|
DrVenkman posted:So...How often do you guys give up on something you're writing? Or do you see it through to the end no matter what? I usually give something about a week or so and if it's not grabbing me then I abandon it. I think if it's simply not working then it's going to come across in the writing and if I find it a chore to write then surely it's going to be a chore to read. But then I know people who will finish no matter what and then make a judgement. For me, "giving up" would be an inaccurate phrase. It's something close to that, but it's not quite that. From what I gather from your post, it sounds like you have an idea, sit down to work on it for a while, and then it gets cold on you, so you give up. That can produce a pretty bad cycle of failure where you feel like you just keep loving up and it'll never change. I'll tell you what I do, at least. See, it'd come as no surprise to anyone familiar with my posting or personality that I have zero qualms with making a jackass of myself nowadays. But when I first began writing, I had these lofty ideals of writing heady books that'd awake the masses and blah blah blah stroking my own cock. I spent too much time trying to eek out perfect words because all the bitter, failed writers that became my English teachers did it like that and declared it the only way to achieve success. Then I got in with the rough-and-tumble crowd of people who were actually publishing fiction. Some of them were loving drunken idiots, barely aware enough of their surroundings to decide which direction to lean and fart. But they were funny, passionate, and dedicated to the right things about writing. Maybe their grammar needed work, but they knew how to tell a story. They have a Voice in their voices, and they hit the notes of prose and dialogue. It's what you call "having heart." So, I took a look at what I had been taught. I'd been taught to be like the douchebags that hang out in coffee shops working on their latest novel they're going to self-publish on Amazon after a cursory spell-check. They sit there, emotionless, pecking at the keyboard between their sips of complicated coffee and endlessly revising the same drat page all day before the thing is finished. Always justifying their being slow to pump out a first draft as "being a different kind of writer" or something like that. I hadn't quite made the connection at that point. I just instinctively knew that was what I was doing and that it's just spinning your wheels. For me, it took an angsty, existential crisis leading to drinking my rear end off for a few years until I had so thoroughly hosed up my situation that writing seemed like a fairly reasonable occupation to take up full-time if not the only one available to me then. Desperation is a fantastic teacher. When you have nothing to lose, it makes you take bigger risks. You're hungry enough to learn and succeed by putting your guts on the line. A lot of people think they're doing that, but anything that's deeply personal is often couched in so much distanced bullshit that it will never come across on the page. Why do we (or at least some) secretly love to read E/N when it's not just someone bitching and moaning about boring problems? It's because those people are cutting their guts open and spilling them on the floor with full knowledge that they are likely to be mocked and certain to receive no help or good advice. They just want to tell their story because they feel it needs to get out, and we enjoy seeing these trainwrecks because we can connect with this true communication of emotion even if it's not in our realm of personal experience. A combination of my desperation and thickened skin from making a drunken rear end of myself made it easy for me to take big risks in writing: fiction, poetry, and other. I found that by just taking an idea and running with it, I produced some pretty darn good material. Don't stop to question whether it's good or not--just go. You want to feel the emotions and ideas you want the reader to feel in real time, so you have to write fast, and the backspace key and fidgeting over whether a line is good or not is just going to slow you down and let that emotion cool off. Take care of all that in the editing. You should be laughing at the funny situation as you write it if you want them to laugh, be choked up if you want them to be. I fall into the same trap of dispassionate writing every now and then still, and I usually end up at the same place: hating the idea and wanting to toss it out. You're write that it's never a good sign if you're getting bored with your own work as you're creating it. If you're getting bored, though, just take the fucker down to first gear, make a hard turn off the road and head out to left field. I mean--if you're probably not going to use what you just wrote as it is anyway, just start doing something silly or weird that entertains you even if it's in mid-sentence. Pretend that you'd been doing the same style all along. That way, you're not wasting time on opening a new file and staring at yet another blank page. I guess the key takeaway is that you should just power through and not worry whether it's going to end up sucking or you're acting like an idiot. If you don't like where it's going, just take it in a wild direction even if it makes no sense, and if you don't like that, turn again. At least you'll be more likely to produce something you can work with, and you can always shape it up in the edits later.
