. It's a personal conversational habit I have where I use "you" in the rhetorical sense. I'll say "you wouldn't do x" or "you don't expect x" whenever I'm expressing something that ought to be common knowledge and it's bled into my writing style. Should I abandon this weird tic in my writing, or is there any way I could refine it? You're welcome, and good question. The simple answer is "yes, you should stop doing it", but in the interest of being helpful let's take a look at some different ways you could adapt or accommodate it. For the reference of others, here's the example I critted, in Benny's TD story "Separation": Benny the Snake posted:Liam and Molly woke up in in the middle of the evening--someone was screaming at the top of their lungs. Turning on the floodlights, Liam burst out of his house only to find that it was Billy. Hearing a goat scream is quite possibly the most uncanny thing you could ever hear--you just don't expect something that walks on four legs and eats cans to scream like a human does. "Shut the gently caress up!" Liam shouted at the screaming goat. The bolded sentence is bad for 1) It switches narrative tone from neutral third-person to conversational second-person 2) You're telling rather than showing 3) You're telling something that the reader already knows. I think you sort of answered your own question by pointing out that it's a conversational habit. Thus, can only kind of get away with it if you're writing in an informal, conversational piece, written as if you're chatting to the reader. If you want to do this, you need to keep the style consistent throughout the piece. For example, here's the intro to "screaming of goats" rewritten (badly, sorry) in a way that would support use of that kind of second-person "nod to the reader": Benny the Snake reinterpreted by Maugrim posted:This story I'm going to tell you is just one of millions. You know how it ends - you've lived it, like we all have. No matter - it's worth telling. They all are, to remind ourselves of what we've lost. So. When you're writing a more normal story in a standard prose style, and you want to express "something that ought to be common knowledge", what are your alternatives to addressing the reader directly? Option 1: Cut it. This is actually your best option in a lot of cases. If something is common knowledge, is there any need to point it out? Trust your reader. Option 2: Thread it into the narrative itself, via either description or dialogue. Here are a couple of examples: Descriptive - Benny the Snake edited by Maugrim posted:Liam and Molly woke up in in the middle of the evening--someone was screaming at the top of their lungs. Liam turned on the floodlights and burst out of his house, only to find that it was Billy. He stared at the animal, dumbfounded. Dialogue - Benny the Snake edited by Maugrim posted:Liam and Molly woke up in in the middle of the evening--someone was screaming at the top of their lungs. Turning on the floodlights, Liam burst out of his house only to find that it was Billy. In both of the above cases, it's better for the story because not only are you not breaking the narrative tone - you're also switching from telling to showing, which is never a bad thing! Hope this gives you some food for thought, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Bompacho posted:Oh yeah, I was looking to displace the events in the song to another place and time. Or is that too literal? sounds too literal
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:Hey Maugrim, just wanted to say thanks for the crit. I've noticed people commenting on my sudden shift into 2nd person and how it's disorienting. It's a personal conversational habit I have where I use "you" in the rhetorical sense. I'll say "you wouldn't do x" or "you don't expect x" whenever I'm expressing something that ought to be common knowledge and it's bled into my writing style. Should I abandon this weird tic in my writing, or is there any way I could refine it? Try to frame it from the point of view of the character you're writing about. So in the example of "Rosa sprung back from the armoire. You don't expect table ghosts in wardrobes!' as a reader, I wonder, okay, who's 'you'? Is that me? And then if it is, why do I know about table ghosts? And if it isn't, who is it being addressed to? But let's say this whole scene is written from the viewpoint of Rosa Flores, Paranormal Investigator. 'Rosa sprung back from the armoire. She didn't expect table ghosts in wardrobes!' is a pretty simple fix, if it makes sense that she'd know the information. Instead of a nebulous second person, we know know who doesn't expect table ghosts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
The thing about saying "you don't expect ghosts" is: "no poo poo." Why are you writing literal nothingness? It's the same as adverbs, don't add them unless they change the way we think about the story. EXPECTING ghosts is much more noteworthy, which you'd SHOW through actions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
No you don't expect TABLE ghosts in armoires, you expect dresser ghosts in armoires. I'm beginning to think you're not even a paranormal investigator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Oh. Oh well, at least I'll always have the memory of drinking that O'Douls with my dad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
crabrock posted:Oh. Oh well, at least I'll always have the memory of drinking that O'Douls with my dad. Anywho, I'll avoid the 2nd person tic in my writing, at the very least when I'm writing in the third person omniscient. You're right, Maugrim, it would benifit better from a more informal conversational style and, suprise suprise, I've been reading a lot of hardboiled fiction lately. At the very least now I recongize it so I can catch it for next time. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
"Nobody expects ghosts in a dresser." Just avoid the word you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
