|
CantDecideOnAName posted:Is there an IRC or anything for rambling about writing? I lost any sort of writing "community" years ago and the only person I still talk to about it (my friend who I call my editor because she's helping me edit my story) tends to vanish from the internet for extended periods of time. I'm assuming you write everything the way you wrote the above post, which is horrible. Cut down on the folksy conversational tics and write for clarity and voice. http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Tools-Essential-Strategies-Writer/dp/0316014990 Buy that book. Read and absorb everything it says. It's incredibly easy to understand, and, based on what I had to fix in your post, will be of great help to you.
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
CantDecideOnAName posted:Didn't know I wasn't allowed to ramble. I tend to type how I talk. Sorry about that. Oh don't be such a baby; you either want help or you don't. And when you depend on others to give it to you, you take what you get. I edited your post precisely because it was rambling garbage, and you have a long way to go if that's what your writing looks like.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:But if I can't get readers to give a poo poo, they'll never get to the aliens. But dammit, the thought of me, a 48 yr old male, writing about a 21 yr old female makes me cringe. A lot. Definitely know that feeling. I'm 30 but my protagonist is a tough-as-nails 24 year old alcoholic woman who also cusses a lot and has a lot of flaws-- and sounds a lot like your protagonist. I'll admit that you got me intrigued just by what you described about your story! Way too many authors (male and female) reserve the 'flawed badass' archetype for yet another bland han solo-esque male character and frankly i'm sick of seeing that poo poo. My advice to you is to give the reader subtextual glimpses into your lady's demons, early on. Show the reader that, just below the surface, this woman is struggling-- even as she puts on her best tough face. The best heroes are sympathetic for this reason, no matter how tough they may seem. And maybe try adding some weird alien-forshadowing poo poo to the opening scene, like they try to take over her brain or something but can't because there's too much alcohol and coke in her blood! 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
Art cannot be taught. Craft, on the other hand, can. Many badly written books are loved and admired by people all around the world because the meaning of the story/message is captivating, for whatever reason that may be. That has little, if anything, to do with craft above a baseline level of competence. It's not a popular opinion but I really do believe you can teach craft all day long, and get anyone to be a "good writer" but that doesn't mean that anyone will care about what they've read. (in terms of fiction, anyway) That's the art part, which is far more difficult to nail down and instill into someone. People tend to fall into two groups: those who understand human interaction well enough to create captivating stories, and those who simply don't. That's not to say there's no use for good writers who understand only craft. Everyone should be taught how to write well. Everyone should be taught the use and abuse of rhetoric and conveying ideas in a captivating way. Those are the kinds of skills that would serve everyone irrespective of what they end up doing with their lives.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:For me, printing it out helps. For the longest time I was reading it off the screen, but really taking the time to sit down and read it was a great help. This is an interesting phenomenon that I think may have less to do solely with sitting down to look at a printed page and more to do with literally 'seeing' the work in a different state than when you wrote it. For instance, my editing abilities improved dramatically when I began exporting my drafts to the kindle format and using that to look it over and make notes on problem areas. Using the same program I write with (Scrivener) just puts me in 'writer' mode which isn't the desired state for editing work. Other, more basic things can help as well: changing the font/size of the text, using a different computer than the one you wrote with, having a special location where you only do editing etc. The same principle applies to recording music as well; professionals never have an album mastered at the same studio it was recorded and mixed in. The change of venue--not to mention the fresh ears and perspective--go a long way to making a given thing ready for consumption.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
El Seano posted:So basically any advice you can give on realistically pacing dialogue would be very welcome, thanks guys. Post an example. What you're saying doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I'd need an example to be able to figure out what to tell you.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
There are a lot of problems with that sample, first and foremost being numerous grammatical/formatting errors. Second, the use of dialogue tags other than 'said' and 'asked' is acceptable but best when done sparingly. Quipped, exhaled and so on when used in excess will exhaust the reader; you already used several in that short bit. Third, you need to choose stronger words in the dialogue itself and rely less on spelling it out for the reader by specifying that someone was being sarcastic or exhaling in exaggeration (whatever that means). My main issue with this dialogue is that it's boring, mainly because nothing really happens and you're spelling out too much for me-- which means you're not letting me, the reader, do any work. Do this: pick a favorite scene from a movie or TV show that you enjoy and transcribe it. Literally write out the dialogue as it happens, including facial expressions, tone of voice, body language etc. See how it looks, how hard it is for you. Since you already know that dialogue is 'good', you can focus on expressing it cleanly and interestingly. Once you're able to do that, you can start working on your own dialogue.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
SaviourX posted:As a devil's advocate, don't do this unless you're scriptwriting, and even then sparingly. Your characters need to find a voice, but it's not going to happen by watching actors (and by extension, directors) at work. Uh, what? One of the standard bits of advice for writers in general is "read more, always read more." How is this advice any different than that? The point of the exercise is not to literally copy someone else's style in your own future writing; it's to become comfortable with writing out dialogue, with the flow and feel of it. The point is to understand the anatomy of great dialogue. And to be blunt, the vast majority of authors, even good ones, write absolutely terrible dialogue. I think "read more" is great advice for every single subject except dialogue. In that arena, movies and TV shows (with good writers, anyway) are miles ahead of the vast majority of fiction writers. It makes sense when you think about it. Novelists--with prose as a crutch to fall back on for narration, exposition, etc--can get incredibly lazy when it comes to getting their characters to properly convey ideas in a captivating fashion. quote:If you do do this, you can also just watch/listen to normal conversations around you (hopefully interesting ones). No. No. "Real-life" dialogue is incredibly uninteresting. Always. No exceptions. This is why amateur writers who try to imitate "real-life" always get eviscerated. No author should ever try to imitate what people sound like in real life. It's a recipe for failure and bored readers. People talk with lots of ums and errs and awkward pauses and unnecessary verbal tics. For an example of someone trying to write "realistic" dialogue, watch The Room. Johnny: [walks into flower shop] Hi. Flower Shop Clerk: Can I help you? Johnny: Yeah, can I have a dozen red roses, please? Flower Shop Clerk: Oh, hi, Johnny. I didn't know it was you. [grabs bouquet of roses] Flower Shop Clerk: Here you go. Johnny: That's me. How much is it? Flower Shop Clerk: It'll be eighteen dollars. Johnny: [hands over cash] Here you go. Keep the change. [grabs flowers and pats dog on the counter] Johnny: Hi, doggy. Flower Shop Clerk: You're my favorite customer. Johnny: Thanks a lot. Bye! Flower Shop Clerk: Buh-bye!  Dialogue should never ever be "realistic". It should be interesting and above all engaging. Chillmatic fucked around with this message at 15:20 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