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
Just to be clear, loving up your entire life is not recommended. I really hope no one used that as the takeaway. Drug/alcohol writing is usually pretty terrible, but it's (sadly) where some people start because the altered state allows them to be all weepy and emotional while spilling their guts as drunks like to do. It still beats the endless cycle of half-finishing. So, yeah. The Doc got what I was saying. Also, publishing. I've said it all before, and I'll say it again. Once you have that sexy little lit rag in your hand, a physical copy with your name and work on it, you can taste the blood and you just go for it. That's the real drug you should seek: working hard, being accepted by a set of peers who don't suck, and being read and appreciated by people who won't read trash. Erik Shawn-Bohner fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Sep 24, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:THUNDERDOME! What-up incarceration buddy.  
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
HiddenGecko posted:Celebrate by starting your next novel.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
Black Griffon posted:Didn't one of you note earlier that the best course of action is to just submit to everyone and not give a poo poo if they get their panties in a twist? Not that I'm recommending it, I want to know for my own sake as well. That was me. At least, I was the last to drop that wisdom-bomb. gently caress tha police is my policy on that. and this: psychopomp posted:I've heard from editors that they pretty much assume that everyone simultaneously submits even if they don't allow it, just have the courtesy to let them know asap if you decide to publish elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
I am a big negative nancy, I know, but I hate NaNo. I know some talented people who say they're "saving up" for it. Makes me sad. If it's a good kick in the pants for you guys, though, I can't hate on it too bad.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
It's all semantics. I'll give you the secret recipe to finding greatness in writing: Sit down and put ink to wood. All the time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:Nanowrimo is an amazing excuse to try and get some writing out there. I mean sure it may be terrible but given natural talent, most people can or can't produce good stuff regardless. Natural talent isn't. It's hard work. I ain't saying you think you're king poo poo of turd mountain and suck, but the "natural talent" bullshit has become a meme among those who do, and the most fierce defenders are those who don't want to work and learn their craft. They just like to run their jowls about how they want to write and are naturally talented instead of reading books and putting in the hours required to write unreadable crap until they get better. Like a welder, you know. You just work hard, study, and produce poo poo until you eventually get to the point where it's awesome. I am certainly an idiot, but I think we as people just want to have a direction to go. A solid path better than just "work hard and try really hard every day." It feels so nebulous and doesn't offer a solid plan to get from A to C. I had a little success though. and that's the often repeated mantra of people who had more success than me and decided to tell me how they think they did it. We all go about it different ways, but it really just comes down to either working hard or getting really lucky. We can't control luck, but we can work hard. Black Griffon posted:As true as this is, I know far too many people who would write crappy fanfic until they died if they just followed that advice. Some times it doesn't hurt to elaborate. So there.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:All I'm saying is that no matter how much effort you put in, inherent ability is going to end up pushing people further and said people generally being more skilled authors, no matter how those who don't, try. If it comes down to inherent ability, I'm hosed. Overwined posted:It's funny to call a pursuit that is basically all semantics "all semantics". And hey, aren't you the guy that just infodumped his thesis on writing into a post a page or two ago? I'm not trying to threadshit, promise. I was just saying this specific conversation in the context of the article is something I feel I disagree with on (while not trying to say you guys should stop, just putting in my ten cents). I'm using the colloquial version of the phrase "a semantic argument", not to be confused with a "Semitic argument." I think D&D called dibs on that. I just mean that it's hard to write or speak the way you feel about this. It's a classic argument, but I think people like O'Brien certainly know where they're going about what they're talking about. But he may not be expressing it in a way that people get. Regarding my screed, I just wrote it off of instinct. Not to make really any point to be honest, but that I thought it may help some people that want to get fired up and try hard. Someone did it for me, and I liked it. If it doesn't, then I've already covered my bases by admitting I'm an idiot. Erik Shawn-Bohner fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Sep 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Overwined posted:I'm of the mind that everyone has a certain ability to do lots of things. Even a person with little language