For All Future Authors..

[Arnoxthe1]

I'd add 1) Sex can be referred to, but tastefully, and with a minimum of description, and 2) Don't write in first person. I have read My Immortal, as a joke, and by god is it painful. The second part comes because I can't remember reading a book in first person which wasn't awkward at some point. Some of the short stories pulled it off, though.

But... What? That's how most stories are. They follow the protagonist and his/her thoughts.

 

[senordesol]

What do you guys think about once off third person chapters?

I'm considering every two to three chapters having a chapter one third the length of the protagonists that jumps to another location and follows a minor character for a bit. Tv tropes gave me the impression this is frowned on or will be misconstrued as lazy cheating if the character sees something related to the plot that the protagonist couldn't. But my intention would be to take a break from the fish out of water, bewildered by everything protagonist to get some worldbuilding done that doesn't need to be in the form of a expository conversation. Still annoying?

If so is there anyway it can it be done well? I know this isn't writers workshop or anything but I'd appreciate the advice from anyone willing to show off

Depends on what you mean by 'minor character'. If he's just there to accomplish the role of 'finding stuff out that the protag can't' and serves no other purpose apart from that role, then -yeah- it's a bit lazy...and it's even worse if, in an attempt to avoid that, you give the minor character some contrived role in the finale that totally breaks everything they've been about up to this point (Like Catwoman in TDKR).

 

[Queen Michael]

I've never heard of a single writer that gets it right the first time-

Julio Cortázar almost never rewrote his stories. Of course, he's an exception.

 

[deathjavu]

Another rule: all writing rules are made to be broken...

BUT only once you know and understand them.

They're there for a reason, and if you don't get why any attempts to subvert them is just going to end with a shitty story.

Other, somewhat related rule: the first 100,000 to 1,000,000 words you write will be bad. It's just a fact, writing is a skill and like any skill, almost no one is anything approaching good without loads and loads of practice.

Other other rule: No one cares about your "idea" because "ideas" are nothing. Everyone has ideas. There are some terrible sounding ideas that result in amazing books. There are amazing ideas that result in terrible books. Writing is all about execution.

If you want people to care about your idea, show them the writing you've done with it. The idea itself is kind of meaningless. It's too vague, too unimpressive and everyone has em.

 

[Fractral]

I'd add 1) Sex can be referred to, but tastefully, and with a minimum of description, and 2) Don't write in first person. I have read My Immortal, as a joke, and by god is it painful. The second part comes because I can't remember reading a book in first person which wasn't awkward at some point. Some of the short stories pulled it off, though.

But... What? That's how most stories are. They follow the protagonist and his/her thoughts.

I suppose it's just a personal preference. You can have main characters and follow their thoughts in third person- most novels I've read are in third person and manage this just fine. It probably comes from bad writers who end up writing 'I did this and then I did this' and it becomes less of a story and more of a boring recount of the authors tale. It also, at least for me, lessens the chance of author projection, which always ends up boring because the author makes their character 'super awesome' when I want an actually interesting character.

 

[freaper]

Are we talking about anyone in particular? Because honestly, while his novels were quite entertaining, if I read one more time "his laughter was like fresh fruit" I'll go punch Patrick Rothfuss in the dick.

 

[KeyMaster45]

*snip*

Funny, but off topic note: Your avatar matches perfectly with the beat of the rap music being blared from the high school football stadium next to my dormitory.

OT: Since the topic seems to have shifted to the quality of Tolkein's work, I have a confession to make.

I read all three LoTR books...but I skimmed Sam and Frodo's final trek up Mt. Doom that went on for several pages. I just couldn't take the lengthy descriptions anymore.

 

[Stephen Wo]

I've got a rule. Lay off. Let people write what they want to write. Don't bog people down with unnecessary rules and regulations just because you don't like something. Plenty of great authors defied conventions like the one's you're laying down and their stuff turned out great because of it. Get off your high horse.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

I'd add 1) Sex can be referred to, but tastefully, and with a minimum of description, and 2) Don't write in first person. I have read My Immortal, as a joke, and by god is it painful. The second part comes because I can't remember reading a book in first person which wasn't awkward at some point. Some of the short stories pulled it off, though.

1) Yes please.

2) First person is indeed the minority, but I have read some good ones. Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Trilogy comes to mind, but if you're just warning aspiring new writers away from it I agree. Also My Immortal was deliberately bad.

