For All Future Authors..

[Realitycrash]

(This is me and my lamentations concerning several styles of writing. It does not mean people are not free to enjoy whatever they like. It's me, humorously, criticizing them. The purpose of the thread is to add your own lamentations over styles and patters. So, go ahead. Not necessarily limited to books, but any form of story-telling)

1 For all future authors, here is an important rule: You get ONE (1) metaphor OR ONE (1) Simile PER SENTENCE.
One ought to think that it is more than sufficient and overly generous, yet it's been proven time and time again that you can't even handle this.

2 You are not JRR Tolkien. A sentence has a beginning, a middle, an end, and serves a purpose. A sentence is not an entire paragraph with dislocated abstract figures of speech and an abundance of adjectives.
If that is what you fancy, then you should write modern prose poetry.
And then suffer public execution.

3 Finally, if you simply must go on a dreamy tangent not at all related to the plot, where you expound upon the inner wishes and desires of your main character, please oh-sweet-mercyful-christ-please make it abundantly clear that this is indeed a dreamy tangent and a figment of the characters imagination. Because neither are you Pynchon. If you were, you'd be facing public execution, and we do not want that, do we? Because I like you. I really do

 

[Elfgore]

2 You are not JRR Tolkien. A sentence has a beginning, a middle, an end, and serves a purpose. A sentence is not an entire paragraph with dislocated abstract figures of speech and an abundance of adjectives.
If that is what you fancy, then you should write modern prose poetry.
And then suffer public execution.

This a thousands times over. I love fantasy, therefore I should have read and enjoyed Tolkien's books. In reality the only book of his I enjoyed was The Hobbit and the rest I bought to support Christopher Tolkien I guess.

Another hint, if you overuse the thesaurus button on word, I will chuck your book across the room and most likely face public execution. If you don't know the word, don't use it. Also avoiding repeating the same word over and over. I read two series from one author and I think the word convulsed appeared around a thousand times. (This is all as a reader and what annoys me, not from an authors standpoint)

 

[shrekfan246]

(This is me and my lamentations concerning several styles of writing. It does not mean people are not free to enjoy whatever they like. It's me, humorously, criticizing them. The purpose of the thread is to add your own lamentations over styles and patters. So, go ahead. Not necessarily limited to books, but any form of story-telling)

1 For all future authors, here is an important rule: You get ONE (1) metaphor OR ONE (1) Simile PER SENTENCE.
One ought to think that it is more than sufficient and overly generous, yet it's been proven time and time again that you can't even handle this.

But how can they prove the flourish of their pens when they're forced into restraint, chained like a prisoner awaiting execution while wishing for the freedom of a bird, fearing the angry mob like so many stones rained down upon their person?

2 You are not JRR Tolkien. A sentence has a beginning, a middle, an end, and serves a purpose. A sentence is not an entire paragraph with dislocated abstract figures of speech and an abundance of adjectives.
If that is what you fancy, then you should write modern prose poetry.
And then suffer public execution.

He spoke the words resolutely but on these endless wires, the paths traveled in an instant by technology both sublime and unreal, connecting an entire world together with boundless abandon and allowing the instant communication only dreamed of in years gone by, he must have known they would go unheeded. For people are nothing if not stubborn when set in their ways. One would find it more and more difficult to sway them every morn, their hard personalities grown large as a redwood and even more rigid, festering like the rot of a plague over a ruined village at midday with nothing but the carrion birds for company.

3 Finally, if you simply must go on a dreamy tangent not at all related to the plot, where you expound upon the inner wishes and desires of your main character, please oh-sweet-mercyful-christ-please make it abundantly clear that this is indeed a dreamy tangent and a figment of the characters imagination. Because neither are you Pynchon. If you were, you'd be facing public execution, and we do not want that, do we? Because I like you. I really do

Was it simply a fever dream, though? He would never know. How could he, when all those around him were more bother than help. A few answers, that was all he asked, but he never got them. Cursed to roam the endless boards with no discernible landmarks--and in fact no evident land either--wandering the barren halls, haunted by the voices shouted from no mouth, stared upon by the faces with no eyes, while his own words were heard by those without ears. It felt an eternity before he found something he dared to call 'human'.

 

[Realitycrash]

(This is me and my lamentations concerning several styles of writing. It does not mean people are not free to enjoy whatever they like. It's me, humorously, criticizing them. The purpose of the thread is to add your own lamentations over styles and patters. So, go ahead. Not necessarily limited to books, but any form of story-telling)

1 For all future authors, here is an important rule: You get ONE (1) metaphor OR ONE (1) Simile PER SENTENCE.
One ought to think that it is more than sufficient and overly generous, yet it's been proven time and time again that you can't even handle this.

But how can they prove the flourish of their pens when they're forced into restraint, chained like a prisoner awaiting execution while wishing for the freedom of a bird, fearing the angry mob like so many stones rained down upon their person?

2 You are not JRR Tolkien. A sentence has a beginning, a middle, an end, and serves a purpose. A sentence is not an entire paragraph with dislocated abstract figures of speech and an abundance of adjectives.
If that is what you fancy, then you should write modern prose poetry.
And then suffer public execution.