Jeza posted:A writer should be aiming to imitate the realistic thought processes of people, putting down on paper what people are trying to say rather than what they actually do say. Observation and self-evaluation helps for that sort of thing, and is more art imitating life. Again, I couldn't disagree more with this. I'd say believability is what the author should strive for in character interactions/dialogue, rather than being realistic. They may appear to be similar concepts but they're really not. People enjoy fiction precisely because it isn't realistic. Of course you need believable characters, but nobody wants to read a book or watch a movie that's every bit as realistic as their day at work or school. I feel vehemently about this, obviously, but I believe the proof that I'm correct lies in the fact that a universal complaint about nearly every new writer is the boring dialogue and underdeveloped characters. And this is because the new writer mistakes believable for realistic. quote:It goes without saying that your little example dialogue Chillmatic is very banal. But that doesn't mean all slice of life exchanges should be stripped from all books, Yes it does. It absolutely does. In the example I gave you, literally nothing happens except the character buying roses. Bad writing is full of that, and it's never ever necessary in a book or script. "Slice of life" is not the issue; the issue is boring, predictable, and banal interactions that do nothing to further character or plot. Every single word in a book--dialogue or not--should only ever be used for one of those two purposes (character or plot). There's literally no other reason to show or involve your reader in anything that doesn't have to do with either. quote:That dialogue could easily be stripped down to perhaps three lines and a bit of description - once you have removed all the trappings of expected social mores and unnecessarily linear details. ...and it would still be three lines of crap. Seriously. There's not a single thing in any of those lines that says anything important to either the story or the character. (not that there's ANY of either in the entirety of The Room, but that's kind of my whole point.) quote:not every non-plot exchange need be culled. As I said above, if it isn't plot related, it needs to be character-related in a specific way. If it's neither, can anyone give a good reason why a given exchange still belongs? I'm going to paste a (bit long, sorry--but worth it) example of what I think great dialogue looks like. It's from Fahrenheit 451, and includes a bit of what may look like "realistic" or banal dialogue, but absolutely isn't. This is because every last word does a lot of heavy-lifting to tell you a a great deal about this "Fireman" and the teenage girl he's talking to. (this is a full scene, start to finish) quote:The rain was thinning away and the girl was walking in the center of the sidewalk with her head up and the few drops falling on her face. She smiled when she saw Montag. Nobody on earth, in real-life, talks like either of those people. Yet both are eminently believable and the exchange reveals a ton of character. Chillmatic fucked around with this message at 19:18 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:Right. Spot on. This is my quickest and dirtiest tip to new writers: your characters should never, ever, plainly say what they mean. There should always be something more, boiling just under the surface. yoyomama posted:
Not to belabor the point, but... no, it's not important to do this. In fact, when writing dialogue, it's important to forget entirely what real-world conversations sound like. Use your favorite books and movies as an example of what to do; do not emulate real life. Ever. Your job is to make your character's conversation engaging and believable. The end. I hate to say it yet again, but "believable" does not mean "sounds like real life." quote:1) Listen to what makes them (real-life conversations) interesting, Nothing makes real-word conversations interesting. Literally nothing at all. People read fiction to escape the real world. Stop trying to remind them of it with your dialogue. Just stop. It's the number one mark of amateur writing and the fact that so many are clinging to the idea reveals that truth. Good dialogue is an illusion, an imitation of the real world. It feels genuine to the reader yet still has that bit of magic that clues them them in to the fact that they're enjoying a fictional universe. Think of it as similar to the illusion of film itself. When you watch a movie that was shot on traditional film, you're not actually seeing motion on the screen; you're seeing the illusion of motion, created by a series of still images being displayed to you very rapidly. Dialogue is similar in that if the reader slowed down and really examined, on a fundamental level, the words they were seeing, they'd notice all kinds of "problems" with it and the illusion would be broken. (for instance, almost nobody in a fictional story ever says hello or goodbye when using the telephone-- try pointing this out to non-writers and watch their mind be blown) Your readers don't want to break the illusion. They want to feel as though they're in the hands of someone capable enough to keep the illusion alive for them. This is why when new authors actually do insist on their characters using every single real-world verbal tic like "hello" and "goodbye" and so on, the reader gets bored and frustrated; this is NOT why they picked up this book or went to this movie. Thoren posted:While I agree with most of what you say, I believe it with a softer implication. There are certainly times when the rules can be broken. Though, they are usually broken for either a specific goal As you mentioned, the rules are only ever broken successfully when there's a specific goal in mind. It's either that, or bad writing. Period. I'm not against seemingly mundane character interactions, as long as they pull weight for either the story or the characters in question. For instance, consider again the example I used before: Johnny: [walks into flower shop] Hi. Flower Shop Clerk: Can I help you? Johnny: Yeah, can I have a dozen red roses, please? Flower Shop Clerk: Oh, hi, Johnny. I didn't know it was you. [grabs bouquet of roses] Flower Shop Clerk: Here you go. Johnny: That's me. How much is it? Flower Shop Clerk: It'll be eighteen dollars. Johnny: [hands over cash] Here you go. Keep the change. [grabs flowers and pats dog on the counter] Johnny: Hi, doggy. Flower Shop Clerk: You're my favorite customer. Johnny: Thanks a lot. Bye! Flower Shop Clerk: Buh-bye! This scene sucks. It's incredibly boring and stupid, right? But what if there was a hurricane (or some other disaster) happening right outside the window! Now, this scene is interesting. Why are these two people so calm when the windows are shattering and the roof is about to come off? Do they want to die? Are they on drugs? What the gently caress's going on? The rule of "no boring dialogue" is successfully broken here, because it's used with an exacting purpose, and there's something else to engage the reader. "Real life" dialogue can only, only be used for purposes like that. To give the reader insight into a character's state of mind, something they can think about, chew on. If the dialogue is banal just because the character and situation are banal, then you've gained a net of zero. And lost your reader's attention and trust. Chillmatic fucked around with this message at 20:15 on May 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
edit: ^^^  Settle down, Beavis. The arguments being made demonstrate why so many authors struggle with writing good dialogue. I'll risk annoying people, but this will be my last post on the subject since it's upsetting you. (and btw that actually isn't anything close to the entirety of my point)Tartarus Sauce posted:Real world conversations CAN be helpful, because it really helps to have a basic sense of the rhythm and flow of conversation, and the sorts of words people (especially various TYPES of people) do and don't use, and how those choices serve to reveal how they think, and how they see the world. Determining the rhythm and flow of real world conversations does indeed help one become a better conversationalist--in the real world. But one needs to determine the rhythm and flow of fictional conversations if one wants to become a better writer of fiction. Thinking that learning the rhythm and flow of real-life conversation will help you write better dialogue is not unlike trying to understand the rhythm and flow of jazz music will help you become a better public speaker. Or, another crappy analogy, it's like thinking that because you can beat a computer at hold 'em poker, you could surely do well against a human opponent with real cash stakes. The rules are different. They are not the same thing. You're wasting time. quote:Charles de Lint's a solid writer, but reading The Blue Girl, you can tell he's never encountered a real teenage girl before. I don't know when that was written, but if it was in the 90s, the author could have just watched Buffy The Vampire Slayer and gotten a much more accurate version of how viewers/readers of fiction expect a teenage girl to sound, rather than just sitting in on a real-life classroom and trying to capture their vernacular. I've seen lots of authors attempt the latter and the results are always embarrassing. That's if the author even attempts to capture such a voice at all. quote:Lots of science fiction suffers from stiff, robotic dialogue, because the authors themselves are hardcore scientists or techies who don't know their way around non-technical conversations whose primary purpose is not simply to convey information. And if you were to ask them what kind of fiction they enjoy reading or watching, they'd almost certainly list material containing stiff, robotic dialogue.  