acuity can become a passable writer, but I agree this takes work, plain and simple. Some people stand on top of a mountain and look down on others from their vantage. It's usually those people who fail to see that the real goal is up in the stars and that everyone has a long way to go. I can agree with all that. I mean, I've had hands helping me up all this time. I'm not very high myself, but it took me a lot of people to get even here, and I like the idea of helping those I can in whatever ways I'm capable. So some call that luck. From my point of view, it's great luck. But, I think from a broader view it could be called a support system that was around in the writing world before I showed up. That's the thing about the "semantics" I was saying. I do think it's 100% hard work in a literal sense, and I think there are those of us that work very hard. Are they just lovely and not working hard enough if they didn't meet their dreams immediately? Of course not. And those that get lucky (the often cited sparkle vampire lady), and we should devote a modest amount of effort to mocking them, but we all gotta seek out a little bit of that luck. Connect with people that will slap you on the back and make you feel like poo poo if you don't get your 1000 words a day in. But I'm just going tangential at this point, so feel free to yell at me for interrupting. I just like to ramble lately.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Overwined posted:I think the question at hand is not how much should you work (answer: a lot), but how much talking about how you work can help and/or hurt. There are so many people out there spouting "rules" about fiction and indeed the author of that article started off with a list of rules that he hands out to his students (gag). Of course most of these people are trying to reduce the irreducible, but on the other hand I cannot accept that a writer banging out tomes in a vacuum can accomplish anything. The question is how do we approach these things in order to make them useful and not harmful? I have an opinion on those points. Rules are jokes. We all try to come up with them, and I don't think that's too wrong. We want them because that'd make a very vague job easy. But I think it'd be boring if we did come up with a top ten rule list for writing. So I agree on that. I think vacuums are the worst. It's communication, and it's dialogue. You have to listen (read) to respond in any way that is additive. We need to feed off of one another to see where the current state of "good fiction" has arrived at along with what topics have been beaten to death this epoch and what we need to address. And I believe most of the work is to strive to read things that are good. It's somewhat subjective what constitutes good, but we live in a more global society these days. There is a deluge of critics, and we have enough at our fingertips to get a metacritic-style average of what people respond to. We need to know what people who don't write want to read, and we need to serve them to have our platform. I think, as fiction writers, we are ultimately jokers and clowns. Our job is to entertain these people as best as we can in the way we think we want. We dance and sing for these people to make them happy so they feel better going to their job of cleaning toilets, plugging away at boring database code, or whatever they do that is crucial to having the life we enjoy. In exchange, we get a platform to work in our opinions and try to change the world. They listen to us, and it's our job to make our opinions known for better or worse, whether they listen or not. But we have to entertain as fiction writers. We get a chance to really change the world. If you don't want to do that, write political articles or textbooks. It's an equally important job if not more so in the case of textbooks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:Maybe I was too overzealous in saying that natural talent beats actual practice/skill. It just feels frustrating how some people just seem to sail through their writing while others hit their heads against a brick wall. I think the key is information. Give us 1000 words a day. Whether they suck balls or not. Make a thread if you need a motivator, and we will come keep you accountable. Just 1000 a day. That's the best advice I ever got, and it changed me once it clicked into my thick skull and I really did it. Let's just do it. Just 1000 words of fiction and giving no fucks what people think. It's there to make sure you write as hard as you can every day even if it's not your best. It's to establish the act between the motion as you learn with us. If I could bend pipes! arm, I'd force him to do a six hour probate on any writer who didn't post 1000 words a day here. Luckily for you, he is waiting in the shadows to eliminate my shitposting with a witty, well-placed perma.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
Sitting Here posted:I agree with this wholeheartedly, and I hope this is an appropriate place to thank you (and others!) for all your work on making the Thunderdome an awesome incentive to do just that. Seriously, I've probably created more material in the past 8 weeks than in any other single stretch of time. The topics forced some amount of research on a couple occasions, which is what sort of frustrated me into asking my question a couple pages back (How do authors go about acquiring and applying relevant knowledge and experience to their writing?). Can you make me a skysteak 1000 words thread? I will toxx myself to address each 1000 words as I can. I want everyone to do 1000 of poo poo words or godlike prose a day as is according to your ability. If one of you can make that happen, I will yell and scream as best as I can to make sure you guys get the support you need, and I will join in.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
