Writer's Corner: Writing for fun and profit (but mostly fun)

[Yora]

Anyone of you writing on something? Or considering to start to write something?

I've been spending about the last three weeks learning about things that are useful to know and common mistakes that are easy to avoid. But I am just not having the right idea to start writing. It's not that I don't have any good ideas, but when I think about them some more, they become so good that I rather want to keep them for later when I am better and not waste them now. :smallbiggrin:

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Trust me, ideas don't run out. Write your ideas now, and you'll get better ideas for later. :smallbiggrin:

I'm actually a bit ashamed I haven't made more of my writing, but I do want to change that. I'm currently starting work on a fantasy short story that I'm planning to shop around, and I want to write other standalone stories set in the same world that I could send to other publishers. Not for big money, but hey, getting published.

[Piggy Knowles]

When I was in my late teens and early twenties, I played the publishing game a lot more, mostly with short stories. Never got any money worth mentioning, but managed to get a few things published. I keep thinking about getting back into it, but inertia is hard to fight.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

By the way, if you're looking for some punchy writing advice, look up Chuck Wendig's blog, Terrible Minds. He's rather...crass...and his posts would generally not be appropriate for GiantITP, but he's sharp as a knife and knows what he's doing.

[Mx.Silver]

Write something. If you are not writing something then you are not a writer.

That is the single most important thing you have to know. Advice on how to be a better writer is all well and good, but it requires you to be a writer in the first place.


It's not that I don't have any good ideas, but when I think about them some more, they become so good that I rather want to keep them for later when I am better and not waste them now.
You are not going to get better if you are not writing anything now. Not only that but if you are not using an idea then that idea is being wasted. Yes, it will most likely be bad. All early attempts at writing are bad. That's why nobody publishes the first draft of a story.

If you're still concerned about 'wasting it', remember that there is nothing stopping you going back to that concept later down the line if you still think it actually is worth using. Because that's the other point, unless you're writing, you will not have a good idea of whether or not your concept actually is good.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Another thing I thought of: if you write something just to keep writing, and never wind up publishing it, you could definitely cannibalize it later if you're writing to get published. And if you don't aim to be published period, who cares if you re-use stuff? :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

Brandon Sanderson has given two classes on writing that were recorded and uploaded on youtube. I think the account is "Writing about Dragons" or something like that. Really useful stuff for people not familiar with common components that are used in stories as we're used to them (and maybe to people who know a bit already as well).
Much of it is really quite simple advice, but things you don't necessarily come to realize by yourself. Things like "a character who can be terrible person still appears likeable when we see him mostly from the perspective from his friend" or "characters appear much deeper if they have at least one interest that is unrelated to his goal in the story". I very much recommend checking it out.

To bring up a specific question: Naming things!

I have a pretty good idea for a world with a rough geographical layout and different cultures, but it's just so impossible to give names to any of these. When I have a vague idea of a character from "that place", who travels to "those mountains" and runs into one of his peoples enemies from "that other place", I always feel that I have to go back to the name list (not that long, only about 50 items) and first name all these places and cultures.
And it takes ages to get just a single name, and that one usually sounds terrible.

[jseah]

I write for fun (more like, I would like to write for profit but between a day job and other interests, I will never write enough to get there =( ).
My current projects are a Transcendence alternate endings fanfiction and original work Twin Faces of the Sky (link from my signature is the old version, I'm currently stalled at 2/3 of the way through a ground up re-write). My most proud-of work is original work Time is Like a River.

One thing I noticed after a few years was that I have too many story ideas and not enough time to write them all. Most aren't good enough to develop into a story and so sit gathering dust until I accrete enough related ideas to combine them (with alteration) into a story-worthy idea. Even so, I have so many scraps and notes collected that I could have no ideas for the next five years and have writing as a day job and I still wouldn't run out of ideas.
You never run out of ideas to write about. A story idea that could occupy you for a year pops up at a frequency of maybe once a month.

[AdmiralCheez]

Biggest, most obvious piece of advice for writing: just write something. Even if you think your skill isn't ready for some of the ideas you have, write them out anyway. That's called a rough draft, something that never, ever gets published. You can always refine it later, start it again, or publish it and reboot it later on. And do write down everything, even the smallest thoughts. I always carry a small notebook and a pen with me at all times just in case I think of something. I've filled five books with nothing but ideas. Okay, sometimes I write down other important things like addresses, or grocery lists, but they're mostly writing ideas.

Another tip, don't be afraid to ask for help developing ideas. Some of the things I'm most proud of only got that way because I consulted with someone, like a writing workshop, or a close friend that also happens to be a writer.

As for what I'm working on, recently I've been doing a boatload of research for a setting I'm creating, though I haven't decided if the story will be prose or graphic novel/webcomic. I'm also in the revision stages of a screenplay I was commissioned to write. I'm excited about this one, since there's a really good chance that it'll be produced.

[Zrak]

I would also advise to never take too seriously or as gospel any given piece of writing advice. Most writing advice is, ultimately, bad, since one can write a masterpiece without adhering to the advice in the least and a miserable piece of garbage by following the advice to the letter. It's always good to keep advice you've heard in mind, but always remember that it is choice, rather than an obligation, to follow it.

For example, the "character depth by unrelated interest" ploy is pretty easy to see through as a reader-who-writes, often nearly as shallow as "character depth by speech quirk," though almost always less abrasive.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Another tip, don't be afraid to ask for help developing ideas. Some of the things I'm most proud of only got that way because I consulted with someone, like a writing workshop, or a close friend that also happens to be a writer.
I would especially recommend the "close friend" route, if you can. It's much less scary in a lot of ways. Great for a budding writer. Move to workshops once you have more confidence.

As for what I'm working on, recently I've been doing a boatload of research for a setting I'm creating, though I haven't decided if the story will be prose or graphic novel/webcomic. I'm also in the revision stages of a screenplay I was commissioned to write. I'm excited about this one, since there's a really good chance that it'll be produced.
Exciting!!! What sort of market is it in? TV? Movie?

(I've also mulled over maybe starting up a webcomic, but one thing at a time, I think.)

[Yora]

As for what I'm working on, recently I've been doing a boatload of research for a setting I'm creating, though I haven't decided if the story will be prose or graphic novel/webcomic. I'm also in the revision stages of a screenplay I was commissioned to write. I'm excited about this one, since there's a really good chance that it'll be produced.

I think one mistake that appears to be quite common, is assume novels as the default form of writing fiction. I think it's probably even the hardest option you could pick (the exception being a whole series of novels). I am personally much more in favor of smaller scope stories of a losely connected episodic format, as it's common in Sword & Sorcery. It allows you to write one story with one idea and one plot line, and when that idea has reached its conclusion, you have a finished work to present and can start at the next one. Weaving multiple plotlines together to have enough material for a full novel or three seems much more difficult, and you're probably much more likely to give up along the way as there is no end in sight.
And if you're looking towards print publication, you're also not forced to have the full story within a certain word-count. You can just write the stories as long as it seems appropriate for the idea, and then you put either 4 or 6 of them into one book, depending on how long they all turn out.

[BWR]

Neil Gaiman's advice is this: Write. Finish what you start.

You will never learn anything unless you write. Even if you have no inspiration, write something. Make another version of seomthing you've already written, rewrite someone else's story, write something in the style of someone else, but write. Finish what you begin. How often has something been started then abandoned? You have a period of inspiration, then abandon the project once the inspiration runs out or you run into a snag. Making a single finished product will teach you more than a dozen abanadoned ones. Even if you hate the finished product, even if the ending is terrible and you just want to forget it, finish it.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

That's the main reason I decided to start writing short stories. What I want to do is publish them separately, and then collect them into an anthology.

[Yora]

I think in theory, it might also help to get people giving your work a try, even though they never heard anything about you. Reading something that takes a hour or two is a much smaller commitment than trying a whole full-sized novel.
However, this only works if you have ideas that call for short length. If you would rather write a novel, it's probably better to write a novel, since you'll have much more fun doing what you want to do instead of what you think a necessary chore.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I've been working on a novel for quite a while now. I've found that idly browsing places like TVtropes can give good ideas for how to implement your ideas, and also if you're working on a scene, it helps to explain what is happening with the story in that scene. To another person, that way you'll be less inclined to be distracted by tangents.

As for good ideas, I think when you start thinking of things, you can kind of keep coming up with more ideas than you could ever really use. Just choose the one you think is best right now, and stick with it.

[AdmiralCheez]

Exciting!!! What sort of market is it in? TV? Movie?

The screenplay is going the indie film route for production, but I have no idea what the plans are for distribution. I have been instructed to leave it open to sequels or possibly a series, though. It should be an interesting project, considering the producer just emailed me and pretty much gave me a blank check on special effects and action scenes.



I would also advise to never take too seriously or as gospel any given piece of writing advice. Most writing advice is, ultimately, bad, since one can write a masterpiece without adhering to the advice in the least and a miserable piece of garbage by following the advice to the letter. It's always good to keep advice you've heard in mind, but always remember that it is choice, rather than an obligation, to follow it.

I absolutely agree. Sometimes it can help get you get past a stuck spot, but other times it tries to force your story into their formula. There's no one specific way to write a story, which is why we have thousands of "how to write" books. Ultimately, all advice is subjective, you just have to find the stuff that works for you.



I think in theory, it might also help to get people giving your work a try, even though they never heard anything about you. Reading something that takes a hour or two is a much smaller commitment than trying a whole full-sized novel.
However, this only works if you have ideas that call for short length. If you would rather write a novel, it's probably better to write a novel, since you'll have much more fun doing what you want to do instead of what you think a necessary chore.

Agreed again. That's one of the harder parts of writing, is choosing which medium is best for the story you want to tell. Most of my stuff is short stories because I know there is no way I would be able to pad it out to novel length. It also helps to know your strengths and weaknesses as a writer. For instance, one of the reasons I was considering graphic novel for a story is because I know it will require a lot of action scenes and a lot of descriptions of architecture. I don't think my ability to describe them in prose is going to be sufficient, so I was thinking of putting my drawing skills to the test.

[Mx.Silver]

I would also advise to never take too seriously or as gospel any given piece of writing advice. Most writing advice is, ultimately, bad, since one can write a masterpiece without adhering to the advice in the least and a miserable piece of garbage by following the advice to the letter. It's always good to keep advice you've heard in mind, but always remember that it is choice, rather than an obligation, to follow it.

A word of caution: if you're going off the accepted writing wisdom on what constitutes good writing, the odds of your work turning into a masterpiece are vanishingly small compared to the odds of it ending-up a miserable piece of garbage unless you happen to know what you're doing.



I think one mistake that appears to be quite common, is assume novels as the default form of writing fiction.
A related one is assuming your story needs to be a trilogy or a series of novels. Because it very probably doesn't.



One other thing: make sure you also read a fair amount, and not just in your preferred genre. At the very least attempt to add some 'literary' books to your reading list, even if that's not what you intend to write.


All of this of course is secondary to 'Write something'.

[Yora]

A word of caution: if you're going off the accepted writing wisdom on what constitutes good writing, the odds of your work turning into a masterpiece are vanishingly small compared to the odds of it ending-up a miserable piece of garbage unless you happen to know what you're doing.

To some degree. Every common rule of thumb can be broken, but usually you should have a good reason why you chose to do so. If there's no real need to not do something unusual, it's usually safer to just go with the default option.

[Dhavaer]

I do some writing, some of the results of which I post in my blog, linked in my sig. I'm planning to publish something on Smashwords soon as well (the full text of Piercing Darkness. the introduction/prologue to which is on my blog).

I'll support the general theme of 'just write something' and add to it that it should get longer every day. Not necessarily by a lot - I gave myself fairly modest minimums of 50 words on work days and 250 otherwise - but enough that you won't get lazy.

Also, don't delete your old stuff. Keep it around just in case.

[JCarter426]

Writing? I write. Well, I try to write. It's been a few years since I genuinely completed a story, but I do have a few stories in various stages of development. I have this problem with focusing on one project at a time. I start developing a story, and somewhere down the line I realize there are inherent contradictions in my ideas, or I run out of ideas for some key area, or something else causes me to lose enthusiasm, and I switch projects. Then the same thing happens with that one, and so on. I've heard it said more than once that the first rule of writing is to decide what you want to write. I'm a very bad example of that. I don't abandon my projects, though... I've returned to most of them at least once, so after a few repetitions of this I've ended up with several partially developed stories, rather than a collection of random ideas, at least. Keeps me busy, at least.