Not saying there isn't a market for that, but it will only appeal to other techies/scientists. I will concede that to successfully bring vibrant, "real" characters to life, an author does need to understand how people function; or more accurately, how they wish to function. Apologies if it sounds like I'm suggesting that people not understand that. But the "wish" part is why listening to real-world dialogue will always fail to help you. People do not want to read fiction that emulates their every day experience. They just don't. What person on earth would read about someone getting up in the morning, brushing his teeth, going to work, coming home, doing the dishes, and going to bed? What person on earth would want to listen in on the conversations that you and me have every day? Aside from our own jilted lovers and overprotective mothers, the answer is nobody. So trying to dissect those conversations to get 'the good' stuff will only show you that there's no good stuff to be had. Again, this all applies unless your goal is becoming a better real-life conversationalist. Then, by all means. Chillmatic fucked around with this message at 23:29 on May 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Erik Shawn-Bohner posted:For a bunch of people wanting to write fiction, the lack of ability to communicate in this thread is fascinating (and snippy!) You just hush and get back to writing withering critiques of lovely fanfic plastered on a jpg! (you were twice as nice to that guy as I was gonna be) yoyomama posted:You're kidding. I'm genuinely sorry that it reads that way. This is a frustrating topic for me because it's something that I get asked about a lot, and people seem to cling to some ideas that are damaging their ability to do what they want to do with their own work. And now to awkwardly change the subject, I'll plug a recent post that I found really helpful on Larry Brook's (rather excellent) blog on developing good characters. http://storyfix.com/the-risky-middle-realm-of-character
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Stuporstar posted:Nice rolling with the punches there. I don't know what this means but I had already apologized so maybe you should simmer down a bit? Sitting Here posted:Whenever I'm stuck on what a character is supposed to be saying, I imagine the conversation as if I were relating it to someone else, and I really want them to get the gist of it even if that means embellishing/smoothing over some bits. That's a good approach, though I'd also add that, for me, one of the best things to understand when writing dialogue is to remember what a given character really wants. What drives them, motivates them? They'll almost never say what it is directly, but that desire will tinge every single word they do say. This is a good trick for exposing weak characters; a character who doesn't want anything is a weak character, indeed. quote:...things like context, body language, tone, eye contact, and a million other little clues that we subconsciously use to determine meaning, mood, intention, and so on. Good writers seem to describe very few of those things in detail, so we're left with the story context and the dialog itself I think good writers actually describe those things frequently, though a little goes a long way. For instance you only need to tell me once that 'Andy stuck his hands in his pockets and refused to make eye contact with Sue.' The example of good dialogue I posted on the last page (from Fahrenheit 451) demonstrates this reasonably well. When I first began writing, striking this balance was something I struggled with a lot. As always, practice makes a reasonable facsimile of 'perfect'. Chillmatic fucked around with this message at 03:08 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:I once eavesdropped on a much-less-interesting conversation between two people (who appeared to be a couple?) about mattresses. Just mattresses. Mattresses they had slept on; mattresses they'd loved and lost; mattresses that had brought them pain. This is my experience with probably 90% of the conversations I overhear. I listen to conversations everywhere I go, and the vast majority of the time, the only subtext immediately noticeable is that people get incredibly frustrated when they feel the other person isn't really listening to them. So they start trying to talk over the other person, who then starts trying to talk over them. (completely off topic, but if you can make a person feel as if you've truly listened to what they have to say, they'll love you forever out of sheer gratitude) People are, as a rule, horrible conversationalists. The quesadilla example was great but hearing that last zinger out in the wild is drat-near a once in a lifetime happening. Overwined posted:The reason directly answered questions don't work in fiction is because they rarely work in real life! People are always deflecting, obfuscating, and otherwise trying to divert the agenda. Sure, I agree with that. But real-life hidden agendas are incredibly mundane. "You don't listen to me. You always overcook the pasta. You didn't wake up to help the baby last night. How 'bout them Cowboys? My job sucks and you don't care. Wah." Real conversations, rife as they may be with subtext, (boring subtext, 90% of the time) aren't actually building towards any kind of narrative goal. As an author, you don't have the luxury of just letting things happen, or boring subtext. If you know how to imbue your characters' conversations with the right kind of tension and subtext, and eavesdropping helps you with that, then I'll certainly not argue with that. Anyone who is right where they want to be as an author shouldn't think twice about anything I'm saying. But if (the proverbial) you continue to struggle, as most writers do, to write dialogue that people tell you is really great, then consider that relying on those restaurant or bus conversations may be holding you back more than you realize. Oh, and: quote:As much as I have loved and read Ray Bradbury's work, dialogue was probably his weakest point. Other authors would serve your argument better. Fair enough. I used that particular example because the language was incredibly plain, and, some might say, "realistic". Yet it still conveyed very clear meaning through what was said, and what wasn't said. And there's no way in hell you'd ever hear someone talk like that in the real world, despite the plain tone. The rhythm and cadence are entirely unlike anything one might overhear at work or on the train. This is more than simply not using 'ums' and 'errs'; it's recognizing that the flow and feel of dialogue is not equivalent to that of conversation. Here's a great article that goes into more detail of my point without being quite as acerbic as I've been: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/mar/18/unreal-art-realistic-dialogue (for which, again, I do apologize. This is one of my favorite and frustrating critical subjects and I do go on a bit much) Chillmatic fucked around with this message at 14:43 on May 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