'Nice topic', WhinteFangofWar ejaculated. 'I would like to hear the opinion of the OP and the other posters on Said Bookism (the overuse of the word 'said' when characters are talking versus the use of increasingly stranger alternatives)', he drawled.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

My biggest problem is trying to figure out how to get what I see in my mind onto paper. I'm always imagining more than I know how to express and I'm never sure if what I've got is enough or even believable.

Oh good lord, this! I *want* to just write all of those good ideas I have, but it usually ends up in either a mess, or an incoherent string of only vaguely related events, or possibly detours.

Edit: Also, to whomever said 'don't write in the first person'...come on. A bit of variety never hurt, and as for good examples of it done well, have you ever checked out The Dresden Files?

Edit 2: Andrew Hussie is an overrated, talentless hack, and I don't see why people like Homestuck, much less praise the godawful writing. Seriously.

Spoiler

HONKHONKHONKHONAMICOOLYET!!!!

Spoiler

Sorry about that, that was highly immature

 

[deathjavu]

I've got a rule. Lay off. Let people write what they want to write. Don't bog people down with unnecessary rules and regulations just because you don't like something. Plenty of great authors defied conventions like the one's you're laying down and their stuff turned out great because of it. Get off your high horse.

Another rule: all writing rules are made to be broken...

BUT only once you know and understand them.

They're there for a reason, and if you don't get why any attempts to subvert them is just going to end with a shitty story.

A few years ago I would have probably agreed with you, but the "rules" aren't just conjured from thin air. They all exist for a reason, and it takes a lot of work to get around them without ruining the story.

Not that I agree all of the rules listed thus far are legit. No first person? Wow, uh, you've just nixed something like 40-60% of all books ever. Maybe the problem was the authors, not the style.

Which brings me neatly back to my original point- it's all in the execution. The rules are more like... helpful guidelines. Methods and tricks for beginners. Which I can almost guarantee includes all of us. Anyone who thinks they're somehow above or past these rules is probably full of themselves.

Edit 2: Andrew Hussie is an overrated, talentless hack, and I don't see why people like Homestuck, much less praise the godawful writing. Seriously.

Well, one method of being recognized as a good writer is volume, also known as the Steven King method. There's that.

I'm a plot junkie and Homestuck has about one of the biggest, grandest and yet most(ly) logical plots I've ever seen.

Homestuck also consistently makes me laugh via character gags, warped callbacks and meta-aware self-deprecating irony.

I used to really love the characters too, but I think there's far too many for the pace of the story to sustain them all now. They're really withering from underexposure; Hussie will, like the readers (or any human), gradually forget what characters were supposed to be like after not interacting with them for weeks or months at a time.

Also Gamzee is nothing but an overpowered, improbably resiliant clown-based plot device now. He's like annoying purple spackle for the story. Any humor in him was pile-driven into the ground a long time ago, and now I just feel annoyed when he shows up.

 

[Brian Tams]

Someone needs to go find Christopher Paolini and forcefully ram these points into his noggin.

You should probably add "Use big words where applicable", as in, don't just use gigantic words for the sake of using gigantic words.

 

[contagonist]

I see Joseph Campbell as the Albert Einstein of fiction: a well meaning guy who made a remarkable discovery that wound up making the world worse for everyone.

Einstein, relativity, nuclear bomb. Cambell, Hero's Journey, 90% of genre fiction ever since.

Just because your piece features a reluctant hero being pushed into the other realm to kill his myth-dad and bring the the sacred rainbow semen back to all the useless boring plural pronouns he left (and it is indeed a 'he'), doesn't mean you're making a myth. You're making painfully derivative schlock, which makes not only you boring, but also your fiction boring.

Which is terrible.

Every time a writer apes the Hero's Journey, they are trying to hammer in some timeless quality into their work. This backfires, and makes their work out of date.

Here is a hint: we don't remember ancient myths because Farmboy McAveragefucker's symbolic patricide. We remember them because they are ancient myths. They were first.

Your chosen one is not first. He will not be remembered.

Stop.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

I see Joseph Campbell as the Albert Einstein of fiction: a well meaning guy who made a remarkable discovery that wound up making the world worse for everyone.

Einstein, relativity, nuclear bomb. Cambell, Hero's Journey, 90% of genre fiction ever since.