He spoke the words resolutely but on these endless wires, the paths traveled in an instant by technology both sublime and unreal, connecting an entire world together with boundless abandon and allowing the instant communication only dreamed of in years gone by, he must have known they would go unheeded. For people are nothing if not stubborn when set in their ways. One would find it more and more difficult to sway them every morn, their hard personalities grown large as a redwood and even more rigid, festering like the rot of a plague over a ruined village at midday with nothing but the carrion birds for company.

3 Finally, if you simply must go on a dreamy tangent not at all related to the plot, where you expound upon the inner wishes and desires of your main character, please oh-sweet-mercyful-christ-please make it abundantly clear that this is indeed a dreamy tangent and a figment of the characters imagination. Because neither are you Pynchon. If you were, you'd be facing public execution, and we do not want that, do we? Because I like you. I really do

Was it simply a fever dream, though? He would never know. How could he, when all those around him were more bother than help. A few answers, that was all he asked, but he never got them. Cursed to roam the endless boards with no discernible landmarks--and in fact no evident land either--wandering the barren halls, haunted by the voices shouted from no mouth, stared upon by the faces with no eyes, while his own words were heard by those without ears. It felt an eternity before he found something he dared to call 'human'.

-.-
Very funny. Is "Temping Fate" what you would like to a have engraved on your tombstone?

 

[shrekfan246]

-.-
Very funny. Is "Temping Fate" what you would like to a have engraved on your tombstone?

I think something like "He died as he lived: Making terrible jokes" would be more fitting.

 

[Queen Michael]

Let me add one point:

You are neither Andrew Hussie nor Don Bluth. If there is a regular word for the object, and it doesn't have any obvious cultural conntations that would make that word unusable in a fantasy setting, then you WILL use the regula word. If it walks like a sword and talks like a sword then you damn well don't call it an ashteraz, and you sure as hell don't use italics. It's not a "smeerp," it's a rabbit. It's not a "wing-creature," it's a bird.

 

[Realitycrash]

Let me add one point:

You are neither Andrew Hussie nor Don Bluth. If there is a regular word for the object, and it doesn't have any obvious cultural conntations that would make that word unusable in a fantasy setting, then you WILL use the regula word. If it walks like a sword and talks like a sword then you damn well don't call it an ashteraz, and you sure as hell don't use italics. It's not a "smeerp," it's a rabbit. It's not a "wing-creature," it's a bird.

I know Hussie. Who's Don Bluth?

 

[Queen Michael]

Let me add one point:

You are neither Andrew Hussie nor Don Bluth. If there is a regular word for the object, and it doesn't have any obvious cultural conntations that would make that word unusable in a fantasy setting, then you WILL use the regula word. If it walks like a sword and talks like a sword then you damn well don't call it an ashteraz, and you sure as hell don't use italics. It's not a "smeerp," it's a rabbit. It's not a "wing-creature," it's a bird.

I know Hussie. Who's Don Bluth?

The movie director who directed the awesome movie The Land Before Time (and not any of the okay-to awful sequels. Don't blame him for them). In it, the herbivore dinosaurs call leaves "green food," the sun is "the great circle," and so on. He makes it work, but he and Hussie are the only ones who do.

 

[Thaluikhain]

1 For all future authors, here is an important rule: You get ONE (1) metaphor OR ONE (1) Simile PER SENTENCE.
One ought to think that it is more than sufficient and overly generous, yet it's been proven time and time again that you can't even handle this.

But but but...then nobody can take arms against a sea of troubles. They'll have to suffer slings and arrows of outrageous fortune instead, and that was in the same sentence.

 

[Realitycrash]

1 For all future authors, here is an important rule: You get ONE (1) metaphor OR ONE (1) Simile PER SENTENCE.
One ought to think that it is more than sufficient and overly generous, yet it's been proven time and time again that you can't even handle this.

But but but...then nobody can take arms against a sea of troubles. They'll have to suffer slings and arrows of outrageous fortune instead, and that was in the same sentence.

Maybe I should clarify: I'm making a difference between prose, poetry and plays. My rules are meant to be imposed upon prose. In the case of prose, it isn't that hard to rephrase yourself so that a single sentence isn't stretched out endlessly with metaphors. "Tale arms against a sea of troubles" can easily be seen as one metaphor.
However, to "take arms against a sea of troubles, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune whiles Apollo sets and Sin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_%28mythology%29] rises, one handing to the other the reins of mischievous devices." is simply right out in prose fiction.

(I'm actually quite proud of that final stanza.)

 

[senordesol]

Let me add one point:

You are neither Andrew Hussie nor Don Bluth. If there is a regular word for the object, and it doesn't have any obvious cultural conntations that would make that word unusable in a fantasy setting, then you WILL use the regula word. If it walks like a sword and talks like a sword then you damn well don't call it an ashteraz, and you sure as hell don't use italics. It's not a "smeerp," it's a rabbit. It's not a "wing-creature," it's a bird.