I just signed the contract for a short story of mine, Scissors, to be printed in Emby Press' The Ghost Papers anthology. It's the second they've bought from me, but the first one hasn't even been published yet. http://embypress.com/2015/03/set-a-fire-and-pour-a-drink/ Notable as I shared it with the recent (short lived?) Goon writers group and fixed it up based on those crits before I submitted, so thanks for that. And thanks to those who didn't crit it but just post here, it's a nice environment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
 posh you do good things
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
PoshAlligator posted:stuff Grats!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
PoshAlligator posted:I just signed the contract for a short story of mine, Scissors, to be printed in Emby Press' The Ghost Papers anthology. It's the second they've bought from me, but the first one hasn't even been published yet. nj
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
It's only really token pay. But it's really worth signing up fire DuoTrope and looking for the right markets and polishing some stories even if it's not for the bigger paying ones. Clarksworld one day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
General question for the thread: does anybody else here suffer from a need to seek approval even when trying to "write with the door closed"? If so, how do you deal with it, what kind of mental tricks or workarounds have you employed? I'm brute forcing my way through the feeling, and often compare current writing with older writing to reassure my brain that it's at least better now than in the past, but I'm certain there must be more productive ways to channel this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
Hungry posted:General question for the thread: does anybody else here suffer from a need to seek approval even when trying to "write with the door closed"? If so, how do you deal with it, what kind of mental tricks or workarounds have you employed? I'm brute forcing my way through the feeling, and often compare current writing with older writing to reassure my brain that it's at least better now than in the past, but I'm certain there must be more productive ways to channel this. Haha, yes, constantly. I have friends who work the same hours as me on Gchat and I have a deal with someone where she'll read everything I write at the end of the day and say nice things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Hungry posted:General question for the thread: does anybody else here suffer from a need to seek approval even when trying to "write with the door closed"? If so, how do you deal with it, what kind of mental tricks or workarounds have you employed? I'm brute forcing my way through the feeling, and often compare current writing with older writing to reassure my brain that it's at least better now than in the past, but I'm certain there must be more productive ways to channel this. As much as scathing critique is helpful, yeah, sometimes I need a little hugbox, too. (I make my spouse read it, he tells me I'm the best ever, and that more than satisfies the ego need and boosts marital harmony.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
OK, I'm having a huge problem. I wanted to be able to write for at least 4 hours a day (2 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon), but for some reason I either keep getting fatigue or lose focus on my work. Is there any way to fix my problem?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Try starting with just 30 mins twice a day and then gradually increase the hours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Yeah, like Rhino said, start small. Feel free to give yourself that two hour window but if you only go for 30 minutes before you want to wander off and eat a bagel or whatever that's fine. You'll gradually get into a rhythm. You want to force yourself to sit down and actually write but if you go too big up front you'll burn out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Hey guys. Is there anybody here who's really passionate about geology and/or chemistry who could help me out? Normally I wouldn't ask, but I really, really think what I have has legs and I need to make sure the science checks out so I'd like a creative-minded science goon to help me out. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:but I really, really think what I have has legs and I need to make sure the science checks out Oh boy, more Wikipedia lessons disguised as fiction. Anybody who takes him up on his request remember: your time will be wasted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Anyone who tells you that it really and truly matters if the science checks out is a liar and not your friend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Superb Owls posted:OK, I'm having a huge problem. I wanted to be able to write for at least 4 hours a day (2 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon), but for some reason I either keep getting fatigue or lose focus on my work. Is there any way to fix my problem? 500 words is a good target, because when I set myself 30 minute targets, I spent most of that time loving about, staring at a blank screen or griping about how much time I had left. When I switched to word targets, I felt like it had to be done, so I did it. I also surprised myself with how quickly I can actually produce 500 words. Give it a go, see if it works for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:Hey guys. Is there anybody here who's really passionate about geology and/or chemistry who could help me out? Normally I wouldn't ask, but I really, really think what I have has legs and I need to make sure the science checks out so I'd like a creative-minded science goon to help me out. Thanks! For specialist questions like that I'd be more inclined to hunt for a chemistry/geology thread than this one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Unless you're writing hard science fiction, or a story entirely about the science involved, it's better to keep the actual science plausible enough to keep up the suspension of disbelief, but vague enough to let the reader focus on the narrative and not the details. Remember the MST3K theme.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