Another problem I have is my incompetence in other areas. Writing is the only form of medium that I can work in on my own. This doesn't prevent me from getting ideas I feel would suit other mediums. I like comics as a medium, and I'd love to write my own comic, but my art is not nearly good enough. Even the stuff I can do would take too long for an ongoing comic to be plausible. I had a few such projects, but at some point I realized that I could write the scripts several times faster than I could compose the art, so I ended up converting a couple projects to prose. I also have one idea for a video game, but in that case I don't think another medium could do the story justice. The entire premise is interactive... and I'm definitely not writing a choose your own adventure. I can convince myself the medium doesn't really matter that much for some ideas, but not for others.

I do like short stories but I have trouble writing them. Most of my ideas just tend to be long - apart from ideas for comics, which may be individually short but are still part of a long series. But most of ideas for prose are long. I can try to write a novel and end up with more ideas than would fit in it. In a few cases, I have more ideas for sequels than for the first story. That's not a good place to be. If you can focus on writing short stories, do it. You'll prevent that mess.

Writing short stories can be more difficult in other aspects, though. A short story has little in the way of plot, so it has to be strong in all other areas - character, setting, etc. You may think if you're going to go to all that effort into developing all that, you're not getting enough payoff, as a writer. But publishing anthologies is an option, and you could revisit those elements in another work - tell another story with the same characters, or tell story again, only differently... keep what works, change what doesn't, etc. There are plenty of series that originally started as short stories - most stuff written by Asimov, for example. I also enjoy reading series that are a mix of short story and full length novel. Short stories can develop the characters better, because of aforementioned lack of plot... plus, not every idea can fill a novel anyway. It's nice to see some side adventures, sometimes.

Writing short stories seems like it would be a good way of developing all those elements for a novel - for example, write a short story focusing on each character... but unless you have solid characters already, it's not actually going to help. It's kind of paradoxical. But if your character is too weak to carry a story, that might make you notice things you have to fix. It's still a good exercise.

[Yora]

My target length is somewhere in the middle; 20,000 to 40,000 words. Long enough for a good story, but only so long that you can work with a single plot idea. That's about the length of Shadow over Innsmouth or Red Nails.

I am assuming most here are writing fantasy or science fiction (or thinking about it). What's your approach to nonhumans? From what I've been seing the last couple of years, these seem to be almost limited to RPGs with barely any presence in literature and even movies.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'm doing fantasy. My approach to intelligent nonhumans in this world is that they are the same psychologically as humans. Even though they may have different physical abilities as a result of their bodies. (Flight, swimming, underwater breathing, or so on.)

While I find it might be interesting to think about how a non-human intelligence might be different or unique from humans, I don't feel the concept is worthwhile for its own sake as a part of a story. Humans can already differ quite a lot from one another without introducing fantastic elements into their thinking, so in a strictly fantasy world there's no reason for a more exotic element to even be necessary.

The alien psychology thing would probably make more sense in a standalone, small setting where it is the main theme of the entire plot.

[Yora]

The common, and somewhat justified question to this is, "why not just have them be humans then?"

My answer is "because I want to". But I feel like I could greatly improve my stories if I were able to pin down why I like having nonhumans in the first place. .If you can identify why you like something, it's probably much easier to effectively include these things to improve the work as a whole.

[Dhavaer]

I don't have any biological intelligent non-humans (apes/squid/cetaceans excluded) but I do have spirits that range from almost mindless to rough parity with humans. They're distinguished by having very little interest in anything outside what they're a spirit of: a hunger spirit wants to eat, a storm spirit wants to cause storms. They're inherently flat characters.

[GPuzzle]

I've been writing a story for quite a while but school slowed me down for quite a while.

Well, that, and Civ V.

CURSE YOU, SID MEIER. CURSE YOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.

[Mx.Silver]

To some degree. Every common rule of thumb can be broken, but usually you should have a good reason why you chose to do so. If there's no real need to not do something unusual, it's usually safer to just go with the default option.

The reason why I bring it up is because I have seen quite a few amateur writers whose response to being informed about basic writing guidelines which they need to follow is to scoff at them rather than consider revising concepts based on this advice. This does not lead to good writing.


Now, getting hung-up on an imaginary checklist of things your story has to include is also a trap*. I am not saying it isn't, just making it clear that there is another trap you can fall into by going in the other direction.



*related note: TVTropes.org is not a 'how-to' guide on story-telling and should not be used as one.


What's your approach to nonhumans? From what I've been seeing the last couple of years, these seem to be almost limited to RPGs with barely any presence in literature and even movies.
The approach to non-humans depends for me depends on why they're in the story in the first place. What is their presence saying? How do they tie into the story's themes?

As always, the question you need to be asking yourself is: "Why am I putting this in my story?".



Also: write something.

[Math_Mage]

I can't discuss alien perspectives without bringing up Larry Niven, particularly The Mote in God's Eye, Ringworld, and the Draco Tavern series of short stories. I think Niven's key insight is that aliens and humans can be mutually comprehensible while still being alien to each other--each can intellectualize the perspective of the other, but differences in natural circumstances should lead to fundamentally different instinctive value systems. In this way, Niven avoids the usual pitfall of presenting aliens as particular stereotypes of humanity, such that humans are the only race with mental flexibility; we, too, are products of our natural circumstances (or not-so-natural circumstances, as the case may be).

On a related note, Vernor Vinge presents a variety of interestingly alien perspectives, both human and non-human. A Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness In the Sky are the relevant books. Vinge's work also has more pathos in it than Niven's does; Niven reads like a fun intellectual exercise, Vinge a bit more like a thriller (though his actual thriller novels are The Peace War and Marooned in Realtime).

[BeerMug Paladin]

The common, and somewhat justified question to this is, "why not just have them be humans then?"

My answer is "because I want to". But I feel like I could greatly improve my stories if I were able to pin down why I like having nonhumans in the first place. .If you can identify why you like something, it's probably much easier to effectively include these things to improve the work as a whole.
This is a fairly reasonable question. On some level, your answer is all that's really needed to justify doing it, but to be particular, there's actually a good narrative reason to justify some of my choices. I'll provide an example.

Elves have a mostly tribal society with a natural spiritualist culture. Their creator god doesn't like humans corrupting nature with invention/pollution/industry. Since those things are a part of human nature, the god made a non-human race specifically to provide additional psychological distance from humans and ensure their culture remains separate from humans so their society remains tribal hunter-gatherer (or early agrarian) as long as possible an in balance with the natural world.

Effectively, it's meant as a measure to prevent other cultures/philosophy from mixing too much with elves and corrupting the creator god's original intentions. This sort of explanation could be used to justify any non-human or unique race's purpose in any general setting (ones with creator gods, at least). But I feel that this particular use is especially sensible because it ties into the creator god's sense of a moral philosophy needing to resist the evils of being out of balance with nature, so to speak. There's one other non-human race that exists for that same reason.

There's also a couple aquatic races around because they were created to live within an oceanic region. So they exist that way to make the best use of their given native habitat.

There's minor things like flight having a symbolic meaning for a race of fliers and their sense of a freedom-y moral philosophy, but it's not really the sort of thing that is strictly necessary for the culture to make them physically distinct from regular humans. In that case, the symbolism is there, but it's not quite the same as the elven god's intentions for the race partly being backed by their creation.
Although there's not necessarily a strict literary need for these choices, I think it also adds flavor to a setting and makes it feel more fantastic, colorful and full of life. And that for its own sake, is another perfectly valid reason.

[Zrak]

A word of caution: if you're going off the accepted writing wisdom on what constitutes good writing, the odds of your work turning into a masterpiece are vanishingly small compared to the odds of it ending-up a miserable piece of garbage unless you happen to know what you're doing.

I think it depends a lot on the rule. I brought it up more with regard to ideas like giving characters an interest unrelated to plot; it's not exactly bad advice, but following it really won't help make a bad work (or even just a bad character) any less bad and breaking is rarely the reason a bad work is bad. It's useful to keep in mind, but there's really no obligation to follow it.

I will say, with regard to following and diverging from conventional wisdom more generally, diverging from conventional wisdom is probably more likely to lead an inexperienced writer to produce a bad product, but I think it's more likely to produce a bad product they can learn from.


The reason why I bring it up is because I have seen quite a few amateur writers whose response to being informed about basic writing guidelines which they need to follow is to scoff at them rather than consider revising concepts based on this advice. This does not lead to good writing.

I don't know if I've ever scoffed at them in the context of revising a concept, really. I think I just kind of scoff at them in general.

I remember on one of the first days of a high school creative writing class, my teacher told us you couldn't kill off the main character if the story was told in the first person; otherwise, how would they be narrating it? This wasn't in response to me, or anyone else in the class, having done so or planning to do so. It was just a guideline we were given one day, I maybe even as an example of how there are "rules" of writing. I don't really recall the circumstances, I just recall the color of her face when my "finger exercise" that day was a scene depicting two goofy academics discussing their perspectives on Sunset Blvd, As I Lay Dying, Survivor, The Lovely Bones, and so on.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think if you're gonna break a rule, know why the rule exists and then break it for a reason. Until then, the rules are there for a reason, because some stuff works and some doesn't. You'll eventually have to learn why they work (and when to break them), of course.

Of course, that makes you an editor's nightmare. You should always listen to your editor.

[AdmiralCheez]

Of course, that makes you an editor's nightmare. You should always listen to your editor.

Yup, your editor can tell you what works, what doesn't, what's confusing, etc. After all, they're a member of your audience reading your story for the first time. You, on the other hand, have the benefit of knowing everything you were trying to do, and thus are biased.

[Mx.Silver]

I think it depends a lot on the rule. I brought it up more with regard to ideas like giving characters an interest unrelated to plot; it's not exactly bad advice, but following it really won't help make a bad work (or even just a bad character) any less bad and breaking is rarely the reason a bad work is bad. It's useful to keep in mind, but there's really no obligation to follow it.

I will say, with regard to following and diverging from conventional wisdom more generally, diverging from conventional wisdom is probably more likely to lead an inexperienced writer to produce a bad product, but I think it's more likely to produce a bad product they can learn from.

Yes, but what they'll be learning most of that time are things that were already known. As a species we've been writing for centuries. At least consider the possibility that some of these have become guidelines for a reason. By all means experiment, but those experiments are far more likely to work if you understand the tools you're messing around with.




I don't know if I've ever scoffed at them in the context of revising a concept, really. I think I just kind of scoff at them in general.

I remember on one of the first days of a high school creative writing class, my teacher told us you couldn't kill off the main character if the story was told in the first person; otherwise, how would they be narrating it? This wasn't in response to me, or anyone else in the class, having done so or planning to do so. It was just a guideline we were given one day, I maybe even as an example of how there are "rules" of writing. I don't really recall the circumstances, I just recall the color of her face when my "finger exercise" that day was a scene depicting two goofy academics discussing their perspectives on Sunset Blvd, As I Lay Dying, Survivor, The Lovely Bones, and so on.
More astute observers will notice that none of those were written by teenage schoolchildren*.

That attitude is precisely what I'm talking about: the ignorance/arrogance that when you think of comparisons to your body of work which does not even exist yet you immediately jump to classics. Not seeing anything wrong with the thought: "if it worked for William Faulkner then why shouldn't it apply to me?"
Never considering that Christopher Paolini, Stephanie Meyer, etc. thought the same way. Or even if you did, not letting yourself extrapolate from that.

Not considering that by pre-emptively putting your own (potential) work on that sort of pedestal you are setting yourself up for much more disappointment when you discover that your early writing is crap. Which it will be.



That's really the essence of it. When you start writing you are going to be bad at it(just like if you were taking up drawing or painting). Don't be too quick to throw away advice on how to be less bad out of some Dunning-Kruger induced sense of pride. Flexing your skills require that you've actually built some up. And to that end: write something. Also read things, but more importantly write something.


*while more generous observers might have wondered if said advice was intended to discourage students from killing off the first-person narrator in stories that weren't specifically based around the concept of the narrator dying or being dead.



Yup, your editor can tell you what works, what doesn't, what's confusing, etc. After all, they're a member of your audience reading your story for the first time. You, on the other hand, have the benefit of knowing everything you were trying to do, and thus are biased.

Indeed. Hell, any form of involved criticism is going to be useful, regardless of whether they're a professional editor or just another member of your writing group.

[Zrak]

Yes, but what they'll be learning most of that time are things that were already known. As a species we've been writing for centuries. At least consider the possibility that some of these have become guidelines for a reason. By all means experiment, but those experiments are far more likely to work if you understand the tools you're messing around with.
I didn't say not to consider them. In fact, I specifically said to do so. I said not to feel obligated to follow them.


More astute observers will notice that none of those were written by teenage schoolchildren*.
Hopefully, these observers will be astute enough to notice the abject irrelevance of this fact, considering that works written by teenage schoolchildren in which the narrator survives are not held in comparable esteem to any of the selected works. As such, the message to take away is not that one shouldn't kill narrators, but that one shouldn't be a teenage schoolchild.