There's an inverse relationship between how much 'sense' everything has to make vs. how entertained the reader is. If you've provided good characters and tension, no one's going to really care about believable zombies or physics whatever. It's only when the reader is left with nothing else to do (because you're not entertaining them) that they start to notice all the things 'wrong' with your story.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Cpt. Mahatma Gandhi posted:Important doesn't equal "better", however I think what Crabrock is saying has a lot of merit. You can have the most interesting, exciting, wonderful things happening in your story, but if its written in a clunky, grammatically horrible manner then readers will put the book down and move on. Well, that's not...exactly true. Many well-known authors write clunky, grammatically horrible stuff that sells like hotcakes. Story is what matters. The only thing that matters, ultimately. But an 'idea' for a great story is not, by itself, a great story. That, to me, is the real issue here. Great ideas are a dime a fuckin' dozen. Worthless. Everyone has them, and most aren't really all that great. Following through on the ideas that are actually good is the hard part. quote:Take a movie, for example; it doesn't matter how amazing the story is if the acting, cinematography, editing and whatever else is utter garbage. You'll either turn that movie off after 5 minutes or watch it without taking it seriously. I don't think I've ever heard someone say a movie has an amazing story yet also had bad acting, cinematography, editing and etc. There are no actors, cameramen, gaffers, riggers, etc. available to the writer. It's all you. And your only job is to get out of the way enough to let the story come through. In general, the more 'aware' of the writing your reader becomes, the worse off you'll be in holding their attention. (There are exceptions to this, of course.) I think this particular issue comes up a lot because lovely writers usually tell lovely stories. But if you can Dan-Brown your way into someone's awareness, you can succeed as a writer, no matter how much you make other writers cringe. Far too often I see writers critiquing stylistic tics like vernacular, metaphors, dialect, etc. when the focus should probably be on "This is a crappy story. I was bored the whole time." I've noticed that when I'm entertained by a great story, it's actually really hard for me to even see problems with the writing because I'm immersed/engaged! It's important to remember that--if you want to sell fiction--you should write to impress readers; not other writers. Of course I agree that prose should be clean and efficient, and free of all technical faults, but those are fairly easy goals to achieve with just a bit of effort; in other words, anyone can become a good writer of words. Becoming a great storyteller, however, is much more difficult to do. And I'm not 100% sure that skill can be taught.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Chexoid posted:Think of it this way, the ONLY result is you getting better. There is no way to get WORSE by writing. Alright, this may piss off some people, but here goes. There absolutley is a way to get worse by writing. Or, more accurately, to stay as bad as one currently is. Writing is a craft like every other craft. If a young person were learning how to play guitar, and they were observed to have horrible technique, no teacher worth their salt would tell them to 'just keep playing!' over and over again like some brain-dead mantra. The mistakes in technique must be explicitly corrected; exercises designed to squash problematic areas must be done before the young player can resume his or her attempt at playing real music. I don't know when or how 'just keep writing!!' became the standard-issue advice on writing forums, but all it really serves to accomplish is the kind of frustration people like Mag7 are experiencing right now. Telling someone that 'they loving suck and their writing is horrible' may feel really good for a writer to say; I'm sure it scratches that itch to feel better about oneself by tearing others down, but it's disingenuous to suggest that this actually helps anyone improve. I do very much understand the frustration one can feel while trying to help anyone else improve their craft. I myself have lost it several times in this very thread when inexperienced writers show up only to poo poo the bed when they find out they aren't brilliant. I think Thunderdome is a great idea to get feedback from outside the (incredibly) harmful echo chamber of friends and family, but a significant amount of the feedback I've seen there is long on vitriol and short on specifics. magnificent7 posted:How is it I am loving this up so bad? Mag7, I've read your stuff. Before you do ANY more writing, I'd like you to buy and fully read these three very helpful and informative books. http://www.amazon.com/Art-Fiction-Notes-Craft-Writers/dp/0679734031 This is the best overall view of what it truly means to write fiction, and some good strategies to go forward with that. Gardner gets a bit ramble-y, but the dude wrote Grendel so cut him some slack. http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Tools...ols+for+writers An excellent, wonderful book on basic and intermediate prose and sentence-building techniques. In terms of actual craft, this book improved my writing threefold. http://www.amazon.com/Story-Enginee...ory+engineering Maybe one of the only books of its kind. Once you've learned how to write cleaner, stronger prose, this book will teach you what goes into making effective and gripping fiction. Story arc, act structure, dramatic tension, plot points etc. are all discussed in detail. It's great that you have a passion for your ideas but there are fundamental--near universal--building blocks of good fiction/prose that you haven't yet grasped. You can get there! Do the work, put the time in, and for god's sake, correct your errors before you continue to write with them and develop more bad habits!
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
crabrock posted:Writing is more like loving than playing music. Wait, what? That is one of the absolute most embarrassing things I've ever heard a writer say. Writing is a craft like any other and the basics of it must be learned before someone, anyone, can write well. How, specifically, are things like music, painting, or photography not like writing in that regard? Would you say that learning how to sing or take photographs is 'like loving' also? People who say things like that provide only endless frustration to new writers. You're completely discrediting the entire craft and art of writing using a horrible, awful, analogy (sex, of all things; an already touchy topic with problematic ego implications) that is confusing at best, and devastating at worst. As though you just have to magically become amazing at writing by doing it all the time without any regard to the study of what makes great writing great. Writing is nothing like sex anymore than becoming a good public speaker is like sex or learning how to drive a car is like sex. quote:In your guitar analogy a music teacher has you come in and play for them each week so they can see your problem areas. Mag7 has several people here willing to help him improve so he should write and get crits and then revise and learn, not read endlessly. First of all, you've clearly never had guitar lessons. You don't simply "come in and play for the guy". They...uh...teach you how to loving play guitar. And they do so waaaay before you start trying to play songs for them. Second, it is questionable--I hate to say--that a given random person on the internet will be qualified to actually help, as our hypothetical music instructor would be. It's subjective, of course; it's always up to person seeking advice to decide whether what they're hearing or being 'taught' is helping. But Mag7, dude. You completely ignored everything I said and then proceeded to say 'well I'm pretty much going to stay the course.' By itself that wouldn't be a problem; as I said before, it's up to you to decide the merit of any advice you're being given--but jesus loving christ, man. You're actually telling us how much worse you've gotten since you started doing Thunderdome, and yet you still blow off some very different advice/suggestions and will just keep doing the same thing that's gotten you into this mess? quote:There's something to be said about starting out knowing nothing, then learning the rules only to be paralyzed by them. You don't know the rules. Your writing makes this abundantly clear. That's why I recommended the books I did. Oh, but right, you've 'tried that already' and it didn't work out, so gently caress it. Right? God, how long did it take for you to become worth a poo poo as a musician? Did you "just play" all the time until you became awesome? Or, perhaps, did a few people along the way show you what you needed to know and give you the tools you needed to be successful? Maybe you did some research into the craft of music? Do what you want, man. But consider how pathetic it looks for you to continue on a path that has thus far amounted to a grand total of: 1. A half-dozen god-awful stories (getting progressively worse as you go) and 2. You publicly whining and complaining on an internet forum. I'll let you be the judge of how well your current approach is working out for you. Chillmatic fucked around with this message at 20:08 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
crabrock posted:Loling at your problematic sex ego I've no doubt that your own sexual prowess is beyond reproach. Just consider that your dumb advice may actually be hurting other writers' progress, alright?