Just because your piece features a reluctant hero being pushed into the other realm to kill his myth-dad and bring the the sacred rainbow semen back to all the useless boring plural pronouns he left (and it is indeed a 'he'), doesn't mean you're making a myth. You're making painfully derivative schlock, which makes not only you boring, but also your fiction boring.

Which is terrible.

Every time a writer apes the Hero's Journey, they are trying to hammer in some timeless quality into their work. This backfires, and makes their work out of date.

Here is a hint: we don't remember ancient myths because Farmboy McAveragefucker's symbolic patricide. We remember them because they are ancient myths. They were first.

Your chosen one is not first. He will not be remembered.

Stop.

I agree with this so much that it's not even funny. Seriously, that fucking formula needs to go away. Like, now.

 

[Queen Michael]

Hussie will, like the readers (or any human), gradually forget what characters were supposed to be like after not interacting with them for weeks or months at a time.

I haven't noticed this myself. Do you have any examples?

 

[Realitycrash]

I'd add 1) Sex can be referred to, but tastefully, and with a minimum of description, and 2) Don't write in first person. I have read My Immortal, as a joke, and by god is it painful. The second part comes because I can't remember reading a book in first person which wasn't awkward at some point. Some of the short stories pulled it off, though.

First Person works fine, for certain authors. If it is written as a journal looking back on your adventures, i.e First Person Imperfect (Which is an awesome name for a band, so DIBS!), then it works just fine. Many narrations use this technique (Imagine pretty much any movie which begins with an old story-teller going 'I was a young man back then').
For example, Dresden Files is an awesome series, and uses First Person.
I prefer Third-person, through.

 

[Realitycrash]

I've got a rule. Lay off. Let people write what they want to write. Don't bog people down with unnecessary rules and regulations just because you don't like something. Plenty of great authors defied conventions like the one's you're laying down and their stuff turned out great because of it. Get off your high horse.

Please read the very first thing posted in this topic, in the OP. It's helpfully placed within parenthesizes.

Another rule: all writing rules are made to be broken...

BUT only once you know and understand them.

They're there for a reason, and if you don't get why any attempts to subvert them is just going to end with a shitty story.

A few years ago I would have probably agreed with you, but the "rules" aren't just conjured from thin air. They all exist for a reason, and it takes a lot of work to get around them without ruining the story.

Not that I agree all of the rules listed thus far are legit. No first person? Wow, uh, you've just nixed something like 40-60% of all books ever. Maybe the problem was the authors, not the style.

Which brings me neatly back to my original point- it's all in the execution. The rules are more like... helpful guidelines. Methods and tricks for beginners. Which I can almost guarantee includes all of us. Anyone who thinks they're somehow above or past these rules is probably full of themselves.

Edit 2: Andrew Hussie is an overrated, talentless hack, and I don't see why people like Homestuck, much less praise the godawful writing. Seriously.

Well, one method of being recognized as a good writer is volume, also known as the Steven King method. There's that.

I'm a plot junkie and Homestuck has about one of the biggest, grandest and yet most(ly) logical plots I've ever seen.

Homestuck also consistently makes me laugh via character gags, warped callbacks and meta-aware self-deprecating irony.

I used to really love the characters too, but I think there's far too many for the pace of the story to sustain them all now. They're really withering from underexposure; Hussie will, like the readers (or any human), gradually forget what characters were supposed to be like after not interacting with them for weeks or months at a time.

Also Gamzee is nothing but an overpowered, improbably resiliant clown-based plot device now. He's like annoying purple spackle for the story. Any humor in him was pile-driven into the ground a long time ago, and now I just feel annoyed when he shows up.

I actually love Homestuck as well, mostly for the humor, the plot, the music and one or two excellent characters.
But I have to say that Hussie, while certainly not talentless, has issues with his prose. Oh, sure, there's plenty of golden nuggets in it, more than enough to keep reading, but those nuggets are being excavated from a deep sedimentary layer of excrement. Sometimes his Pesterchum conversations just go on and on and OOOOOON and I just can't be arsed. It's fun that he is trying to show the average instant-messaging conversation of bored youths, but he has to learn when to stop.
Also, some plot-lines aren't that great, and would benefit from being cut short.

 

[Realitycrash]

I see Joseph Campbell as the Albert Einstein of fiction: a well meaning guy who made a remarkable discovery that wound up making the world worse for everyone.

Einstein, relativity, nuclear bomb. Cambell, Hero's Journey, 90% of genre fiction ever since.