That attitude is precisely what I'm talking about: the ignorance/arrogance that when you think of comparisons to your body of work which does not even exist yet you immediately jump to classics.
You are drawing inferences unsupported by the text. I did not compare my body of work to anything. The only reference to my work, in fact, described to a finger exercise narrated in omniscient third person. You may be confusing something I said with something you wished I had said because it would have supported your point.
Also, let's not go calling Survivor (although it's probably the best work in Palahniuk's dude-smell-this-it's-gross oeuvre) or The Lovely Bones "classics."


Not seeing anything wrong with the thought: "if it worked for William Faulkner then why shouldn't it apply to me?"
Never considering that Christopher Paolini, Stephanie Meyer, etc. thought the same way. Or even if you did, not letting yourself extrapolate from that.
If either of them had actually thought that, their books would at least be a more interesting kind of bad. If they thought the same way, but about other writers, maybe they should have looked at what worked for better writers.
I mean, I'm not even trying to contest the point, I don't think. I just think it's pretty obvious from looking at their actual writing that trying to be Faulkner was not the problem.


Not considering that by pre-emptively putting your own (potential) work on that sort of pedestal you are setting yourself up for much more disappointment when you discover that your early writing is crap. Which it will be.
Again, I don't really see where you have the idea that I am placing my work, actual or potential, on any pedestal. My work has nothing to do with this; the fact that my early writing would be (and was) crap whether I followed that rule or not is relevant; the fact that whether or not I eventually stop(ped) writing crap would have nothing to with whether or not I follow the rule is relevant; but what I actually think of my work or potential work doesn't really matter.

[Mx.Silver]

You are drawing inferences unsupported by the text. I did not compare my body of work to anything. The only reference to my work, in fact, described to a finger exercise narrated in omniscient third person. You may be confusing something I said with something you wished I had said because it would have supported your point.

I'm using the specific instance as a jumping-off point to talk about a general attitude. The 'you' throughout that section is unspecified, rather than referring to (past) Zrak in particular.
Sorry if that wasn't clear (quite a few posts I make post-midnight sometimes lack for clarity).

EDIT: Actually, looking back on it, my post does come across as being needlessly antagonistic. Sorry about that.

[Zrak]

Haha, no worries. I really was confused, since the "you" in your post didn't seem like say or believe the things I said. Sorry if my response therefore came across as overly defensive.

[Yora]

This is a fairly reasonable question. On some level, your answer is all that's really needed to justify doing it, but to be particular, there's actually a good narrative reason to justify some of my choices. I'll provide an example.

Elves have a mostly tribal society with a natural spiritualist culture. Their creator god doesn't like humans corrupting nature with invention/pollution/industry. Since those things are a part of human nature, the god made a non-human race specifically to provide additional psychological distance from humans and ensure their culture remains separate from humans so their society remains tribal hunter-gatherer (or early agrarian) as long as possible an in balance with the natural world.

Effectively, it's meant as a measure to prevent other cultures/philosophy from mixing too much with elves and corrupting the creator god's original intentions. This sort of explanation could be used to justify any non-human or unique race's purpose in any general setting (ones with creator gods, at least). But I feel that this particular use is especially sensible because it ties into the creator god's sense of a moral philosophy needing to resist the evils of being out of balance with nature, so to speak. There's one other non-human race that exists for that same reason.

There's also a couple aquatic races around because they were created to live within an oceanic region. So they exist that way to make the best use of their given native habitat.

There's minor things like flight having a symbolic meaning for a race of fliers and their sense of a freedom-y moral philosophy, but it's not really the sort of thing that is strictly necessary for the culture to make them physically distinct from regular humans. In that case, the symbolism is there, but it's not quite the same as the elven god's intentions for the race partly being backed by their creation.
Although there's not necessarily a strict literary need for these choices, I think it also adds flavor to a setting and makes it feel more fantastic, colorful and full of life. And that for its own sake, is another perfectly valid reason.

My main reason why the world has elves because to some degree the overall concept is "Generic Fantasy World, 4,000 ya". The world where dragons, giants, lizardmen, and elves are the big players in the world. Almost all fantasy with nonhumans is set in a Tolkien-like world. Dragons are gone, elves are leaving, and dwarves become irrelevant, with humans taking over everything. But those setting tend to have a period in the distant past, where elves and dwarves build great kingdoms and fought against dragons and giant. Such an age seems a lot more interesting than one in which all the fantastic elements are going away.
The main role of elves in my concept is to communicate it to the audience that these stories are set in such a world. (Similar for the dwarf-gnome-helfling-hybrids, which for simplicity are simply called gnomes, but I already have some good ideas to make them feel nonhuman.) It's a good reason to have the elves, but doesn't really offer much in ways to make them behave different.

[Math_Mage]

Well, some ways I would approach the question:
Are there humans in this setting? What peculiarities attach to their behavior/society? How would an elf answer the previous question?
Are your elves long-lived? (By a human's standards, or a dragon's?) If so, how does their lifespan affect their attitude towards short-lived races, children, danger, death, etc.?
Is there magic in the setting? If so, how much, and what do elves do with it?
How did elves come to be?

[Yora]

The main population of humans are the descendants of nomads from a distant land that settled down to become vassals/mercenaries for wars among the elven clan chiefs. The two minor ones live on tropical islands dominated by lizardmen, and as semi-nomadic reindeer herders in the tundra. The elves also live in clans, though some of the bigger ones have kings, and they have a handful of small cities. The humans have one large fortress, no own cities, and also no ships, even though long-distance travel and trade is mostly by sea.
Not particularly. (three to four human lifetimes)
Like everyone else (shamans, skalds, and elementalists)
Like everyone else (evolved from animals)
You can see the little problem here.There isn't anything inherently special about elves, and this is kind of important. The only real cultural advantages elves have is that they simply started earlier than anyone else (except lizardmen, whose culture is just as old).
I think the best approach would probably be something like Vulcans or Qunari. Normal people with some quite unusual cultural norms. But ideally
it would be something based on biological trait and not just social values which would work just the same in a human culture.

[Math_Mage]

One body, two hands, two eyes, two ears, one head, hairless, disappointingly symmetrical, not much in the way of gender polymorphism...well, some things are out. Hm.

Random offers: reproductive biology (what if they lay eggs? Presumably they don't have the Moties' problem with explosive reproductive rates--would they cull children? By trial, or by war? Maybe they only have one reproductive cycle in their lifetime?). Sleep cycle (maybe they sleep three minutes in ten, or three months). Sensory perception (maybe they can see magical energy, but not color). Diet. I dunno, just throwing stuff off the top of my head.

[Grinner]

I'm not sure if this will help the ongoing discussion, but the Story Bundle (http://www.storybundle.com/) is having a sale on writing guides (including one by the aforementioned Chuck Wendig) in preparation for NaNoWriMo.

Just thought you all might like to know.

[Mx.Silver]

My main reason why the world has elves because to some degree the overall concept is "Generic Fantasy World, 4,000 ya". The world where dragons, giants, lizardmen, and elves are the big players in the world. Almost all fantasy with nonhumans is set in a Tolkien-like world. Dragons are gone, elves are leaving, and dwarves become irrelevant, with humans taking over everything. But those setting tend to have a period in the distant past, where elves and dwarves build great kingdoms and fought against dragons and giant. Such an age seems a lot more interesting than one in which all the fantastic elements are going away.
The main role of elves in my concept is to communicate it to the audience that these stories are set in such a world. (Similar for the dwarf-gnome-helfling-hybrids, which for simplicity are simply called gnomes, but I already have some good ideas to make them feel nonhuman.) It's a good reason to have the elves, but doesn't really offer much in ways to make them behave different.
So, your reason for having elves is to make it obvious that your setting is a take on Generic Fantasyland?

Well, it would certainly accomplish that.

[Yora]

No. Please continue reading after the first half-line. There is of course much more to it, but I don't think it useful to dump a big worldbuilding document here just for this conversation. No need to be insulting.

[Mx.Silver]

No. Please continue reading after the first half-line.
I did.


There is of course much more to it, but I don't think it useful to dump a big worldbuilding document here just for this conversation. No need to be insulting.
'Generic Fantasy World' was your own phrase :smallconfused:
I suppose 'yet another' might have come off as a bit harsh though, so I've removed that.

[-Sentinel-]

If anyone's interested, a NaNoWriMo thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377042-NaNoWriMo-in-the-playground-2014) is up. :smallsmile:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Grinner
I'm not sure if this will help the ongoing discussion, but the Story Bundle is having a sale on writing guides (including one by the aforementioned Chuck Wendig) in preparation for NaNoWriMo.

Thanks for posting this; I'd never heard of Story Bundle before. Looks interesting, it's appreciated.

[Grinner]

Thanks for posting this; I'd never heard of Story Bundle before. Looks interesting, it's appreciated.

Ah...You've been missing out...I'm so sorry. :smallfrown:

[Yora]

Random offers: reproductive biology (what if they lay eggs? Presumably they don't have the Moties' problem with explosive reproductive rates--would they cull children? By trial, or by war? Maybe they only have one reproductive cycle in their lifetime?). Sleep cycle (maybe they sleep three minutes in ten, or three months). Sensory perception (maybe they can see magical energy, but not color). Diet. I dunno, just throwing stuff off the top of my head.

One way to approach it, which could be quite interesting, would be to consider what their culture regards as virtues and vices.

For example, the gnomes in my setting are physically inferior to pretty much all other humanoids and they know it. To have a real chance in warfare they need to pick their fights carefully and simply can't afford to fight in unfavorable circumstances. While other races may put high value in defending ones honor or at least get out of a dangerous situation that allows one to save face, this means very little to gnomes. A gnome commander who decides to keep fighting for honor rather than to run away when things start to look really bad is not an asset for his people, but a liability.
Other races might see gnomes as treacherous and cowards, but pulling off a fake rout to lure a stronger enemy into an ambush would be praiseworthy as gnomes see it.

The lizard people lay clutches of eggs and young are raised together by caretakers. Infant mortality is not something they would lose a lot of sleep over, since they don't have a close connection to each of their own offspring. Might look cold hearted and uncaring to others, but its something that can be understood in some way.

All action works towards some intended result, and which results are prefered over others depends entirely on the values of a society. I think if you come up with just a few odd cultural values for a society and keep it in mind as you write the characters and their culture, things will simply snowball into all kinds of unusual behavior. And I think it might be quite rewarding for readers to think about what these nonhuman characters are doing and make the conclusion that it makes kind off sense in light of their values.

[Yora]

I got another thought on the subject on using nonhumans, particularly elves, dwarves, and orcs.

Even though there is commonly strong opposition to "humans with pointy ears", I think the main reason we see them so often is because they have basically become public domain cultures. You can't just take a human culture someone invented and put them into your own work without being called out for just copying it, but you can do that with the generic nonhuman races. And that's why wood elves, high elves, dark elves, dwarves, and orcs always seem to be so very similar in every setting without major changes in their culture. What people really like about the races is their culture!
And when you look at fantasy settings, there are huge numbers of cultures that really are just straight Vikings, Mongols, Aztecs, and Japanese. Amazons also fall into this category, being both a human culture (though mostly fictional) and fictional race. The choice to have wood elves in your setting is the same choice as having vikings.

If faced with the question of having a human culture that lives in the forest and is good at archery, or making them elves, the real thing to ask yourself is whether you want to explain the entire culture to your audience from scratch, or if want to start with some common archetypes and only explain what your personal take on it changes. Making the nonhuman characters think and act nonhuman isn't really the point. Using a generic fantasy race is simply a shortcut.

And I think this explains to me why I want to have wood elves in my setting: I like this culture and think I could make a better version of it than I've seen from other writers. And understanding that should make it really easier for me to use elves much more effectively in my stories.

[Grinner]

...Making the nonhuman characters think and act nonhuman isn't really the point. Using a generic fantasy race is simply a shortcut.

And I think this explains to me why I want to have wood elves in my setting: I like this culture and think I could make a better version of it than I've seen from other writers. And understanding that should make it really easier for me to use elves much more effectively in my stories.

By invoking an archetype rather than building the culture from the ground up, you're bringing in a lot of baggage as well, and as we've seen, that invites criticism.

The last couple of years have taught me that making things is hard, but you only get as much out as you put in. Whether you use the generic fantasy race shortcut or not, your wood elves need to be much more than plain old wood elves. If you go the shortcut route, that doesn't mean you don't have to put in the work detailing them; it just means you're pushing the work you need to do back a bit.

Or you could choose not to put in the effort, but that leaves one question: "Are you happy with that?"

[Math_Mage]

By invoking an archetype rather than building the culture from the ground up, you're bringing in a lot of baggage as well, and as we've seen, that invites criticism.