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:Jesus Christ man. Ease up. It's telling that an eight paragraph rant by crabrock telling you: quote:If this is how you achieved success in your other career, then other people probably hate you...just realize that you suck, your ideas suck, your prose sucks, everything about your writing sucks. ...was less upsetting to you than what I wrote. Of course, that's because he gave you the advice you wanted to hear: write more, more thunderdome! and I told you that you needed to take a step back and do the more boring fundamentals. Bummer, huh? crabrock posted:You can read all day and get a good idea of the steps, but give me a person I can train for a few weeks and I'll take them over a person who has read a bunch of books about doing it when it comes down to the wire. Interesting. I'll certainly look forward to seeing how Mag7 improves under your guidance!
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Nubile Hillock posted:Your judgement of mag7's stories as getting "progressively worse" are in fact subjective. I'll give you a moment to gather yourself. Deep breaths, bro. Oxxidation posted:It's not like progressively lower ratings in Thunderdome necessarily indicate your quality's deteriorating, anyway. Judges always rotate and some prompts are nastier than others. He said, in his own words, that his writing was getting worse. That was not something I came up with, promise. This is a public forum; people post that they're having problems, I respond. Unneeded advice is easy to ignore. quote:Yeah, it's going to suck, but how the gently caress are you going to develop a voice of your own if you don't write?. I'm not sure if you guys are intentionally ignoring what i'm saying, but I didn't say this and you aren't getting much done by refusing to read the actual words that I wrote. Mag7 initially said he wasn't ready for Thunderdome. I believe he was correct about that. Someone in their first month of playing guitar would not be ready for an open-mic at a cafe. (which is more or less what Thunderdome is) They'd need a few lessons, first. Sure, practice is a big part of that. Huge, even. But there's working harder by developing bad habits and writing badly, or there's working smarter which involves learning just a few basics that will then enable you to get much better, much faster. I know a guy who is a decent drummer, but it took him 15 years to get good because he refused to do anything other than just bang on the drums in his garage with his buddies. With a few lessons and guidance he could have been decent in five years and amazing after 15. But everybody has to find their own path; no argument here on that. If someone really prefers to do things that way, it's hard to argue with that! (except when they complain about not being where they want to be) But when the quality of a given person's writing/output indicates that they should work, for just a little while, on the fundamentals--and they're asking for help--I'm going to suggest they do so every time. I'm uncertain why that's so unfair or offensive but I'll just continue to point out that the people griping the loudest about this are also those who appear to be struggling the most to produce readable work. quote:You don't become a luthier by watching your dad work. No, but you'd sure learn a lot more, break fewer guitars, and get better, faster, if you did take just a little bit of time and allowed yourself to learn some of the fundamentals before diving right in and expecting any sort of results. People disagree with this opinion and hey, I get it. It's understandable. Hopefully it's also understandable that an experienced writer may get frustrated when inexperienced writers voice complaints/frustrations about how terrible they are, and yet refuse to do anything to improve--except what they've already been doing. Which, just maybe, is part of the reason they're struggling in the first place. magnificent7 posted:Thanks to everybody for your input. I'm working on it. I finished my thing, sent it off to two goons, I'm going to leave it alone and go back and rewrite my other stories using the crits I got. I genuinely hope you find the success you're looking for. Chillmatic fucked around with this message at 04:11 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
Martello posted:but these days I haven't seen any actual product from you at all. My agent and editor provide me with the feedback I need for my own work. Though I'll say that as little as two years ago, I could have really used Thunderdome feedback, when I had endless frustrations as to the efficacy--or profound lack thereof--of my writing. Believe me, I've put my time in with critique groups, and it was very much needed. I got torn down a lot and took the advice to heart. I had the same "my ideas are so greaaaaat" thing that all new writers have and having a whole room full of people fall asleep in response is sobering. I haven't meant for a second to imply that there is no point to getting that kind of feedback on one's work. Of course, while it was so often helpful, there can quickly become a hive mind where everyone either pats each other on the back, or else rips each other to shreds with absolutely no specifics or real suggestions given. I think that's where my own wariness/retardedness about the whole "just write more and let us destroy it" thing has come from. But you make a very good point re: not knowing the worthiness of my advice without seeing me write. So sure; I'll read through the Thunderdome thread and contribute a piece. Chillmatic fucked around with this message at 13:59 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
Sitting Here posted:
My issue (and this is very, very personal and subjective on my part) with using heavily juxtaposed language is that if it's going to be done, it ought to be done very deliberately, and with a specific goal in mind. For instance, using inappropriately mild language, say, during a horrific or disgusting scene, usually serves to distance the reader from the scene itself, making it seem normal or almost casual/naive. Using violent and vulgar language for what should be a mild or inoffensive scene serves to really engage and stimulate the reader, and also exhaust them. (and is way harder to do effectively) If you were going for that former effect, then I feel like it could have been done a little more deliberately and with a bit more of a consistent/cohesive theme. Your first sentence had the phrase 'jerking off' which to me, set a very adult-sounding tone which most of the rest of the piece didn't match up with. If it'd been consistent throughout I probably would have found the less-vulgar language to be more compelling.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:I considered going to The Book Barn's recommendation thread but I thought I might get some better answers / advice here. Hope I'm not out of line. Yeah you're really loving out of line here, buddy. How loving DARE you come in here with this poo poo?? quote:The main character of my story is a Lindsay Lohan-type in her late 20s / early 30s. More specifically, she's a fashion model in L.A., she's into coke, "pills" (don't know which ones specifically), and alcohol (though I haven't decided how hooked she is on the drink). The kind of 'pills' really does make a huge difference. Someone eating dexedrine will look and act very different than someone eating oxy. People turn to certain drugs for certain reasons, and this should reflect their character/situation/etc. If she's a model, then she almost certainly is hooked on the former. Speed helps people stay thin and high-energy (incidentally, they say it's good for writing, too. ) Withdrawal symptoms are extreme fatigue, hunger, and irritability. Prescription pain meds are usually taken by people who want to escape from something, or to numb themselves, similar to alcohol. Warm, comfy, quiet. Nothing matters. Withdrawal symptoms are: irritability, restlessness, body aches, sweating, insomnia. These kinds of pills are notorious for being VERY difficult to kick. Either one of those two classes of drugs are, like 90% of what people are talking about when they talk about someone using pills. Heroin is pretty much just prescription pain meds x 10, the added risk of puncturing your skin, and even MORE difficult to kick. Sebmojo already covered coke pretty well. I'd add that it is INCREDIBLY obvious to everyone around when anyone's on blow, as the half-life is very, very short and so they disappear a lot into the bathroom or some other empty place to do some more. As for the rest, most people don't get 'hooked' on psychedelic stuff like LSD or acid or shrooms or whatever, almost doubly not when working in the fashion industry, so I'd probably skip over learning about all of that--unless of course you'd like to anyway