If you're using real-world creatures in a fantasy setting, you might be doing 'fantasy' wrong.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

What's with all this Tolkien flaming recently? They're good books, if you have the patience and the concentration to go through them. They're dense read, sure. So is War & Peace, if all those cartoons are anything to go by.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Let me add one point:

You are neither Andrew Hussie nor Don Bluth. If there is a regular word for the object, and it doesn't have any obvious cultural conntations that would make that word unusable in a fantasy setting, then you WILL use the regula word. If it walks like a sword and talks like a sword then you damn well don't call it an ashteraz, and you sure as hell don't use italics. It's not a "smeerp," it's a rabbit. It's not a "wing-creature," it's a bird.

If you're using real-world creatures in a fantasy setting, you might be doing 'fantasy' wrong.

Er...what?

So, humans and horses and dogs shouldn't be in fantasy? Hey?

 

[Queen Michael]

Let me add one point:

You are neither Andrew Hussie nor Don Bluth. If there is a regular word for the object, and it doesn't have any obvious cultural conntations that would make that word unusable in a fantasy setting, then you WILL use the regula word. If it walks like a sword and talks like a sword then you damn well don't call it an ashteraz, and you sure as hell don't use italics. It's not a "smeerp," it's a rabbit. It's not a "wing-creature," it's a bird.

If you're using real-world creatures in a fantasy setting, you might be doing 'fantasy' wrong.

To illustrate why I disagree, I'll just mention that in Lord of the Rings, Gandalf was riding "Shadowfax, lord of all horses" and not "Ergim, lord of all hizznars." In fact, I can't think of a single successful traditional fantasy series that doesn't include horses. Birds and dogs are also common.

 

[shrekfan246]

What's with all this Tolkien flaming recently? They're good books, if you have the patience and the concentration to go through them. They're dense read, sure. So is War & Peace, if all those cartoons are anything to go by.

Tolkien was much more concerned with grandiose descriptions and intricately expanding the lore than he was with actually advancing the narrative forward. As a poet and philologist, he was also much better at setting up and describing the lore than he was actual specific events as they happened within the story.

It creates a somewhat stilted structure for people to try following.

I mean, I agree that they're good books for all intents and purposes, but their 'density' can flip over to being tedious and boring to the people who just want the story to get on with itself instead of reading another page and a half about those steps Frodo needs to climb.

 

[Queen Michael]

What's with all this Tolkien flaming recently? They're good books, if you have the patience and the concentration to go through them. They're dense read, sure. So is War & Peace, if all those cartoons are anything to go by.

Personally, I absolutely love Tolkien and Lord of The Rings. And I honestly didn't find it dense at all. To me, a good book is never dense while a bad book is always dense (or at least dull).

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Tolkien was much more concerned with grandiose descriptions and intricately expanding the lore than he was with actually advancing the narrative forward. As a poet and philologist, he was also much better at setting up and describing the lore than he was actual specific events as they happened within the story.

It creates a somewhat stilted structure for people to try following.

I mean, I agree that they're good books for all intents and purposes, but their 'density' can flip over to being tedious and boring to the people who just want the story to get on with itself instead of reading another page and a half about those steps Frodo needs to climb.

Personally, I absolutely love Tolkien and Lord of The Rings. And I honestly didn't find it dense at all. To me, a good book is never dense while a bad book is always dense (or at least dull).

I do get that the LOTR books focus on everything but the miscellanea involving the actual Fellowship. History and topography are the narrator's main concerns as opposed to character interaction or the particulars of their quest. But I saw this as a way of framing the adventure in a bigger-than-life world. You actually felt the distance between Mordor and wherever they were at the time.

Personally, though, I think I enjoyed the Silmarillion more. All that epic build-up and grandiosity fit that book much more.

 

[Lionsfan]

Let me add one point:

You are neither Andrew Hussie nor Don Bluth. If there is a regular word for the object, and it doesn't have any obvious cultural conntations that would make that word unusable in a fantasy setting, then you WILL use the regula word. If it walks like a sword and talks like a sword then you damn well don't call it an ashteraz, and you sure as hell don't use italics. It's not a "smeerp," it's a rabbit. It's not a "wing-creature," it's a bird.

As always, XKCD has the answer:

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Another thing, I know you're all proud that you're writing a book, and good for you, really I mean that. And it's good that you have high hopes for it.

But lay off the drugs man when you're talking about your book. Don't tell me how you just want to do what George R.R Martin does, and live in the country and write books.

He wrote for like 10 years before A Song of Fire and Ice, and even then nobody knew about them. You didn't even know who George R.R Martin was before Game of Thrones (HBO) came out so can it. J.K Rowling and Stephanie Meyer screwed it up for everyone. 95% of the time you have to put in a lot of work before you're going to "get big", and even then, that's subjective.

And no, your book isn't going to revolutionize how people look at *insert genre here*.

 

[Queen Michael]

You didn't even know who George R.R Martin was before Game of Thrones (HBO) came out so can it.

You silly person, I knew about him years before.

 

[Lionsfan]

You didn't even know who George R.R Martin was before Game of Thrones (HBO) came out so can it.

You silly person, I knew about him years before.

Sorry mate, wasn't specifically talking to you.