The last couple of years have taught me that making things is hard, but you only get as much out as you put in. Whether you use the generic fantasy race shortcut or not, your wood elves need to be much more than plain old wood elves. If you go the shortcut route, that doesn't mean you don't have to put in the work detailing them; it just means you're pushing the work you need to do back a bit.

Or you could choose not to put in the effort, but that leaves one question: "Are you happy with that?"
I doubt any writer goes to work thinking, "You know, I really want to do a stale take on elves this time."

[Yora]

Yes, but your vikings also need to be more than just vikings and your evil sorcerer more than just an evil sorcerer.

Shortcuts are not necessarily laziness, and there are very good reasons to use them. An important part of fantasy and science fiction is for the audience to learn about the world and come to understand how it works as the story progresses. But paradoxically, readers generally don't like info dumps and find it much more enjoyable to have a steady but small stream of new details as the story goes on. The more new stuff you have in a world, the higher you need to dial the influx of new information for readers to make sense of what's going on. The more familiar elements you have, the more amount of page space you can devote to plot. Setting information and plot progress are competing with each other for space, and as a writer you need to find a good balance between the two. By using shortcuts such as Vikings, elves, and space-nazis, you can draw on knowledge the reader already has and that doesn't need to be repeated in the pages. That way you can increase the pacing of the story or use the freed space to introduce other elements of the setting without increasing overall exposition bloat.

If you use a setting in which nothing is familiar and everythig new and original, yuo either have to subject the readers to big info dumps or leave them confused about what's going on. Shortcuts by making use of common memes and tropes are a hugely valuable tool to achieve a good balance of depth and pacing. But of course you really need to think well at which places you chose shortcuts and where you are better of with devoting some paragraphs for exposition,
As with pretty much all writing advice, it's a tool you have at hand, which is good to know in case you might need it. It's never a rule how something needs to be done. But in the case of elves, dwarves,orcs, and Vikings, it seems to be a tool that many people like to use, even if they can't say why.

[jseah]

The more familiar elements you have, the more amount of page space you can devote to plot. Setting information and plot progress are competing with each other for space, and as a writer you need to find a good balance between the two.
The worst part with this effect is that you are better off doing something that is completely new than "Elves with a twist". Explaining how "my elves are different" is very hard.

This is not to say that all-new fantasy creations aren't hard to write without being boring infodumps either.

Real world setting stories have it easy. Especially modern world settings. -.-


If you use a setting in which nothing is familiar and everythig new and original, yuo either have to subject the readers to big info dumps or leave them confused about what's going on.
This one is quite bad for me. I found that the setting I was using was far too original in that an infodump to explain everything might be 500-1000 words long.

The original version of the story had something like 6k words and 5 chapters of character introductions in different situations just to showcase different portions of the setting. Let's just say that taking that long to get to anything happening doesn't work.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I doubt any writer goes to work thinking, "You know, I really want to do a stale take on elves this time."
Actually, I did something fairly similar with the elves I mentioned before in my setting. Elves are basically designed to look like a physical mary sue race, because their creator god made them look that way. They frequently have two differently colored eyes (heterochromia) and their hair always grows in two colors, often vibrant. They age very well and they've got an athletic build and tend to be tall and slender.

Usually, if there's a mary sue in a fantasy setting, they're an elf.

[Yora]

The main question is what response you want to get from the reader. If you want the reader to hate a certain group of characters, then this can work really well.
Where things just break apart is when the reader is presented with a lot of facts and details about something which lead to disliking the characters in question, but the author keeps saying between the lines that every reader should totally love them. The readers aversion to the book is not because the characters are unlikeable, but because the author keeps telling them what they are supposed to feel. That's when a Mary Sue in the strictest sense become an object of hate.

And why is it that so many people see that a work has elves and dwarves and go "Oh please no, not another story about elves and dwarve" *roll eyes*, but almost nobody ever questions it when a story has knights, wizards, and demons. These are just as optional as elves and dwarves are, are probably actually used much more often, but tend to be taken for granted with no objections. I do roll my eyes when I see a story that is about an assassin, but that seems to be just my personal thing, not something that is widely common among fantasy fans in general.
I personally would suspect that the main reason for that is because people who latch on to an archetype and badly praise its greatness to no end, tend to pick elves as the target of their obsession more often than any other fantasy archetype. But I wouldn't say elves are overused. Knights are used much more frequently and have even less variance of the theme, and nobody would call those overused. It's probably actually just because there are more high profile cases of really terribly portrayed elves than of anything else.

[Dhavaer]

Well, published my short story up on Smashwords. *crosses fingers* :smalleek:

[Zrak]

I don't know if I really buy the comparison you're making with knights. The knights in The Once and Future King alone have more thematic variance than the Dwarves in basically all of fantasy literature. Elves get a little more variety than Dwarves, but knights as a whole probably still vary more in theme. Otherwise, it's not really fair to compare a class/occupation to an entire species; Elves can have more variety in terms of their jobs and skills than knights tend to have, since "knight" tends to imply a set occupation and set of skills. Nonetheless, when the reader is introduced to an elf, the reader probably has a much better idea, regardless of the elf's skills and occupation, as to what kind of character the elf is going to be and how s/he will function in the text than they do when they are introduced to, say, Sandor Clegane or T.H. White's Gawaine.

I think the real problem isn't with having non-human characters but with the fact that the characterization of non-humans tends to be limited to, or at the very least overly limited by, their species. In typical fantasy fiction, Elves or Dwarves or whatever don't have the cultural or even personal diversity that humans do; not only do elves and (especially) dwarves tend have a sing species-spanning culture, but it's a very homogeneous one, at that.

[Yora]

My claim is that a lot of people don't treat elves as a culture, but as a character archetype. That people tend to do more variations of the knight archetype than with the elf archetype could be true and seems likely. But that would be a case of writers giving more effort to giving knights more individuality, not because of any inherent difference between the archetypes.

[Zrak]

Oh, yeah, then I agree entirely. I think "elf" being a character archetype sort of comes from the idea of "elf" being a culture. It's always been weird to me, when I read fantasy, that each demi-human species seems to have a single, species-wide culture, perhaps two cultures if there is an "always evil" variety.

[Yora]

Certainly doesn't help that the elves of Tolkien lack almost any trace of personalty. Even in the Silmarilion, it mostly comes down to wise Elf-knights and arrogrant Crusader-elves.

[Mx.Silver]

And why is it that so many people see that a work has elves and dwarves and go "Oh please no, not another story about elves and dwarves" *roll eyes*, but almost nobody ever questions it when a story has knights, wizards, and demons. These are just as optional as elves and dwarves are, are probably actually used much more often, but tend to be taken for granted with no objections.
The main difference as I see it is that knights, wizards, and demons all have a lot of history and significance behind them in story-telling. Tales of knights, and their codes of honour go back nearly a thousand years. Demons and sorcerers/witches have featured in stories for far longer than even that. The concepts therefore have a lot of cultural weight and meaning behind them.

Elves and dwarves, on the other hand, really don't have anything like. While they do feature in mythology, those depictions do not generally bear all that much resemblance to their modern usage in Fantasy*, where they're largely just thin, special humans and short, stocky humans respectively. What little mythological resemblance they had in Tolkein's writing has long-since been watered down to the point of non-existence.



*although in the last 10-20 years there has been a bit of a push towards the older 'fair-folk' influenced depictions of elves (dwarfs not so much). This is still a minority of portrayals however.

[Kitten Champion]

A knight and wizard are also roles along with being archetypes. The reason modern television has so many shows focused around police officers and movies have so many stories about soldiers is obvious, you don't need any justification or motivation beyond their occupation to understand why they're involved in the conflict central to the story.

If you're going to make a fantasy story there's a good chance it's going to require physical skill or mental prowess to resolve the conflict. Knights fight battles and wizards solve riddles, that's a straightforward purpose for your narrative.

Elves and Dwarves do not have a role or function, they're an accumulation of readily associated traits. Personally, I wouldn't really want to use them because they feel so boxed-in creatively. Sure, they can act as a useful shortcut since the reader can and will readily picture the archetypal image of either in their minds and associate them with "fantasy", which is why they're so useful for generic roleplaying settings. However, if you're going to step outside that and subvert those expectations... well, why not make your own race from scratch? You're making a whole universe after all, you've got all the power you could ever want, might as well go mad with it and make those lobster goat people you've been dreaming of.

[Man on Fire]

GGenerally thing is that with knights and wizards you tend to have variety of personalities. Gandalf is quite different from Ged who is quite different from Jonathan Strange who is quite different from Doctor Strange, whereas most of elves has their personalities start and end at "elf". Same with dwarves. And orcs. Orcs need more love through.

What my problem is is the racism of generic fantasy races. Lets be honest - they are often used so you can have story of white people slaughtering ugly people of different skin color. Not intentionally, but there are racist undertones here, that are accepted with the entire package.
Besides, my favorite standard fantasy races are Orcs and Goblins.

Okay, back to the topic. I have problem with a thing in short story I wrote. My first reader said two main characters sound too much the same. I've tried to do some fleshing out of their personalities but I'm still not satisfied. Worst thing is I have some ideas that would put more highlight to their differences, but they don't fit this particular story, which, I feel, sets them in situation that puts emphasis on their similiar traits. I plan write more stories with them. Should I force additional scenes to this one, that will show more of their differences and give them reasons to argue, or leave it for the next stories?

[Math_Mage]

Okay, back to the topic. I have problem with a thing in short story I wrote. My first reader said two main characters sound too much the same. I've tried to do some fleshing out of their personalities but I'm still not satisfied. Worst thing is I have some ideas that would put more highlight to their differences, but they don't fit this particular story, which, I feel, sets them in situation that puts emphasis on their similiar traits. I plan write more stories with them. Should I force additional scenes to this one, that will show more of their differences and give them reasons to argue, or leave it for the next stories?
Neither, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your reader is complaining that your characters have the same voice, not that they have the same opinions. This is a problem I've encountered when reading John Scalzi's books (so I suppose you're in good company): his characters are all the same brand of wisecracking smartass about 60% of the time, and it drives me nuts.

You don't need additional scenes to differentiate your characters in this regard--every time they're on stage, you have another opportunity. Have you read or watched Winnie the Pooh? Think about how Tigger reads on the page or on screen, compared to Pooh, compared to Eeyore, compared to Rabbit, etc. They have different vocabularies, they have different mannerisms, they speak fast or slow, high or low, modulated or monotone, precisely or sloppily, clipped or expansive, gruff or smooth...and that's just accounting for how they talk. Your characters also speak through their bodies--what they look at, what they do with their hands and feet, how they stand and sit and kneel (or bounce around on their tails). Never mind more indirect stuff like dress, decoration, routine...and if you actually narrate from a character's perspective, well, everything you write is an expression of their personality.

Your characters are how they act on the page. If they act the same on the page, they're the same, no matter what else you've written about them. So think carefully about how your characters can act in ways that express their distinct selves.

(On the other hand, don't let yourself get bogged down endlessly rewriting the same story. You can leave stuff like this for later stories. This is just the impression I got from the way you described your current story.)

[BeerMug Paladin]

I agree with Math Mage. The problem of characters having the same voice isn't easy to solve, since effectively, all characters you write are going to use your own voice. The best way to approach it that I've found is to go over the character's dialog during the editing process while keeping in mind how the character is likely to think and speak.

For a simple demonstration, there's a character of mine that is a very disciplined scholar. When I write her dialog, I usually tend to favor less commonly used words as part of her statements to reflect that background. Like instead of, "It is impossible to make something completely safe." she says, "One cannot abrogate risk, only mitigate the most likely detrimental consequences one is capable of anticipating." Her dialog tends to be both technically precise, and sometimes needlessly wordy.

I don't normally talk that way. But that character does. And accomplishing that wording requires a deliberate effort most of the time. It requires I go back now and then and replace sentences like the former with sentences like the latter.

For other examples, a character can be predisposed to using emotional language, flat language, flowery language or be prone to exaggeration. A character might misspeak as well. Or vocalize half-formed thought processes and interrupt thmemselves in mid-speech.

There's a lot of possible variation to choose from. But in my view having at least two clearly different voices adds a lot more personality and depth to everything else. I don't think it even matters much if there's more than two (but it is nice), as long as there is at least two, that will provide an illusion of diversity that will add a lot to the experience even if there are no other voices present.

[Kitten Champion]

I like to ask my characters a short series of questions and write their individual responses in their own words as sort of an interview, with no more than three page for each.

Like... Where do they see themselves in 10 years? What kind of household did they grow up in? What is their greatest fear? What is their greatest desire? What do they like and dislike most about themselves? What truth do they not want to admit about themselves? What's the one thing in their life they'd never want to part with? And so on.