Just because your piece features a reluctant hero being pushed into the other realm to kill his myth-dad and bring the the sacred rainbow semen back to all the useless boring plural pronouns he left (and it is indeed a 'he'), doesn't mean you're making a myth. You're making painfully derivative schlock, which makes not only you boring, but also your fiction boring.

Which is terrible.

Every time a writer apes the Hero's Journey, they are trying to hammer in some timeless quality into their work. This backfires, and makes their work out of date.

Here is a hint: we don't remember ancient myths because Farmboy McAveragefucker's symbolic patricide. We remember them because they are ancient myths. They were first.

Your chosen one is not first. He will not be remembered.

Stop.

Didn't that book sort of 'show' (or argue) that there are only so many (like 8?) variations of a basic story, so aren't we screwed either way?

 

[saluraropicrusa]

Edit 2: Andrew Hussie is an overrated, talentless hack, and I don't see why people like Homestuck, much less praise the godawful writing. Seriously.

Well, one method of being recognized as a good writer is volume, also known as the Steven King method. There's that.

I'm a plot junkie and Homestuck has about one of the biggest, grandest and yet most(ly) logical plots I've ever seen.

Homestuck also consistently makes me laugh via character gags, warped callbacks and meta-aware self-deprecating irony.

I used to really love the characters too, but I think there's far too many for the pace of the story to sustain them all now. They're really withering from underexposure; Hussie will, like the readers (or any human), gradually forget what characters were supposed to be like after not interacting with them for weeks or months at a time.

Also Gamzee is nothing but an overpowered, improbably resiliant clown-based plot device now. He's like annoying purple spackle for the story. Any humor in him was pile-driven into the ground a long time ago, and now I just feel annoyed when he shows up.

I'm a Homestuck fan, and I pretty much agree with what you guys have said.

I'm not really a fan of the comic's plot, think the pacing is garbage (and some of the writing is pretty bad), I kinda really don't like Hussie himself, and I'm only reading the comic now to see how it ends.

The only thing I like about the whole affair are the characters, and most of the ones I like are dead (not that it actually means anything AT ALL for someone to be dead in that comic).

And, yeah, I don't really like the direction Gamzee's taken. I would have preferred it if he'd stayed consistently terrifying/violent, instead of having such a long period of being The Silly Reaction Face Clown who's sometimes hidden in a corner of a panel and then SURPRISE SHARK FACE. He used to be one of my favorite characters... but it's hard to enjoy him as a character lately.

I... have nothing to add to this topic. I just wanted to jump in on the Homestuck talk 'cause I almost never get to complain about it.

 

[Realitycrash]

'Nice topic', WhinteFangofWar ejaculated. 'I would like to hear the opinion of the OP and the other posters on Said Bookism (the overuse of the word 'said' when characters are talking versus the use of increasingly stranger alteratives)', he drawled.

When I write, I prefer to stick to my rule (which I will not enforce on others, however, because it's just personal taste and not something that majorly bugs me) that you should never use the same adjective or verb twice in the same paragraph. Nouns are fine. However there are exceptions. Sometimes, it just looks silly to use some extravagant and old-fashioned synonym for "smile", even if the word comes up three-five times in two paragraphs next to each-other. If you truly can't rework the text to avoid using the word without changing the meaning, then go for it.
Problem (at times) is that many synonyms have very subtle different meanings, nuances, and aren't truly synonyms. 'Drawled' does not mean exactly the same as 'said'. 'Ejaculated' will RARELY work as a word carrying the meaning 'He said', with its heavy sexual overtones. Sure, you can use them, but some characters are described as having certain quirks or manners/patterns of speech, and using a different word to describe an action just to make it look nicer will not jive well with said characters patterns.

An easy way to avoid this, at least for 'Said', is to just not write it out all the time. For example:

John jumped off the side-walk into a small pool of gathered rain-water, slowly circling down the drain. He landed with a satisfying splash, soaking his brand new sneakers.
"Why must you always ruin good things?" Jake sighed behind him.
- "I don't know, maybe I see it as improving, ever thought of that?" John replied.
- "How so?"
- "Well, now they won't have that awful 'new-shoe smell'. I could never stand that. I mean, I like 'new-car smell', but 'new shoe'? Eww."
- "Could you possibly get any weirder?"
John smirked, bent his knees, took aim for another puddle, and catapulted himself into it. This time, he drenched not only himself, but Jake too.
- "If I'm weird, then so are you, brother".