or for a different project. Some authors I know insist that you have to try any drugs you're going to make your characters take, to really understand what they're going to feel and want and think. That's clearly not great advice as you can gently caress yourself up pretty readily while fooling around with some of those things. But at the bare minimum you really ought to have a very thorough understanding of the psychological and--just as important--the physiological effects of anything you put into the body of your characters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Quick line edit:quote:When a car screeched at the red light, I looked around in time to see an old bum I think one of the main issues with this sample is that you're distancing the reader from the action. What I mean is, generally speaking you have two options when you describe action: 1. You can tell me about how your narrator 'sees' an old bum launching through the air 2...or you can just tell me the old bum launched through the air. The second option is usually the stronger one. I try to avoid bringing the narrator between the action and the reader whenever possible, unless there's a specific reason to want to involve the fact that they see or hear or smell whatever the thing in question is. In general, the more words you have like 'seen, saw, heard, smelled, felt' etc, the more distance there is between the reader and the action. "I smelled the scent of rosemary as the stew began to cook." vs. "The scent of rosemary filled the room as the stew began to cook." Anyway, here's a quick and dirty rendition of what I'd do with what you posted; purely subjective of course. (I'm not in love with the wet towel simile, but let's stick with it for now) quote:A car screeched through the red light and then slammed into an old bum, tossing him five feet into the air like a wet towel. Notice I opted for stronger verbs--slammed, smashed, stumbled, coughed, etc--this gives the reader a more visceral mental image. I also added 'five feet into the air' to give a better idea of just how hard this guy had been hit. Also, I removed the narrator from the scene completely because it didn't feel necessary. But it's up to you if you think that strengthens the scene or no. Sometimes you'll want to draw attention to your narrator's interpretation of things, but often times it just gets in the way (especially, I think, in quick action scenes like what you posted.) Anyway  hope that helps!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
To be blunt: that's really awful dialogue. It's full of cultural niceties and conversational tics that don't have any place in dialogue because it doesn't actually say anything and instead just sounds like some realistic conversation at a very boring dinner party. I'm sure it would help us a little to have some additional context, as right now every character is just a floating head in a featureless room, but even then I'm not sure it'd be salvageable. It sounds very English, which I'm afraid isn't a compliment. Here's what I mean by that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1-ZEFDWNns The exchange (near the beginning of that clip) that Mr. Izzard describes is exactly what your excerpt sounds like. Dialogue should never be empty and meaningless; so instead of bland, boring stuff such as "I trust your practice is going well, Doctor?" Try something like this: "So tell me, Doctor, do you miss practicing medicine in the city?" The first line is drab and boring and empty. The second line at least delivers a morsel of information and character/world building and actually pulls its own weight. My only other suggestion is that you might want to cut the reader some slack by using the most powerful tool available to the novelist: prose. Instead of subjecting your characters to random, silly outbursts via dialogue (Lewisham was on his feet: “George!” Richards balked.") you could just have your narrator tell us some of that backstory or reasons why this might be a tense situation, rather than insisting on having your characters act every single emotion out. Here's a better example of what I mean from Orson Scott Card's book on POV and narrative (I put Card's comments in italics to separate it from the example he used). I know it's long but I promise it gets to the heart of what I see as a pretty clear issue with the dialogue you posted: quote:She sat down beside him. “I’m so nervous,” she said. Anyway, hope that helps. If you want more help you'll need to post a more focused exchange (perhaps between your POV character and one other person)?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:Not to make excuses, but whenever I start to do the sort of exposition that Orson Scott Card is doing, I feel like I'm violating 'show, don't tell' in a fairly monumental way. You are. It does. But...honestly? gently caress it. No, really; who cares? The blind repetition of "Show, don't tell!!!" is the piece of advice that did, by far, the most damage to my early writing. In fact, I'd go as far as to suggest that one of the most obvious 'tells' of amateur writing is this exact thing--aka when a writer doesn't feel comfortable telling us anything and instead, as she was taught to do, insists on all dialogue and action including a metric poo poo ton of exposition and banal movements that could've been accomplished with one neat, tidy paragraph of prose. The rule of "Show, don't tell" was created because, like all writing rules, some people don't know how to do anything in moderation. I find that some parts of it are nearly always relevant and true, while others are much more complicated. For instance: it's true you wouldn't want to say "I was cold" as it would obviously be better to say "I began to shiver." (a very basic example, but you get the drift) Here's the most simple way I can put it: 'show, don't tell', is just a guideline to be used to varying degree as you deem appropriate. In my own work, for example, I 'tell' when the POV is more distant and detached, when the action is of lesser consequence to the plot or i just want the words on the page to go by more quickly. And I 'show' when I'm very, very close in POV and there's a powerful or emotional or violent scene that demands the reader's close attention. AKA there's no reason to show any of the following: "I pressed the gas pedal after putting the car into 1st gear. The car began to move forwards down Hanover Street. I pressed the brake as I neared the stop sign at the end of Hanover Street. Soon I would be near Chestnut Street. I began to get a little bit hungry. I turned the wheel to the left onto Chestnut Street." when you could just say: "I drove to my girlfriend's house on Chestnut Street." If you find that your writing is too unwieldy or just seems to be stuffed full of a lot of crap, this could very well be the culprit. I know that certainly was the case for me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:write a few scenes of your character doing boring/unimportant poo poo. Write about them going to the store to pick up milk. Write about them delivering a letter or getting into an argument at the bank. I tend to agree more with the link Stuporstar posted: if you're going to sketch scenes (that may or may not have to do with the story itself), do it with interesting scenes. Important scenes. Scenes that give psychological insight into the character him/herself. From the link: quote:To discover the character’s physical nature, I may envision scenes that explore: Those are excellent questions that everyone should understand about their characters. I think you'd get a lot more mileage out of knowing that stuff than you would about them buying milk or going to the bank. If a writer can't answer (via sketching out brief scenes) at least the majority of those questions, then they either don't know their character very well, or else they've got no character at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
Post some of what she read so we can determine what she might have been talking about. Saturated, wordiness, flow--these are meaningless words. If I can get a glimpse at the writing itself I might be able to give you a few concrete ideas as to what's wrong with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