No one will get banned for reals or even probated. I expect pipes! just doesn't have time for that unless he's a super-boring person who can live on the forums, and it's silly. But let's get this going. I'm in. We can yell at people that don't produce. Before we start, let's choose a proper word amount. 1000 may make a lot of people drop out. Whatever we decide on. Let's just get as many writers to produce as we can. And it can't interact with monthly writing contests and TD duties. Getting a full thing done is more important.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
I think the best idea is that it's an honest daily writing thread. You have to be accountable to yourself. We can help one another, but life gets in the way sometimes. If you find yourself coming up with excuses all the time and never producing, I think that's going to make you feel bad. Maybe we can say you write what you can every day, just a pact for those of us who want to push ourselves harder. I know I can always use that. Even if it's just to check in on the thread and update everyone. We can adjust as necessary. We don't need to be oppressive or softball. Just a bunch of people doing the best we can to learn and grow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
I know what I want, but I prefer to know what you guys and gals want. I just want to rock this poo poo. HARD. I want to spit in the face of everything, wildeyed and throwing punches, head down and hands up. I don't think I'm so good at planning. I just want to get everyone that can identify with feeling like you're trapped. Like you like you just have to scream AHHHHHHH Just yell at this loving monitor. Yell at everything. And find the cure is writing words. Find the way to overcome this fear of putting your heart on that page. I talk a big bluster, but that's all I can do. We have to face this blank loving page day in and day out. I fail. I fail all the time. I doubt myself so much that I get physically ill each and every day over it. I wake up screaming how much of a failure I am. How I'm just not doing enough. But gently caress that. gently caress that in the rear end. We are going to write as hard as we can. We are going to win this thing, and there will be nothing that will stop you and I from reaching our dreams.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
FauxCyclops posted:I'm writing a short story in first person present tense. I'm that guy. good psot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
FauxCyclops posted:It's a joke. First person present tense has been highly contentious in all of the writers' groups and forums I've been to. My friend also received a rejection letter that lambasted his use of it. It is rather common in bad fanfiction. Glad to see the dickatar is still entirely relevant.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
Vague Optimism posted:Right--you should be vivisecting it! You're a sick fucker and I hope you get therapy. Frogs are people too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
Someone also pick an actual writing related topic instead of drooling moron poo poo about which tense is used by fanfiction writers. This thread is underutilized. Let's start with wordcount. While not a hardset rule, I like to keep short stories pretty short. It's more of a personal choice and isn't about good writing or bad writing. I just like writing things that you can sit down and read on a short bus ride. We can also talk about min/maximalism in prose. It's sometimes fun to write dense, maybe overwrought pieces, and I sometimes like to read them. But what sets apart the piece that someone shits out to look like a smarty pants vs an actually enjoyable piece of maximalist writing? Discuss.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
FauxCyclops posted:You're the guy who made a four-inch post making fun of the dude who doesn't like to read fiction, right? Is this supposed to be a burn or something? I can't loving tell what you're trying to accomplish with the words you are typing. Mike Works was poking at you from what seems to be confused curiosity because the things you are saying to us aren't actually communicating an idea that non-damaged brains can process. How was your "joke" even a joke? In your hosed up head-space, apparently writing in first person, present is somehow comical and for hacks (with the weak-assed qualifier that not all of it is bad). I've never had an editor complain about using that format, and they published a modest few stories of mine in that style. You managed to communicate nothing of value in so many words. That's not a good position to be in as a writer. Regarding the length of my posts slam-dunking idiots heads into the toilet like the zit-faced nerds they are, I use my dick as a ruler, so if it's over an inch, I just have to guess how long it is. Also, I want to remind you of your avatar again which you earned by self-publishing a turd without even trying to edit it properly. Talk about writing and shut up about this stupid bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 07:01