Having a wealth of information is useful generally in rounding out characters, but just having the information isn't enough in the same way reading a biography can't quite match meeting someone for understanding them. Even if the biography gives you a much more objective detailed analysis of a person's life than they ever will, it still lacks the intimacy of eye-to-eye conversation. That's why I keep going through their answers and rewriting them until the character really sounds like someone who would give the answers they do.

It kind of feels like I'm play-acting or doing an impression of someone at first - and it does read like me for a significant number of attempts - but with enough practice I can hopefully make the character feel somewhat distinct.

[Zrak]

Generally, I would write quotidian dialogues between the two characters until can make it clear which character is speaking without using their names. I would, again, advise strongly that one avoid all temptation to indulge in characterization-by-dialogue-quirk. The dialogue it produces is usually stilted and tiresome and the characterization it provides generally amounts to little more than painting a trite and shallow stereotype.

[Yora]

So, out of curiosity: What is everyone working on/preparing to work on/considering to work on some day?

Any ideas what kind of things you'd want to write about?

[Zrak]

I think I'm going to write a novel about a shiftless alien who fakes crop circles. I'm not sure exactly, only the vague idea is really there; I usually come up with a fun throw-away idea if I'm going to do NaNoWriMo, typically pretty much right at the end of October. This year's idea came out of a combination of a couple things that happened over the past week or so. First, a book of particularly vapid criticism I just finished reading included a remark that I imagine the author thought was very witty about Don DeLillo characters talking like aliens. Since I know a decent number of people who sound like DeLillo characters in everyday conversation, I muttered something sarcastic to myself about how many of my friends were aliens. I didn't really think any more about it until I saw a click-bait link to some jeremiad or another against my generation, which made me realize that "Millennial" sounds like a term for alien sleeper agents or something, more than a generation of underemployed smartasses.

[hannaze]

I started writing about shopping and saving life. It either help me gain knowledge and frugal experience for my own life

[Yora]

I am following the old and trusted advice of writing the kind of stories I would like to read, but don't seem to be around yet:

The basic idea is to, instead of novels, write losely interconnected stories of 20,000 to 40,000 words set in the same world. I am never good with things that take very long and do much better when I can get a feeling of steady progress by having a finished result, and also my ideas are mostly for single events rather than multiple, interwoven storylines that eventually come together, so this format works in my favor in several ways.
The concept is basically Sword & Sorcery: Strong protagonists encountering supernatural threats and struggling seriously to defeat it. However, what I find missing from most stories I've read, it's set in a world that is influenced by early Antiquity, with small populations and lots of wild nature spirits. In addition to supernatural monsters, there is also lots of fictional wildlife and I want to create landscapes that go to the extremes usually seen only in science fiction or Final Fantasy. Humans are just one of half a dozen humanoid peoples with a civilizations like the Huns or Scythians, while the few city states are mostly lizardmen, wood elves, and gnomes. There are plenty of dragons, giants, and naga, around who are at the height of their power, and of course sorcerers who are making first contacts with demons from outside the universe.
My main inspirations are Robert Howard and Andrzej Sapkowski, as well as Star Wars (especially the KotOR era) and The Elder Scrolls.

The biggest obstacle is coming up with plot ideas that are both interesting and very simple. The really good ideas I have seem like quite advanced stuff and I'd rather start with something easier first.

[jseah]

So, out of curiosity: What is everyone working on/preparing to work on/considering to work on some day?

Any ideas what kind of things you'd want to write about?
I've already answered what I'm working on / preparing to work on (or continue as the case maybe).

I have a number of story ideas I might eventually take a shot at though, ranging from pure romance, romance comedy / drama, pure science fiction, science fiction slice of life (from non-human perspective???). An action story or three. Two ideas are basically NSFW (sexually transmitted mind-affecting disease that acts as an aphrodisiac?), one is disturbing enough to qualify (thought control anyone?). And one mystery-fantasy-idearipoff fanfiction of PMMM.

EDIT: Oh, and also a fantasy version of a Scifi-4X. Complete with hubris and ruthless steamrolling of foreign barbarians.

So yeah, no shortage of ideas in almost any genre.

[Man on Fire]

Right now? I'm doing revisions of short story I wrote, see spoiler.

I plan to do a series of heroic fantasy stories set in postapocalyptic setting. This is the first one, telling origins and meeting of main characters - two last witches in the world. I aim towards Fist of the North Star/Earthsea feel with these stories.

Also, doing revisions of non-fiction comics essay I wrote and preparing to writre anime review for some pocket money.

[BeerMug Paladin]

So, out of curiosity: What is everyone working on/preparing to work on/considering to work on some day?

Any ideas what kind of things you'd want to write about?
Two ideas. Both cheesy and lame, but here goes.

One is a novel set in a fantasy world with a government similar to Star Trek's Federation. They build libraries as temples, and share knowledge and education as much as they can. Foreign students are often accepted into their schools to learn and they are highly bureaucratic in their operating procedures.

There's a few different plotlines woven together, but one big one is that an analogue to the Prime Directive is being considered for adoption as a means to prevent them from unjustifiably meddling overly much in the affairs of other societies. A couple different characters have their own arcs relating to how they deal with that adoption. One is a hero, the other is an anti-villain.

One central idea there is to show that the same motivating event can drive someone to do something good or drive someone to do something bad. It's meant to be a shades of grey setting with some legitimately bright points.

The other thing I'm working on is a zombie apocalypse story. With cosmic horror elements to it, which I plan to introduce over time. I was simultaneously wondering why zombie apocalypses never seem to be shown in progress, and also why people who are genuinely curious about the unrealness of the situation don't ask questions of curiosity about the unrealness of the phenomenon taking place. (Zombies are magical by nature. No science can make them make sense.)

That one is an attempt to do a story in both those ways. I briefly touched on the idea in a zombie thread elsewhere on this forum.

[Mx.Silver]

So, out of curiosity: What is everyone working on/preparing to work on/considering to work on some day?

Any ideas what kind of things you'd want to write about?
I generally find that time spent talking/thinking about what you're going to write is better spent actually writing. It's a common trap a lot of aspiring writers fall into, along with worrying about things like getting published before you actually have something worth publishing. And 'what font should I use?' (don't get stuck on this one, it's a killer).

Not that there's anything wrong with talking ideas, just that remembering to write them is more important.

[Grinner]

Not that there's anything wrong with talking ideas, just that remembering to write them is more important.

While we're indulging ourselves...Do you all double-space your drafts?

[Mx.Silver]

While we're indulging ourselves...Do you all double-space your drafts?

Nope. It's not considered correct formatting in my part of the world.

[Math_Mage]

I'm an impostor. I don't actually have any writing planned. I just like to talk about stuff. :smallredface:

[Grinner]

I'm an impostor. I don't actually have any writing planned. I just like to talk about stuff. :smallredface:

Don't feel bad. I tend to write only when I can think of nothing else to do. I'm really slow at it too.

[MLai]

I intend to write something for FiMfiction, and since it supports illustrations I intend to heavily illustrate it. About 2-3 pictures for each medium-length chapter. I just bought a Wacom Cintiq and I gotta start using it.

I'm actually not a writer. I have far more experience writing and drawing for comics. Now that I'm thinking of writing in prose format, I suddenly realize how different the writing style and thought process is! The reason I'm writing in prose rather than drawing this story in comics format is because I want to tell this story, but I know I don't have time to draw a long fancomic currently. If I ever do draw this comic in the future, at least writing it in fanfic format first will help me polish it up. Because of that thought, I'm not too scared in throwing this story out there -- I know it's not the final format.

One thing I find funny is that the author of Sunset Eclipsed (it's a pretty bad story) will probably end up accusing me of copying his ideas, even though I've never heard of his FiMfic until a week ago, but I've been privately scripting about Sunset (in comics format) since before EqG1 came out.

I'm pretty confident of the plot of my story, in comics format. I'm currently thinking about how to do justice to it translated into prose format. It is a massive crossover featuring the following franchises (so far):

Equestria Girls
Winx Club
Stormhawks
Sabrina Teenage Witch
Ben 10
Soul Eater
W.I.T.C.H.
Murdered: Soul Suspect
TMNT
Red Earth

If you look at the above, and think of the typical crossover fics on the internet, I'm sure it sounds like a recipe for disaster. But I actually have a lot of experience writing/drawing intelligent massive crossovers, and I exercise tons of restraint.

I can probably hash out the first 2 chapters very quickly, since I've written lots of notes on this story. But I want to fire up and learn my Cintiq, and illustrate.

[Toastkart]

So, out of curiosity: What is everyone working on/preparing to work on/considering to work on some day?

Any ideas what kind of things you'd want to write about?

I've been working on a fantasy novel for the past two years (real life keeps getting in the way, but I'm roughly 75-80% done). It's renaissance fantasy, not generic medieval, which means there's something of a more urban focus, and without your standard fantasy races. There's also a definite German, Polish, and Hungarian feel to the atmosphere, rather than the French/English assumptions that most fantasy seems to draw from. Magic exists in the form of rituals and hermeticism, so no fireballs or lightning bolts. Also important is the presence of the spirit world, where the rules of reality don't apply and where belief and willpower create their own reality.

Some of the main themes that I work with are personal power and growth, spirituality, death and dying, ethnicity, and creativity.



While we're indulging ourselves...Do you all double-space your drafts?
I use 1.5 because it helps me read and edit better when looking at it on the screen.



And 'what font should I use?' (don't get stuck on this one, it's a killer).

Similarly, I stick to arial for my own readability. If I should need to change anything, word processors make this quick and easy.

[Man on Fire]

I'm actually not a writer. I have far more experience writing and drawing for comics.

Writing comics is still writing. I'm writing comics too.
And this crossover is the one I think of, yes? Then I'm looking foward to it.

Plus, I'm in similiar position - story about witches I wrote was suppsoed to be comics but ended as a prose. I might one day rewrite it as a comics and compare the results. It was interesting experiment through, seeing what things made it to the prose that wouldn't to the script.

[Zrak]

While still writing, writing for comics is distinctly different from writing what I guess you'd call "narrative prose." Unless you're post-shark-jump Cerebus, prose in comics is typically more descriptive than narrative; the narrative is mainly presented visually and through dialogue. It's closer to writing (screen)plays than fiction or "literary nonfiction" or whatever.

[MLai]

Writing comics is still writing. I'm writing comics too.
And this crossover is the one I think of, yes? Then I'm looking foward to it.
Yeah it means once I become very comfortable translating one format to the other, I'm a lot further along than I feel because I have a lot plotted down in script format.
Yeah it's that crossover. It's been a year since EqG1 came out, but I've been busy jotting down notes this past year.


Plus, I'm in similiar position - story about witches I wrote was suppsoed to be comics but ended as a prose. I might one day rewrite it as a comics and compare the results. It was interesting experiment through, seeing what things made it to the prose that wouldn't to the script.
I can afford to be much more talkative with prose. With comics, your dialogue necessarily must be decompressed. Typically even in talky panels you can fit about 3-4 sentences per panel as the characters do some action. Any more than that and you end up with free-action talking seen in American comics, a characteristic I dislike.
I find I'm much more talkative in this story since it's also become a vehicle for me to talk about (sorta)-real-world magic.


While still writing, writing for comics is distinctly different from writing what I guess you'd call "narrative prose." Unless you're post-shark-jump Cerebus, prose in comics is typically more descriptive than narrative; the narrative is mainly presented visually and through dialogue. It's closer to writing (screen)plays than fiction or "literary nonfiction" or whatever.
Yes exactly, it's like screenplays. My notes consist entirely of dialogue and occasionally very straightforward descriptions of scenes and character actions. I just need to remember what they're doing while they're saying their dialogue (so I can draw it), no pacing or wordplay required.
When I read good FiMfics which are mostly dialogue, I sit up and pay attention to see how they did it while keeping the narrative a good read. I didn't realize how big a gear switch it actually is, until I started doing it for real.

[Man on Fire]

That's what I'm talking about. Writing the same story as prose allows me to show each character through other's eyes. Writing it as comics would have to do without it, unless I'd be using inner monologues, which I wouldn't (I hate them as a narrative element, part of comics writer I ABSOLUTELY! COMPLETELY! HATE! abusing them to no end).

[BeerMug Paladin]

I can confirm that writing for comics and writing prose is a different process. But as how I used to draw my own comics and not write a script for someone else to use, I wouldn't really script things, but instead follow the process in my mind. But in comics how much dialog you have is pretty limited, so it's best to depict ideas in the visual format as much as possible.

As prose, I think I have a mostly straightforward, dry style, which it seems is commonly used by authors with a primary background in history or science instead of literary arts.