ViggyNash posted:These are the first three paragraphs Woof. There is nothing salvageable there, even considering systran's edits. Are you doing any editing? Revising? At all? I ask because there are a handful of faults with the paragraphs you posted that should have been caught during a cursory glance. I'm talking about the kind of faults that occur before one can even begin to get into show vs. tell and voice and so on. For instance, look at this: quote:The alley between the two warehouses was a dead end. Half way down the alley, a towering fence of corroded metal blocked the way past to the parking lot at the other end. The warehouse walls lining the alley were made of thick corrugated steel, streaked red with rust from years of rain. The entrance was lit by the pale, intermittent orange glow of a flickering streetlight. The far end of the alley was lit by a brilliant stage of powerful spotlights strewn throughout the harbor beyond the fence. Neither could wash away the deep, oppressive darkness of the alley’s center except the faint radiance of the full moon far overhead, but only subtly. You use the word "Alley" five times in a single paragraph as well as repeating other words far more often than you should. Accidental word repetition is a very basic problem that should clue you in that you're overdoing something. It fatigues the reader's ear. And their patience. Find better ways to help your prose flow more easily from one sentence/thought to the next; use stronger verbs and descriptions so that you don't feel it necessary to repeat yourself. Beyond the fundamentals, the single biggest problem with what you posted is that it isn't really told from anyone's point of view, through any character's eyes. (until the end...sort of) We get some formless description--far too much, as already noted--through nobody-in-particular's perspective and this makes the whole thing look disjointed and messy. Then you head-hop from the girl to the guy. If you're serious about writing, read some books on the subject or take a creative writing class--or even simply read through the books you enjoy, paying close attention to voice and perspective, and how it's used effectively. You've got a few baseline flaws that betray your lack of experience; easy enough to overcome, but will certainly take some work on your part. Also: Symptomless Coma posted:I don't want to labour the point on those two overused words, but my attitude is to and show things that tell. This is good, important advice. Also known as "The Law of Conservation of Detail".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
ViggyNash posted:Like I said Chillmatic, I'm an amateur at this. Things that you and others might find obvious aren't necessarily going to be obvious to me. I meant for this short to be a learning experience, which it has. The reason I've never written anything before was because I was never able to translate any of my ideas into actual content. Then I realized that I would never learn how to do so until I made some attempt at it in the first place. This is that first attempt. I did read your post (where you already said all of this) and do understand that you're an amateur. The advice I gave you was tailored with that in mind. Why are you repeating yourself, here? I pointed out that the writing did, as you suggested it would, come off as the work of an inexperienced amateur. I apologize if you're offended by my critique, but the fact remains that the work itself was very, very bad. You can become a better writer but you'll need to do some concerted work in order to improve. Doing more writing is a huge element of that, but having some guidance along the way will help you improve much more efficiently/quickly. I've recommended this book about 600 times already, and I'll keep doing it till the day I die--or until a better one comes along. http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Tools-Essential-Strategies-Writer/dp/0316014990 It has exercises you can do and an easy-to-understand format. This book, above all others, skyrocketed the quality of my prose several times over. It would be a good place to start if you're serious about improving as a writer. Chillmatic fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jul 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
How Not To Write A Novel is one of the funniest god drat books I have ever read in my life. This remains my favorite bit from it, by far: (on the risks of flat characters who don't emotionally respond to anything that happens in the scene) quote:But when he pulled the covers from the naked form, it was not his wife there at all—it was the lovely Veronica, his brightest and most eager graduate student, wearing nothing but a tattoo of Leonard Cohen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Someone should invent a giant vertical LCD screen the size of a bookshelf. Displayed from top to bottom would be all the ebooks I own. This avoids the "how will I show my one-night stands how intelligent and well-read I am?" ebook problem.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Funk In Shoe posted:Every time you're spending time polishing an "excerpt" from a work you haven't written yet, every time you're posting online in the CC "flash fiction" thread (horrible thread!), you are, essentially, killing off your own manuscript and your own work. I read through your post a few times and have distilled your theme down to this essential quote. This isn't at all to say that the rest of what you wrote wasn't incredibly insightful, but I wanted to draw attention to this particular line for a reason. I've tried to make the same point before, but usually botched my own message in the process, which can be blamed on the frustration of seeing writers making the same mistakes I did. (and sometimes still do) Praise is a drug, effecting warmth and safety--a habit with a high that is easy to obtain yet impossible to main-tain. So tempted is the writer who lacks the drive to exist outside the womb. How far he'll go to avoid that aching, indifferent light of day in which there exists no guarantee of love for every precious word, no promise of reaction for every tortured action. Thunderdome and its ilk are worthwhile as one grapples with the basics of structure, voice, and grammar. But after the achievement of these baseline skills, it can only damage the writer to stay. Addiction, after all, only feeds addiction. Fellow "writers" in an opium den seeking--and finding--no end of warmth, safety, and futility. Put even more simply: If you want to hit a home run, drat the strikeout and drat the crowd; practice--but then show up to the game and swing the loving bat.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
Separate post because gently caress everything that's why. quote:All circles of artists have a fetish for mysticizing their craft, but writers are probably the worst about this. Not probably. Are. Are the worst. I fully believe this is because writing, as it turns out, is utterly unique among all the crafts in just one way: it's the only craft known to man where discussion and dissection of the thing can only be done by using the thing itself. Movie critics don't make movies to critique movies; they write. Music critics don't make songs to critique songs; they write. If your painting sucks, I won't let you know about it by painting my own; I'll write. If my sculpture is juvenile and pathetic, you won't sculpt a high-brow response made from clay; you'll write. But, when responding to or talking about writing we can hardly do anything else but...well, you know. As children, no one is forced to learn an art, but everyone is forced to learn to write. So if everyone writes, then who decides who gets to be a writer? This is why writers are vicious and bitter and terrible to each other. In what other medium can we show off our own chops while simultaneously devastating theirs? I believe this fact is the birth of the kinds of myths you talked about; the fetishizing of the Writer's Truth and the imperative "writing process." How dare anyone who is yet to open a vein over a typewriter claim the mantle of "writer", indeed. "Oh? You believe in outlining before you draft? Well then, dear idiot-child, allow me to *~dazzle*~ you with a tempestuous torrent of trumpery!! I believe it was William Faulkner--or was it Ayn Rand-- who said..." Everyone's guilty of it, but all it does it add to the growing body of "mystique" that surrounds the idea of writing, thus raising the craft's barrier to entry. Which I suppose is the point. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:Unless of course, and I'm just being lame rear end devil's advocate, this is just a hobby/passion and you have no interest in pursuing the publishing deal. Definitely. I totally forgot to address that in my previous posts. Just as some people enjoy painting or making music for themselves, writing for yourself (or for a small audience) can be very rewarding if that's truly the end goal. I think the issue is that many artists seem to pine for something more than what they've currently got, yet are hesitant to break out of that comfort zone. Helsing posted:I'd also argue that if you're labouring month after month on a novel and you've never actually completed and polished a short piece of fiction then you might be getting the cart before the horse. This is a good point, too. Though I'd add that short story writing and novel writing are only about as similar as easel painting and mural painting. Or playing tuba in a garage band vs. playing it in an orchestra. The same, but different. But for sure I agree with you that it might be best to try short stories first, just to see if you have the discipline to both start and finish. It just seems to me that many writers who actually do want to write a full length MS seem to get stuck on the more immediate feedback loop of short story writing/presenting/feedback/writing/presenting/feedback.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Scrivener users: how well does scrivener play with collaborative editing? I'm assuming it does not have a google docs-type mode where two people can edit the same document simultaneously, is that correct? I'm considering downloading it, but really don't want to spend $50 on a program that will force me to copy paste every time I'm in workshop. Unfortunately, no it doesn't. Scrivener actually gets very angry if more than one person has a given project file open at any one time, to the point where it actually pops up a message telling you that it could corrupt the entire thing. It sounds to me like google docs is going to be your best bet if working simultaneously with multiple people is your goal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