|
|
|
On a more serious note, let's start a list of topics and move through them in this thread. Get organized a bit. Ya'll dig?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:Adverbs are fine, it's that most writers tend towards using too many, so beating them over the head with "ADVERBS WILL EAT YOU" is an easy way to correct that. They're hard to use right, so avoiding them until you've got a more solid grasp of other elements can be a good idea. I agree. Cyclops is probably annoyed with the prevalent idea that newbie editors (or just idiots) flip out instantly when they see that you've used an adverb. It's the same poo poo with active/passive voice. I sometimes use passive voice, and I think it works great in the instances I use it. I think that the culprit is the "get rich quick" mentality bleeding into writing where people are trying to sell you a perfect form where you can simply "do that but don't do this" to succeed. I get genuinely angry (and not just busting peoples balls for fun) about the know-it-alls that actively discourage exploration and experimentation in writing by trying to quantify what "rules" to follow. I enjoy seeing people stretch themselves and fail miserably. I think every story I've posted on here stretches me in some way that I want to learn. Yes, they're poo poo stories, but they're also not safe. You shouldn't try to write safe unless you have a bill to pay. That said, there is such a thing as adverb hell, and it's just lazy writing. But don't be afraid to slap a -ly in there if it saves you from awkwardly trying to phrase something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 07:31
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:*Characters, scene types, or subjects that are hardest for you to write about, and why. Not to poo poo on your much appreciated participation, but I think we need a paradigm shift in regards to CC's writing segment as a whole. We are rehashing several topics, and it becomes a circular conversation. I know I suggested some weakass ideas before, so I'm guilty too. Let's become more publishing-oriented as a group. Let's get our names displayed as ink on wood, the printed page. Maybe pick a magazine out and goonrush it TD style. I mean--gently caress: tons of people broke their first pub cherry in the TD, and we can do that regularly. Goonrush the gently caress out of some magazines and start some careers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
Jonked posted:Well, actually! That segues me into a question that ISN'T about fiction writing but there doesn't seem to be a non-fiction thread that isn't creative, so whatever. How exactly does one break into non-fiction essay writing? Like... Rolling Stone, or Mother Jones, or The New Republic. What have you. Six/half a dozen I published an article in a non-fic magazine. It was a hit-piece for a client arguing against a previously published article. If you want to hit the big boys, like rolling stone, you can do it by freelance. They sometimes buy poo poo if you have an exclusive, but you may take a loss on it just to get noticed, though. A lot of mags have staff writers, but you gotta be willing to do some crazy poo poo to get a good story. It's more than essays if you want to break in. You gotta go full gonzo or already be a respected expert in an area. So, for example, if you embedded yourself with the Syrian opposition, as they're considering dropping chemical weapons on your rear end, and you get exclusive info and interviews with the leadership, the big mags will eat that up and pay you well for it. But if you got something to say that you think needs said, I'd say you should just write and submit it. See if they'll print it. Won't hurt you to try.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 08:10
|
|
|
Martello posted:5 bucks a month is nothing. It shouldn't even be a consideration. It's the cost of a beer or half a pack of cigarettes. If you want to use Duotrope's service, subscribe. If it's "not worth it" as you say, then don't pay that cost-of-a-beer once a month. It's pretty simple. Martello broke the forums with his lovely posts again. Anyway, as I was about to add, the cost is worth it for such a sweet resource. Also, give those smaller and fledgling mags some love. People who don't have a publishing history and try to place their stories in only in New Yorker or some other big mag are dumb. If for some reason you don't want to do duotrope, there's plenty of other googleable resources to find magazines to publish in. Bonus: if you like to publish online, many magazines only ask for first English print rights, so you can still upload it to Amazon (or try other mags that do reprints) with the added value of being able to slap "originally printed in XMag".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
Sitting down and actively copying a short story into your word processor can actually be really helpful. If you're a wicked-fast typist like me, you may be used to zoning out and having no clue of what you're typing from a sheet of paper onto the screen, thus defeating the exercise. However, if you take your time and actively type it out, you can learn a lot about multiple aspects of a story: rhythm, phrasing, realistic dialogue, and more. I'd suggest actually reading it out loud and then typing it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
I'm an idiot.