[AdmiralCheez]

I like screenplays because I know I don't have to elaborate very much on certain details. When I write prose, I have a tendency to want to over-describe things to ensure that the reader gets the same image I have in my head. With screenplays, all the minor details (i.e. anything that's not plot-critical) gets handed off to another department. Your character descriptions can be nothing more than "male, late-30s, muscular" and the casting director can find someone that fits. It's actually better for them because the more specific you are in the script, the harder it is to find an actor that meets all the criteria. Same with settings; you can get away with "Int. Bar - Night" as your whole scene description, and leave it up to the set designer or the location scout to get you a bar interior at night. Of course, if you write a script for a comic, all those departments get dumped onto the artist, but hey, that's what you pay them for.

[MLai]

That's what I'm talking about. Writing the same story as prose allows me to show each character through other's eyes. Writing it as comics would have to do without it, unless I'd be using inner monologues, which I wouldn't (I hate them as a narrative element, part of comics writer I ABSOLUTELY! COMPLETELY! HATE! abusing them to no end).
LOL, then I'm afraid you'll hate my FiMfic. And right after expressing interest too, unfortunately. I don't see anything wrong with writing in 1st Person POV, which would necessarily include inner monologues. So it's not something I would change out.

In fact, I don't usually write/draw my comics in that POV. But for this story I switched to it, because it really helps to endear an intrinsically antagonistic and flawed personality like pre-Rainbow Rocks Sunset Shimmer.

Part of the hard work in translating from comics script to prose, is the POV adjustment. 1st Person POV in comics is quite different from 1st Person POV in prose, I've found out.


Same with settings; you can get away with "Int. Bar - Night" as your whole scene description, and leave it up to the set designer or the location scout to get you a bar interior at night..
I'll admit, I was sorely tempted to write the above story in stage script format. That'd have been the easiest and laziest way to adapt comics to text while still appearing all artsy and legitimate. But then I thought of all the kickass prose that I could write (now that I've thinking about it and writing that way a bit) but would have to cut out if I did write stage script format.
So in the end I bite the bullet and decided on prose.

[Man on Fire]

I can confirm that writing for comics and writing prose is a different process. But as how I used to draw my own comics and not write a script for someone else to use, I wouldn't really script things, but instead follow the process in my mind. But in comics how much dialog you have is pretty limited, so it's best to depict ideas in the visual format as much as possible.

Actually, I've seen a lot of people who are both artists and writers and make their own comics alone, advocating writing the script anyway, just to have everything set down. And some writers who are also artists, like Brian Bendis, advocate drawing even quick, most-basic, sketchy outline of how you imagine scripted page to look like, to see if page isn't too crowded with panels, won't be unreadable or if you're not demanding something impossible from the artist.


LOL, then I'm afraid you'll hate my FiMfic. And right after expressing interest too, unfortunately. I don't see anything wrong with writing in 1st Person POV, which would necessarily include inner monologues. So it's not something I would change out.

Nah, you misunderstood me. I don't mind it when I read the comics, some characters can benefit from it (John Constantine wouldn't be himself without his inner monologues), but because of one hack I came to dislike how they're often used in ensemble cast-type stories - to TELL you how certain characters feels, instead of SHOWING it. And that is something I'd rather refrain of doing in my own stories. Doesn't mean I won't read story that uses inner monologues.
And it's different in prose, because prose has it's own rights.


Part of the hard work in translating from comics script to prose, is the POV adjustment. 1st Person POV in comics is quite different from 1st Person POV in prose, I've found out.

Exactly. So don't worry, I won't run away from your fic just because it's from 1st Person POV.

[MLai]

If anyone is looking for a good 1st-person-POV FiMfiction, The Demesne Of The Reluctant Twilight Sparkle instantly comes to mind for me. The majority of the story is basically Twilight's humorous inner ramblings, and AFAIC segues seamlessly into external events and dialogue. He doesn't even have to use different-colored fonts! (Yes I considered using that amateurish cheat for a while...)


Actually, I've seen a lot of people who are both artists and writers and make their own comics alone, advocating writing the script anyway, just to have everything set down..
+1 to this. I don't know what I'd do if I lost my notes in document files on my PC and my thumb drive. I drop (almost) everything and type ideas down whenever I get a brainstorm idea or segment of dialogue, and if I'm not near a computer I jot it down on scrap paper to type it down later.

Keeping everything in one's own head is not viable. She's pitting 15 minutes of forced ideas (sitting in front of her drawing table thinking about what should happen next) against 1 year of brainstorms that could've been written down instead of forgotten.

[Zrak]

Even writers who aren't also artists often provide a storyboard. I recall some pretty good self-deprecating humor from Grant Morrison about his storyboards for arkham Asylum in the fancy edition-with-the-script.

[Septimus Faber]

So, out of curiosity: What is everyone working on/preparing to work on/considering to work on some day?

Any ideas what kind of things you'd want to write about?

Me? Expanding this weird-as-hell piece of prose which I've still no idea why I wrote into something rather more meaningful.


When you look at the moon, do you expect it to look back?
Will it stare into your heart on a cloudless night as you divine meanings from the stars?
No.
Yes.
It is for us to decide.

I talked with that creature. I told it of myself, and it did the same. I would lie on a hill, at night, and smile at the moon; and I imagined that it would smile back. What else would a friend do? Answer me that.

I helped with its problems, and it with mine. It told me of how lonely it was. Sitting up beyond the air. All it could do was gaze at the earth, so far away, and know with perfect clarity that every one of us had another of themselves.

But not the moon.

I called it by its name, and it did the same. It had no name for itself before I spoke to it. Who would use it? So I called it the Dreamer, the Watcher, the Watched.

I think it liked that.
But this was long ago.
I do not see the moon anymore.

There was a time when I would talk to the moon every day. I was a child, a dreamer like my friend, and had little else to do; but I grew up. I think. I did not speak to the moon, I did not hear it, I did not see it.

And when I looked up it was not there.
Perhaps it left. Perhaps it fled.
I think it vanished. When it was alone. Maybe it died, maybe it simply faded.

Only I remember.
And when I die, what then?

[Yora]

Is it just me, or does it seem that worlds with plenty of monsters have mostly disappeared from fantasy outside of games? There are the occasional zombies and not-quite-human servants of the Dark Lord, but I can't really think of any books from the last 20-something years that have a broad range of monsters. The only exception would be Andrzej Sapkowskis Witcher books, which do mention a huge amount of creatures, simply because the main character is a professional monster hunter. But from what I've read so far, many of these are only mentioned by name to show characters having encyclopedic knowledge of magical creatures without actually making an appearance.

[Dhavaer]

The Dresden Files has a bunch of different monsters. Sometimes a bunch of different types of a bunch of different monsters.

[Man on Fire]

I've been wondering - what are good ways to easily and quickly tell an origin story and get it out of the way? In MCU thread people brought in how Guardians of the Galaxy did it by quick bits of dialogue, mostly witty remakrs, and pretty much told us all we need to know about entire crew, aside from Star-Lord.

Second, I've seen thread on 4chan in which they tried to tell origin stories the way Grant Morrison did it in All-Star Superman

http://ifanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/All-Star-Superman-1-2006.jpg

4 captions, two words each. I've remember it actually worked well for some characters and teams

Runaways:
Evil parents.
Amazing legacy.
Run away.
New family.

Doctor Strange:
Haughty surgeon.
Crippled hands.
Kind mistic.
Sorcerer Supreme.

And parody of that origin for Hawkman (guy whose origin is well, yeah (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ContinuitySnarl)):
Has mace.
Has wings.
No shirt.
Fights crime.


I also like how some olf tv shows could drop you necessary bits of informations in the intro. Like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F_Tk3Ep8oU) - quickly explains the origin and we can go from there to the story itself.

So, any other ideas how to accomplish what these methods did?

[BeerMug Paladin]

With regards to monsters, I can understand why having lots of monsters existing within the world is something to keep away from. The more random stuff there is unrelated to the story, the more of a distraction they could potentially become. In my own writing, I once referred to a dragon merely in passing, as a sarcastic joke.

With regards to origins (for superheroes), I think the explanation given for some of the characters in Empowered was pretty good. In part, because it highlights that origin stories don't matter all that much compared to what characters are doing now. The characters with origin stories that are relevant to the story happening now is what matters, so that's when the origin stories are best given.

Probably the best way to introduce a character is to show what they are capable of doing, and what motivates them. Origin stories can do those things, but it's unimportant compared to those two things. So there's probably no reason why a character actually needs an origin story. You can think of it later on as long as the what and the why of what they do is communicated clearly.

If you absolutely do need to go through an origin story (and quickly), it's best to keep things as simple as possible. I've always thought that Courage the Cowardly Dog has a pretty good opening. It's helped by being a fairly simple premise.

[Yora]

Why have origin stories in the first place? It's part of the Heroe's Journey plot, which has been terribly overused, but seems quite irrelevant to most stories, especially episodic ones.

In the original works, we never learn about the origin stories of Gandalf, Conan, Obi-Wan, the Emperor, Beowulf, James Bond, Kaptain Kirk, or Indiana Jones. And as a kid, I didn't know the origin story of Batman to enjoy watching him. With early superheroes it made some kind of sense, since they can do impossible things and you would want to know how this one person is able to do this one thing that nobody else can. But for characters who are simply outstanding, but within the normal rules of the world, it seems rather unnecessary.

[Septimus Faber]

Why have origin stories in the first place? It's part of the Heroe's Journey plot, which has been terribly overused, but seems quite irrelevant to most stories, especially episodic ones.

In the original works, we never learn about the origin stories of Gandalf, Conan, Obi-Wan, the Emperor, Beowulf, James Bond, Kaptain Kirk, or Indiana Jones. And as a kid, I didn't know the origin story of Batman to enjoy watching him. With early superheroes it made some kind of sense, since they can do impossible things and you would want to know how this one person is able to do this one thing that nobody else can. But for characters who are simply outstanding, but within the normal rules of the world, it seems rather unnecessary.

This is just my opinion, but I think that you are entirely right, and they aren't necessary. However, certain people want that sort of thing, notably some authors and a number of fans. It helps, like maps and invented languages, to create the sense that the fictional world is in some way real rather than merely somewhere where stories happen.

[Yora]

I tend to feel rather the opposite. By focusing on the heroes life story, the story becomes all about him and the world is just his stage, and everyone else just there to give him something to interact with.
For stories that are about the characters personal development, that probably works just as desired, but most stories really are about specific events. And I think it makes everything feel more belivable if the protagonists just happen to be some of the people involved in the current event, instead of the event existing for them.

[AdmiralCheez]

My general guideline is that origin stories should be left out unless it's absolutely critical to understand the character or plot. Like Yora was saying, it makes the story more like a biography of the character, rather than the story of an event. If that's what the story you want to tell is, then great. Otherwise, I generally don't like reading backstory.

That said, if you absolutely have to include it, I prefer bringing it up through dialogue, or some other way that's integrated into the current events of the plot. Nothing kills the momentum of a story more than pausing it to tell a different, shorter story, then jumping back to where you were and hoping everyone remembers what was going on. Or starting out with an origin story as a prologue and then skipping later to where the actual story starts. It's just clumsy and awkward, and most people don't do it well. In most cases, it's not even necessary.

[JediSoth]

Mike Stackpole's writing seminars at Gen Con are worth the money. I got more from them than I did several of my upper-level composition classes when I was at University. There's a ton of good advice out there, some of which is contradictory. Don't feel bad if what is working for someone isn't working for you. Everyone is different (and we're all special... blah blah) and everyone works differently. Don't be afraid to suck. That's what revisions and editing is for.

If you're going to write for money, make friends with an editor. Or pay one. First drafts are never fit to sell. Self-edited work is rarely fit to sell (though you will find a LOT of people who are deluded and say THEY are the exception).

[Yora]

What are your thoughts on writing stories backwards?

It's not such a big issue with literature where one person is pretty much calling all the shots, but in episodic entertainment there is nothing as annoying as a story with a half-assed ending because the writers didn't really know where they were going the whole time. And there are plenty of writers who did 10-book series and longer, who outright admitted of not really having an idea how the whole thing would end until they got there.
I think in any story that is in some kind about a mystery or about finding a solution to a seemingly impossible task, you really should have a general idea of a clever resolution from a start. That way you can have things build up to the end and when it comes it will look very consistent with what has happening up to that point. If you just write things as you go, the ending will most likely either not be clever, or feel quite shoehorned in.

[JediSoth]

I usually skip around a bit when I'm writing. If I get stuck on a scene where nothing seems to be flowing or working for me, I'll put it aside and write a scene later in the story. Sometimes, an idea for a scene comes to mind and I'll write that, then figure out where to put it before I finish the first draft. Most of the time, by the time I get to the end, I will have already written it and the last week of writing was spent bridging all the gaps.