A bit of kerosene for the fire: Lord Windy posted:But to me, the idea of a story built around a theme will result in a version of Atlas Shrugged. A few years ago I was given what I think is a very good definition of theme: it's never once explicitly mentioned anywhere in the pages themselves--but, at the same time, theme is what the story is truly about. This is why Atlas Shrugged (and literally every single word Rand ever wrote) is such a shitshow; the thing itself is, flatly, the thing itself. No subtext. No misdirection. Just "this is what I, the author, actually believe. Allow me to further spell it out for you in the plainest, most mannered way possible by filling every page with my mission statement." It's true that lots of bad stories are written like this, sure. Not every story with a theme is good, but all good stories, I believe, have a theme. If the question is "should you start out with a theme already in mind vs. let it develop naturally" then there is no right answer and it's a bit silly to argue otherwise. Do what works for you. Let the size and enthusiasm of your reader base, if not your own satisfaction, help you judge your output. Chairchucker posted:A lot of stories are written primarily just to entertain. No higher meaning, no moral, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I do think it is unreasonable to say that their stories are worthless just because they don't have a message they're trying to impart. But what is it that gives a story lasting, truly entertaining appeal? What is Dorian Gray really about? A painter and a guy who goes crazy? What makes a story like that entertaining?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:it's that you don't, as a writer, sit down and say "THIS IS THE MESSAGE I'M WRITING ABOUT." But some writers do?  I've never been able to do that, myself, but I know at least one writer who does, and she's been pretty successful with that approach.I mentioned Dorian Gray before--I've been re-reading it and think it's got some of the best prose/voice/theme of all time--and believe it's a good example of this topic. Wilde has said that he started writing it with a particular message/theme in mind and so I think it can absolutely work if one is self-aware enough to avoid going full Ayn Rand on everyone. Wilde continually revised his book to tone down some of the more mannered stuff or the things that were clearly his own pet-issues, and I think that kind of self-awareness is the main difference between a Dorian Gray and an Atlas Shrugged. Again I'm not even sure how anyone could have that strong an opinion on this (hilarious coming from me, I know) because the point really is that every good story has a theme, or greater point, but it's up to the individual author to decide if that's something they should start out with or let grow organically during the writing process.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Gygaxian posted:Here's my question: How do I make my dialogue and description less stilted? Jeza and Seb have given you great advice on this. I looked over the story you posted and have a few additional suggestions that might help you clean it up a bit. It looks to me that your biggest issue is a sprinkling of weak-ish words that require even more words to support them. For instance, I feel the voice and impact of your opening paragraph might be made stronger if it looked like this: quote:History will say that John Adams and I died on the Fourth of July, exactly fifty years after Or perhaps even with fewer words... quote:History will correctly say that John Adams and I died on the Fourth of July, exactly fifty years after the birth of our nation. History will incorrectly say that we died as friends. You're trying, I think, to create a contrast in your opening paragraph; right now it just gets a bit muddled with a few extra words (as well as the odd usage of the passive voice in the first sentence that I've edited out). quote:We kept up appearances bit of a cliche to the rest of the country, but our hatred for each other burned brightly quote:
Here I think you might benefit from stronger adjectives than 'secret' and 'beloved' as well as stronger verbs than 'cheat' and 'taste'. This would demonstrate more tone, more voice than I feel is currently present, and would also paint a more vivid picture without adding extra words. A quick n' dirty example: rather than quote:We found our own ways to cheat the Reaper: Adams, with secret technology from his beloved Boston, and I with my taste for the occult. what about quote:"We had found our own devices to shirk the Reaper: Adams, with bewildering technology from his precious Boston, and I with my lust for the arcane." Look for specific, strong words that do the maximum amount of work--this alone will increase clarity and quality and save you a ton of needless words. Aside from that, the next biggest issue I see is just redundancy. To reinforce what Jeza pointed out: quote:No continent was left untouched by our feud, and nearly every nation felt the weight of our rivalry. This sentence says the same thing twice; the first half is better, cut the rest and I think it makes a bigger impact. quote:The only conflict of that century that we did not take part in to fuel our vain attempts at murdering each other was the War Between the States, a decidedly uncivil war. Bad, bad sentence. "Vain attempts at murdering each other" is something that the rest of the story already covers quite nicely. (and you literally call them 'vain attempts' twice) That color needn't be placed in an already long sentence, but if you really think it's necessary, use stronger words, cut the weak ones, and rearrange until it flows nicely. quote:I believe it was Adams who suggested that we should fight on the fourth day of every July, to amuse ourselves in the irony of one of us dying on the same day that we both provided an obituary for history’s sake. This sentence is very difficult to parse. Revise, cut, etc. quote:My suspicions immediately rose, for we had tried to kill each other for nearly two centuries. We already know that! As for your dialogue, it's interesting because while it isn't remotely what I'd call terrible, it's still a good example of the characters saying, rather flatly, exactly what they mean. Remember the subtext and background you went to such trouble of establishing; there's no need to remind us so constantly and so flatly of the characters' motivations and emotions. Use dialogue to reveal character and tell us things that we don't already know. Use it to supplement your prose, not to blandly reinforce it. Other than that, try and work on being more specific with your dialogue. quote:I barked out a short laugh. “Adams, if you had met the beings I had, and made the deals that I have made, you wouldn’t be so eager to leave this earth.” What beings? What deals? A brief, interesting example of each would have brought this line alive--but now it's just a flat retelling of something that you expect your reader to just assume is interesting, when we've got no real reason to think so. Most of the lines you wrote have this problem, so just go through them and work on being more specific and exact. And be sure, as Seb pointed out, to remember subtext and the hidden goals of each character, and imbue everything with that in mind. Very interesting story, by the way. I found myself wishing it was longer and more detailed. Chillmatic fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Oct 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 01:26
|
|