Erik Shawn-Bohner fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2012 10:53
|
|
|
Ooops. Hit alt-tab and thought this was the other thread. Sorry for the threadshit guys.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Hey gang. I was looking at a lot of different points of view, and I came across some things that made me want to ask a question: is it better to write for myself or to write for what other people want? 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
Chexoid posted:See I dunno, I've thought a lot about this and I feel like it depends on what you want to get out of your writing. Pandering to what you think people want to read may lead to more success commercially, but writing what you truly want to write might be more fulfilling as an artist. For art, even, I think it comes down to the same. See, I've always heard that you should write what you want to write as if only you would read it. A lot of people say you should focus on yourself and how you want to say something instead of the reader. It reminds me of a story about a guy I used to know. He was a cosmetic surgeon who just loved his job. He got into the business because he loved it. And I don't blame the bloke a bit since his specialty was slapping on some fake tits. Every gal that walked through the door, he'd always tell her that she could use a bigger, better pair. He could tuck it, lift it, do whatever you wanted. It was his passion, his calling, and what he wanted to do all day since we were knee-high. But like with a lot of jobs, it wasn't as glamorous as the TV tells you. Sometimes, you gotta suck the fat out of some hairy dude's lovehandles. Everyone learns what it's all about as they go along, though. My friend figured after a few years that he wanted to get into a new business. Something that made him happy and where he could do what he wanted. He wanted to find that passion and love he wanted again. So, he became a vet. Who the hell doesn't love taking care of sick animals? So, one day, he was talking to one of his client--a rancher. He had a pure longhorn stud bull, and the old guy had this big infection in his leg. My friend said he had to lance it and pump the bull full of antibiotics. You can't chop up a bull like that and sell it for meat, but it was a stud, so the rancher wanted to keep it around. My friend did his thing then went back home while the rancher tended to the herd. Next day, the rancher comes to check up on his bull, see how it's doing. The infection had been drained, and he was looking a lot better, and my friend had even done a good job on slapping a couple of big tits on that there bull. He did what he loved, and he did it for himself, so I guess we can see how useful that mentality can be when applied to our own craft. Erik Shawn-Bohner fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Dec 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2012 09:01
|
|
is where it's at. Write a story about a vampire highschool then retire to your summer house made entirely of cocaine.
|
Rose Wreck posted:You can say your full meaning in the "advice and discussion" thread, it's not like it's derailing. I'll spell it out for you. You must be a woman, 'cause you got two black eyes and he can tell that you done just got told twice. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Rose Wreck posted:That's not quite what I'm saying. Apologies if I'm coming off too strong. Yes, we all know what it's like to tweet that we need a panel of fans to come and tell us which characters need to "pair off".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
If you write fan fiction, please murder yourself immediately for the sake of the human race.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
I agree. I could write about my depressingly short dick and probably make a buck or two. You have to decide how much of a whore you want to be. Me? I want to be a rich and famous whore, and I have zero qualms with writing for money, but even I won't slut out for 50 Shades of poo poo style crap. I'd rather not think of fat married women flicking their wrinkly beans to what I'd write while they contemplate their miserable lives.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
People who claim to need "trigger warnings" are usually insane.
|
WYA posted:Would it hurt my chances to get published if I used the word friend of the family in my zombie apocalypse story? Ever since the Mark Twain thing I've always been so paranoid about wielding my artistic license Post the context and the actual passage, or any advice we give you is just going to be flat. If you have a character (that's established as openly racist) going, "gently caress you friend of the family!" before he kills him, that would make sense and be fine. If the character is weak, and it's ironi-speak, then you'd have a bigger problem. If it's from the speaker's point of view, it again comes down to character of the narrator/speaker. Essentially, the word won't get you blocked from many places (some individual editors may not like it), but the context you use it in is of the utmost importance. Editors are also adults in the same general field, and they're aware of the landscape. Seeing as it's a sore issue though, it's best that you make sure you work that part well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:First person was one of the first things I did when writing a long original novel, the character came out surprisingly nothing like me and she read as genuine from what I can remember. Every since then I haven't been able to write first person long term without feeling like things seemed silly or sort of off. It's really hard to explain the feeling. Have you ever cooked something you cook all of the time and that you've had others cook all of the time and then this one time you make it and you take that first taste and it tastes alright, but there is something off. You're not sure what it is, but you know it's gone. That's me with first person. No. And the answer is to read more.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:Most of what I read is first person. I don't mind third person at all, but it seems that first person is dominant. And the narrates usually have a very distinct voice. Or at least the kind of voice where I feel like this is "well done" first person and not the alternative. Like I love Dan Wells's first person narration in the John Cleaver books and Hollow City. Then read more. That's how you learn how poo poo works. You're reading at X and you need to read at X+1. Repeat that formula until things begin to bleed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 07:15
|
|