[Yora]

My personal approach is to first decide what the resolution of the story is intended to be, that is whatever clever solution or reveal there will be, and what the characters have "learned" from it. Once that destination is clear, I try to more or less pin down which stations the story will have to pass through to provide all the elements that will be needed for the conclusion to work and make sense. Once that much is plotted out, I start actually writing at the start of the story and do all the scenes in chronological order, with perhaps some adjustments in the final editing phase.
While it's good to have the path mapped out, doing the actual writing in the real order seems like the best way to make sure you don't forgett mentioning elements that will be important in later scenes, and keeping all your references to previous scenes in order.

[Solamnicknight]

Hey aspiring fantasy writer here. Anyway what is a good way to come up with names both for places and characters? I mean I can't go calling the archmage of a local mage's college joe or a dwarf bob. I could really use some advice on this. I usually come up with a character's or place's concept before the name and it is becoming a problem. :smallfurious:

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'm not any good with names, so I can't really give good advice on that front.

I feel that writing stories- particularly longer stories- is akin to setting up a series of dominoes in the first half and knocking them down in the second half.

My main project I've been doing is undergoing a second draft because in part, I've realized that when I did my first run through, I had some of those dominoes missing.

Knowing where I wanted to end up wasn't enough. Once I had something written, I wound up with something a bit different than I expected, and because of that I needed to go back to the beginning to change things around a bit.

[Yora]

Nobody is good with names. I've even seen successful and experienced writers say not to bother too much with good names, they are not that important. Don't see how that helps as advice though. :smallbiggrin:

[AdmiralCheez]

I get really lucky and name things that turn out to be either real world words or really close to one. Whether or not they're good names is debatable, though. So, I guess my advice would be to look up words in other languages and get inspiration from there. Just make sure to double check the meaning of it so that you don't accidentally name anything offensive, or stupid.

As for writing out of order, I like to have a general idea of where the story is going to end up, but often times I don't know exact details until later. Sometimes all I go on is a tone; is the story going to have a happy ending, or a depressing one? Then again, sometimes I know exactly what the last scene is going to be, and I put things into place to get there. It varies from story to story.

[shawnhcorey]

What are your thoughts on writing stories backwards?

One piece of advice I heard, and can't remember where, is to write the climax and then write the story to the climax. I have come to the conclusion that it works for some writers and not for others.

[JediSoth]

... I have come to the conclusion that it works for some writers and not for others.

This holds true for just about EVERY piece of writing advice out there.

I think what throws people is that a lot of writers phrase their advice in such a way that it reads like instructions (or commands) and if you don't do it there way, obviously, you're wrong. Even these people will admit that their advice is just suggestions and that different things work for different people.

There's only one bit I think that is pretty much universal to the path of becoming a good writer: you must read a lot and you must write a lot.

[Yora]

I get really lucky and name things that turn out to be either real world words or really close to one. Whether or not they're good names is debatable, though. So, I guess my advice would be to look up words in other languages and get inspiration from there. Just make sure to double check the meaning of it so that you don't accidentally name anything offensive, or stupid.

As for writing out of order, I like to have a general idea of where the story is going to end up, but often times I don't know exact details until later. Sometimes all I go on is a tone; is the story going to have a happy ending, or a depressing one? Then again, sometimes I know exactly what the last scene is going to be, and I put things into place to get there. It varies from story to story.
Also, don't look up the meaning of two words in another language and put them together as a compound word. Unlike English, most languages have gramatical rules that change the ending of a word, depending on how it is combined with others. Admited, it's completely redundant and in most cases does not include a single bit of new information or necessary clarification, and I think English did the right thing in dropping almost all these completely (I can only think of the ~s on verbs in third person singular), but if a native speaker sees such a google-translation, it just looks really terribly bad. No "Unausprechlichen Kulten" or "Schweinhunds", please. :smallbiggrin:

[leakingpen]

When I was in my late teens and early twenties, I played the publishing game a lot more, mostly with short stories. Never got any money worth mentioning, but managed to get a few things published. I keep thinking about getting back into it, but inertia is hard to fight.

I have also been getting back into short stories, and poetry, and this is an excellent resource for places to submit. http://writingcareer.com/

[Man on Fire]

Why have origin stories in the first place? It's part of the Heroe's Journey plot, which has been terribly overused, but seems quite irrelevant to most stories, especially episodic ones.

In the original works, we never learn about the origin stories of Gandalf, Conan, Obi-Wan, the Emperor, Beowulf, James Bond, Kaptain Kirk, or Indiana Jones. And as a kid, I didn't know the origin story of Batman to enjoy watching him. With early superheroes it made some kind of sense, since they can do impossible things and you would want to know how this one person is able to do this one thing that nobody else can. But for characters who are simply outstanding, but within the normal rules of the world, it seems rather unnecessary.

I think it's more important for somebody who tries to get into wiritng for comics, considering how many people complain over and over how they cannot get into it wih decades of continuity, even through there are many self-contained books that do not require knowing any of that. With extraordinary people like superheroes you need to one day answer the question who they are and where they came from. And not only with superheroes. I mean, any kind of person who do things who should be impossible by setting rules should be given some background or they come off as ridiculous or even as mary sues. I mean, if in a story everyone use, say, Blood Magic, you don't need to explain it. But if one guy shows up with Shadow Magic, you might want to explain what the heck.

[Yora]

Today I made a word count of all the Conan stories written by Robert Howard (http://spriggans-den.com/?p=431), and noticed something quite interesting. The combined word count of all the stories is under 340,000 words, which is about the length of a single book in the Wheel of Time and Song of Ice and Fire series. Or two thirds of The Lord of the Rings.
While Howard wrote a lot more than just Conan, I think it's quite interesting that this popular character with his many adventure only got the equivalent of a single novel, and not a particularly huge one either.

I would tend to say that it feels like there is more than just that, which probably comes from the fact that the format of the story has a significantly higher density of content. It's basically a highlight reel of his 30-year journey through Hyborea. I think if someone where to write down this characters story as a novel series with a single continous narrative today, it would probably be four books easily, if not even six. However, would it really add that much more to the story and would it tell us more about the character and his deeds? I think not much.

I think the format of episodic stories of 10,000 to 20,000 words really should be something that more writers should be aware of as one possible format to tell their stories. Whenever I talk to or hear from people who want to write, they always seem to go with the novel as if it's the only option, often even going for the whole trilogy package on their very first attempt. I agree that writing short format stories is probably not a good way to practice for becoming a novel writer, but why does it always have to be novels? To become popular as a writer and create characters and stories that become cultural icons, other formats can do the job too.

[BeerMug Paladin]

The novel I'm working on has that format specifically because the setting is split into regions where the dominant culture in each region corresponds to a particular human philosophy, and their most natural outcome of political organization. The plot is about the benefits and drawbacks of that particular philosophy. While I only have ideas for fully detailed plots in a few of these regions at the moment, I feel the analysis of each region's culture and what types of characters and events happen within each region deserves its own self-contained plot.

When I finish my work with it, if I write another novel in the setting I'll make it self-contained and about a different region and its corresponding philosophical complications.

The other thing I'm working on is a blog with shorter entries but a serialized ongoing story. I work on each entry until I feel it's complete, then post it and move on. I'll continue with it until I run out of ideas.

[leakingpen]

Today I made a word count of all the Conan stories written by Robert Howard (http://spriggans-den.com/?p=431), and noticed something quite interesting. The combined word count of all the stories is under 340,000 words, which is about the length of a single book in the Wheel of Time and Song of Ice and Fire series. Or two thirds of The Lord of the Rings.
While Howard wrote a lot more than just Conan, I think it's quite interesting that this popular character with his many adventure only got the equivalent of a single novel, and not a particularly huge one either.

I would tend to say that it feels like there is more than just that, which probably comes from the fact that the format of the story has a significantly higher density of content. It's basically a highlight reel of his 30-year journey through Hyborea. I think if someone where to write down this characters story as a novel series with a single continous narrative today, it would probably be four books easily, if not even six. However, would it really add that much more to the story and would it tell us more about the character and his deeds? I think not much.

I think the format of episodic stories of 10,000 to 20,000 words really should be something that more writers should be aware of as one possible format to tell their stories. Whenever I talk to or hear from people who want to write, they always seem to go with the novel as if it's the only option, often even going for the whole trilogy package on their very first attempt. I agree that writing short format stories is probably not a good way to practice for becoming a novel writer, but why does it always have to be novels? To become popular as a writer and create characters and stories that become cultural icons, other formats can do the job too.

THey wrote smaller back then. If you suggested a novel of that size to a publisher, they'd laugh at you. 60-80 k words was a good novel.

[Dhavaer]

Grammar question: when writing in past tense do you refer to the 'present' in the narration (as opposed to the present of the narrator) as 'now'? My last story was first-person present tense and I seem to have forgotten how to do past tense.

Quote from the text in question:

"There's no need to rush," she assured me, "but I was hoping to ask a favour, and I thought you'd appreciate a free lesson. Did you have plans today?"
I did; practise with the aforementioned band. Arjun, our drummer, acoustics geek and general organiser had hinted that he'd gotten a gig for us on Friday night. It was now Thursday, so I couldn't very well skip out.

Bolded relevant portion.

[Yora]

Yes. "It is now thursday" wouldn't make any sense, unless the narrator is telling this story to the reader on that very same thursday.

[Toastkart]

I was wondering what happened to this thread, I didn't notice that it had been moved. Looks like I have some catching up to do.



+1 to this. I don't know what I'd do if I lost my notes in document files on my PC and my thumb drive. I drop (almost) everything and type ideas down whenever I get a brainstorm idea or segment of dialogue, and if I'm not near a computer I jot it down on scrap paper to type it down later.

Keeping everything in one's own head is not viable. She's pitting 15 minutes of forced ideas (sitting in front of her drawing table thinking about what should happen next) against 1 year of brainstorms that could've been written down instead of forgotten.

I've tried keeping track of every little idea I've had and I've found it to be pretty tedious. Especially when there are long stretches of time between writing sessions, going back through notes like that often takes too much time and there have been times I wrote down something that made absolutely no sense later.

I haven't written down ideas I've had in a very long time. If I have an idea that I can't remember when I sit down to write again, then it must not have been a very good idea.

A lot of it comes down to what kind of writer you are. I don't plan out dialogue in advance, sometimes I don't even think about what the characters will say. I plan scenes in terms of events and actions. I have to write dialogue in the moment or it doesn't flow like a natural conversation.


Is it just me, or does it seem that worlds with plenty of monsters have mostly disappeared from fantasy outside of games? There are the occasional zombies and not-quite-human servants of the Dark Lord, but I can't really think of any books from the last 20-something years that have a broad range of monsters. The only exception would be Andrzej Sapkowskis Witcher books, which do mention a huge amount of creatures, simply because the main character is a professional monster hunter. But from what I've read so far, many of these are only mentioned by name to show characters having encyclopedic knowledge of magical creatures without actually making an appearance.

I haven't kept up with popular fantasy in recent years. I think in part it's because the tone of fantasy has changed over time. I also think it is partially because the genre has expanded to have its own subgenres. Urban fantasy may have the same trappings as more traditional fantasy, but the focus seems to be more on the character than the adventure. It's no longer about going to fantastic places and seeing fantastic and wondrous things, it's more about internal struggles with drama and angst, set against a fantasy background.


With regards to monsters, I can understand why having lots of monsters existing within the world is something to keep away from. The more random stuff there is unrelated to the story, the more of a distraction they could potentially become. In my own writing, I once referred to a dragon merely in passing, as a sarcastic joke.

This is a good point. There's also an element of realism here. Large, dangerous animals are often wiped out or severely curtailed as population grows and civilization expands. The same would likely be true of your average monster.



I've been wondering - what are good ways to easily and quickly tell an origin story and get it out of the way? In MCU thread people brought in how Guardians of the Galaxy did it by quick bits of dialogue, mostly witty remakrs, and pretty much told us all we need to know about entire crew, aside from Star-Lord.

So, any other ideas how to accomplish what these methods did?

I think it largely depends on what kind of story you're writing. With all of the super hero movies coming out recently dealing with mostly established characters, the origin stories could have been left out (and sometimes were. Thor, for example, already had Mjolnir). But many were added anyway in part to expand the world and in part so the writers could put their own twist on things.

I'm afraid I don't have good advice for you. The novel I'm writing could be considered to include an origin story, in the sense that the first act details how the main character joins an organization that will have a significant impact on his development and interactions in the future. At the same time, he's a man in his mid-twenties who's already been through a major war and countless minor skirmishes, not to mention his duties and responsibilities, both political and social, as a landed noble.



Probably the best way to introduce a character is to show what they are capable of doing, and what motivates them. Origin stories can do those things, but it's unimportant compared to those two things. So there's probably no reason why a character actually needs an origin story. You can think of it later on as long as the what and the why of what they do is communicated clearly..