qntm posted:For specialist questions like that I'd be more inclined to hunt for a chemistry/geology thread than this one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
If it's something you can't figure out from a few minutes of searching online, chances are high that it really doesn't matter. I mean there are some genres where people get pissy if everything isn't researched in excruciating detail, like hard sci-fi or historical romance or something, but just getting in the right ballpark is going to be fine 99% of the time. A good story with some sketchy research is always going to be better than a crappy story that someone spent a month doing research for. edit: Especially because you'll never please everyone anyway. Look at that movie Interstellar, which had an actual, well-respected astrophysicist helping them put everything together, and there were still a billion huffy spergs complaining about inaccuracies. Grizzled Patriarch fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Why I want to be as factual as possible is because I'm working with a real-world invention and a real-world setting, I need to know what I'm working with within the realm of possiblility. Besides, this invention has become a current and major issue in the world today so I want to make sure that I get the facts right because to do any less would feel like a disservice, personally speaking. Y'all will know what I'm talking about come the first day of spring 
Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
WRITING NOTES FROM SOMEONE WHO NEVER FINISHED COMMUNITY COLLEGE I think this is a valid thing to talk about in general. The cliche is "write what you know," but in an increasingly well-informed world, how do you compensate for lack of knowledge? The internet is an amazing tool for writers, but it also makes it easy for readers to pick up on your facile understanding of what you're writing about. Sometimes I'll be writing some throwaway line, and get hung up for hours following various wikipedia citations. Or I'll get halfway through a story only to realize I'm verging on philosophy 101 territory (side note, one time I tried to mash French and Latin together in a pretend language and oh boy you should've heard Surreptitious Muffin tell me what-for about that). Regardless of your background or education level, I think think the best way to deal with this inevitable problem is to bring your story back to the human element. Humans (or human-like characters) are the interesting little variables that either create or react to conflict. That conflict is going to seem way more sincere if you're not awkwardly forcing facts you don't fully understand in there. Everyone wants their character to be the scientist or the politician or the super spy, but you have to ask yourself honestly if you'd write a better story from the perspective of a non-expert. Especially if you're trying to make a decisive point about, for example, an Invention That Is A Current And Major Issue In The World Today. Like, I wouldn't write a controversial story about the fracking industry, even though I've been loosely informed it's sometimes a bad thing, because I don't know enough about it to make a truly provocative and meaningful point about it. What I might be able to do is write about a family who doesn't understand what's happening to their quaint little town, who are trying to get by while dealing with tainted water and big rattly trucks clogging up the highway. In that case, I have the benefit of real life first hand accounts. I don't need it to be factual, I just need it to be sincere. That's a lot easier to manage as a layman than trying to pass myself off as an expert by writing about an expert. That said, if you're passionate about something, there's no reason not to write about it. I'm assuming "passionate" means you've spent some time researching your subject of choice on your own. Like, a while ago in Thunderdome, I wrote about a new strain of fungus that had a crazy pseudo-psychedelic mind control effect on the people who breathed in its spore. In this case, I had a mycology hobbyist trying to recreate an IRL experiment. I felt pretty comfortable writing it because I have an amateur understanding of the subject, so it was easy to create this well-meaning enthusiast whose experiment went wrong. Obviously, write whatever you want. You might strike a note with someone, who knows. But it's important to develop a sort of inner compass that tells you when you're veering off into "facts for the sake of facts" territory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
freaking typos aldfjalsdfjalukj
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
For me I think "write what you know" is really meant to mean "write what feels true". It's about treating the reader with respect and making a situation where that they can believe so they can read without it being jarring and instead, enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
When it comes to word/time limits, I generally go for words rather than time. The goal is always 500 because the trick is that you'll get through that no trouble and often carry on. No one stops on 500, ever. But 500 is low enough that it's achievable and feels productive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
yeah write what you know applies to feelings and emotions. characters first, stupid science about fusion second.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
I've had this article--"Don't Write What You Know"--bookmarked for a few years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
yeah i guess the cliche itself wasn't actually really the point of my post, but thanks for the reminder of its exact meaning. Much like "show don't tell" , it gets tossed around a lot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
"Climate Change isn't real," said Dr. John Doctor loudly. "But it's warm out!" whispered Doofus Dorklord. im writing what i know is real and true
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
show don't tell write what you know snitches get stitches 3 greatest writing rules imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:29
|
|