I'd agree with this, and have made use of it myself.


Why have origin stories in the first place? It's part of the Heroe's Journey plot, which has been terribly overused, but seems quite irrelevant to most stories, especially episodic ones.

In the original works, we never learn about the origin stories of Gandalf, Conan, Obi-Wan, the Emperor, Beowulf, James Bond, Kaptain Kirk, or Indiana Jones. And as a kid, I didn't know the origin story of Batman to enjoy watching him. With early superheroes it made some kind of sense, since they can do impossible things and you would want to know how this one person is able to do this one thing that nobody else can. But for characters who are simply outstanding, but within the normal rules of the world, it seems rather unnecessary.

Again, I think it largely depends on the kind of story you're trying to write. Only main characters and villains need origin stories (when they need them), and a few of your examples are neither. That being said, I use the Hero's Journey less as a plot structure and more as a character arc.


Hey aspiring fantasy writer here. Anyway what is a good way to come up with names both for places and characters? I mean I can't go calling the archmage of a local mage's college joe or a dwarf bob. I could really use some advice on this. I usually come up with a character's or place's concept before the name and it is becoming a problem. :smallfurious:

I use random name generators for people. This one (http://www.behindthename.com/random/) has been most useful to me because you can select multiple ethnic regions and it's tied to a database that will give you the meaning of the name, and alternate forms in other languages.

As for place names, that's what I have a much harder time with. Sometimes I look at a map of a region that has the culture or language I'm drawing inspiration from and pick names that sound good. Or pick several and combine them. This can be a bit trickier, though, because places are usually named what they are for a reason, and that reason can often be difficult to track down. Also, as Yora mentioned, combining words in a language that you don't know can have unintended consequences.

[Yora]

This is a good point. There's also an element of realism here. Large, dangerous animals are often wiped out or severely curtailed as population grows and civilization expands. The same would likely be true of your average monster.

That is a very poor argument against fantastic elements in a fantasy story.:smallbiggrin:

[Weimann]

I recently found a lecture series by Brandon Sanderson (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDSmC26Dr0zxiZBRWERzIFA) on Youtube. It's really good, I feel, particularly for the aspiring fantasy or sci-fi author since Sanderson is into fantasy himself.

I have a few ideas on my own, but I have a bachelor's thesis to write before I begin with anything else.

[Toastkart]

That is a very poor argument against fantastic elements in a fantasy story.:smallbiggrin:

It wasn't meant as an arguement, merely an observation.


Anyways, I've got a question. This may only be relevant to certain types of fantasy settings, but how do you guys handle things (objects, fashions, trends, etc.) that have names based on real world places? Cologne may be an easy one, because it's far enough removed from its origins as to have taken on a meaning all of its own. But what about things like Tyrolean hats, or Persian rugs, or French braids? What do you do if you don't want to waste words and page space describing things in intricate detail when a proper name will do? So far, I've been not capitalizing the place name or using a slightly less obvious place name that essentially would be the same thing. How about you guys?

[JediSoth]

It wasn't meant as an arguement, merely an observation.


Anyways, I've got a question. This may only be relevant to certain types of fantasy settings, but how do you guys handle things (objects, fashions, trends, etc.) that have names based on real world places? Cologne may be an easy one, because it's far enough removed from its origins as to have taken on a meaning all of its own. But what about things like Tyrolean hats, or Persian rugs, or French braids? What do you do if you don't want to waste words and page space describing things in intricate detail when a proper name will do? So far, I've been not capitalizing the place name or using a slightly less obvious place name that essentially would be the same thing. How about you guys?

If I can't find an alternate name for a thing (which many of these things have, if a bit archaic), I generally just describe it enough to get a sense of the thing I want. I'm usually not so pressed for words that I can't do that.

For example, if brevity was important, I'd describe the Tyrolean hat as an "alpine hat." If I could take the space, I'd describe it as "a narrowed-brimmed felt hat with a feathered brush at the base of its tapered crown."

[Yora]

I would describe the objects in question. With many of these words, chances are good the reader doesn't know them anyway, especially if they are not native speakers.

[AdmiralCheez]

Yeah, a short description is probably the best way to do it; enough to get the point across, at least. If you want to add some flavor though, you could always change the name to something that exists in your world. For example, it's not a Persian rug, it's an exotic, intricately-detailed carpet known as a Gondorian rug. It's not a French braid, it's a braided hairstyle locally called the Shire braid.

[Yora]

I am considering doing some stories in which the protagonists end up being defeated. Maybe they don't achieve their goal and have to flee at the end, or they go down in a blaze of glory. However, doing so in a satisfying way is the challenging part.

What do you think are good stories of protagonists ending up losing, and how are such endings made satisfactory to the audience?

[Admiral Squish]

Two things to mention here.

First:
Last night, it became official. I have become a person who is paid for writing things.
I've been writing some short stories and posting them in a couple places, and in the interest of having money at some distant point in the future, I created a patreon page some time ago. I'd more or less forgotten about it, when somebody came in and pledged! One dollar per chapter, but that's enough to make it official in my mind. And it's not even like a friend or acquaintance, it's a total stranger who just happens to think my stuff is awesome enough to pay for.

Second:
Has anyone had any experience with Tablo? I just heard about the site, and I was wondering if their services were worth their take.

[Yora]

Trying to come up with an idea for a story, I just remembered what is probably the ultimate writing tip, that is pretty much guaranteed to get around writers block every time:
"If you can't think of any way how the story could continue, have a man with a gun burst into the room."
It's just perfect. It's action, it's danger, it's a scare, and at least for the moment a completely unexpected twist! It raises so many questions: Who is that man? Why does he have a gun? What does he want? Where does he come from? Does he attack? Is he fleeing from something? Has something happened? Will something happen?! This is soo exciting! The suspense is killing me!
The hardest part is probably to limit yourself to just two or three o those and not create a full avalanche of new plot threads. I think I'll start my Sword & Sorcery story just like that: "It's a quiet winters nights, and without warning the doors of the great hall are trown open, revealing a large man with a wild beard and a bloody sword in his hand..." :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

Somebody please give me a story hook.

I have to start somewhere and can't think of anything that would be perfect. So I think I instead start with something random and make it perfect for the style I have in mind. If "Lost Roman Legion encounter Pokemon" can make a great selling series, than everything can be turned into a story.

[Admiral Squish]

Somebody please give me a story hook.

I have to start somewhere and can't think of anything that would be perfect. So I think I instead start with something random and make it perfect for the style I have in mind. If "Lost Roman Legion encounter Pokemon" can make a great selling series, than everything can be turned into a story.

Mysterious individual starts a youtube video series that teaches real, inexplicable magic.

EDIT: Actually, dibs on that one.

How about... Apollo 11 discovers life.

[Yora]

I was more thinking about Sword & Sorcery, but that can still work. "Mysterious person hanging around a backroad tavern gives questionable magical advice to travelers. The local shamans are not pleased."

Now the interesting part will be making it into a story in which he is not the devil. :smallamused:

[BeerMug Paladin]

For some reason, soliciting suggestions like this made me think of this:

A man sitting on a bench witnesses a pregnant woman fleeing from thugs threatening to kill her.

Of course, it's already used for something. It's just an awesome plot hook.

Not sure what to suggest for a sword and sorcery plot hook.

A corpse teleports into a remote villager's barn, dropping an important looking missive.

[Admiral Squish]

I was more thinking about Sword & Sorcery, but that can still work. "Mysterious person hanging around a backroad tavern gives questionable magical advice to travelers. The local shamans are not pleased."

Now the interesting part will be making it into a story in which he is not the devil. :smallamused:

Well, ya shoulda specified. :P
That interpretations's not quite the same, though... What about a swords-and-sorcery setting where magic was driven to extinction, until a mysterious stranger brings it back and starts teaching it to the people?

[Yora]

To lait, it will be about a lamia who is peddling charms that give a person courage and the ability to see through deception. Unfortunately, it does not give wisdom or restraint, or to distinguish between things in the physical world and the spiritworld. I'm still not sure what she gains from it, but there's already a story brewing up.

[Yora]

I'm trying to do some polishing on my Sword & Sorcery protagonist in the hope that it will help me come up with compelling plots for stories. I'd like to hear some of your thought on it:

She is a woman; mostly human, with some parts elf in her family, which isn't particularly unusual in the area; and in her late 20s. Unlike the generic grumpy barbarian, her primary defining emotions are fun and optimism. She is not constantly super-exited and cheery, but the things that motivate her in the long term and drive her into action is to cheer up people she is in direct contact with and help them getting out of serious problems. She doesn't follow any plan to seek out injustice, fight crime, or travel the land doing good deeds, but she's just quick to give a hand or some kind words where it is needed and she just happens to be nearby. She is generally friendly, but not necessarily polite, and to some degree a bit selfish and lazy. Helping someone out quickly is no thing, but hard chores or serious duties are something she tries to quitely avoid.
She is no idiot and has enough common sense, but she isn't too particularly clever or bright and not someone for complex plans or devious manipulations. Her biggest problem is that not only does she always keep pushing forward until she hits a barrier, but also just has to keep try pushing a little bit more, just to make sure she really has reached the limit of what she can do. Sometimes that works out well because she's persistent in the face of adversity, but more often than not it has her ending up in trouble she could have just walked away from. However, once things start to get bad, she's not sticking around fighting foolish battles against hopeless odds. However, as she sees it, she is not running away, but admiting being defeated and retreating. You can't always win, and there is no sense in going down with the ship.
She is quite strong for someone of her size and knows how to wrestle and box, but isn't that good that she could stand up to real experts at these. Surprising her enemies with her strength and skill and then trying to get out of a prolonged fight is her usual method. When it is practical, she carries a spear and fights with it, or relies on an axe when it's not. Swords are too expensive for her. She also has a big knife, but that one is once more to stab people in the back and then quickly run away.

I really quite like the character so far, but I am somewhat afraid that there is a strong tendency to get too cartoonish with it. In Sword & Sorcery, getting larger than life is a good thing, but I really don't want to end up with a wisecracking prankster who is too foolish to realize the danger of a situation. As humor goes, I really don't want to go further than Indiana Jones or Geralt of Rivia. Some smartassery is great, but not a primarily humorous character. I think an uneducated Indiana Jones might not be too far off from what I want to write, or for example, if Lady Eboshi from Princess Mononoke had a mispent youth, this would be pretty much it. Maybe add some Eleanor Lamb from Bioshock 2, particularly in the last part of the game.

I think what the character still needs are some more personal interests and a few rough edges. Things that can make the character stumble on occasion, both in bad ways and good ways. Things that might get her into a sour mood or to be more unreasonable than usual. The character wants to cheer people up and help them out with their problems, while remaining friendly and avoiding things getting ugly. But a character just like that would be too smooth. There also need to be some complications that make her ignore her normal priorities in certain situations or cause her priorities to come into conflict. I want a character who wants to do the right thing but is not always able to live up to her own ideals, but still making a difference for the better in the long run. Oh yeah, and without being mopey when she stumbles a bit.

Do you have any ideas how to give this character more texture?

[Admiral Squish]

Well, I can't really help with your specific character, honestly, since to find a texture you like's a personal deal. But as a general, quick way to add some depth and texture to a character, I put three extra categories on the end of the character profiles I use for personal reference. Likes, dislikes, and secret.
The first two seem kinda like a waste of time at first glance, since most characters have relatively obvious likes and dislikes, the stuff that shapes the character. Dislikes authority, likes nature, dislikes guns, likes feminism, and such. But to get real use out of them, you want to think about the less obvious ones. Maybe they have a soft spot for trashy romance novels, or they thing bugs are super-cool, or they're freaked out by big dogs, or they can't stand the smell of mushrooms.
Secret's pretty self-explanatory, though how secret it should be is really up to you.
The thing is, simply by having these things in mind while you write, I think it makes the characters more 'real', because those little facts impact their behaviors in various ways, even if they're not obvious. You don't want to force the character to show their likes/dislikes though, or launch into a monologue about their time their great aunt's dog bit them when they were little every time they hear a dog barking. And you don't ever actually have to reveal the secret, though there's potential for fun if it is. If a situation comes up where their like/dislike would be appropriate to show, then do it.

Of course, I could just be talking outta my butt considering my relatively limited experience as a writer.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'm trying to do some polishing on my Sword & Sorcery protagonist in the hope that it will help me come up with compelling plots for stories. I'd like to hear some of your thought on it:

-stuff-

Do you have any ideas how to give this character more texture?
It's not clear to me what your character would be doing if she was left alone, without any distractions from people or events. Is she a drifting wanderer with no real goals in life? Because that's the impression I get. That sort of person would work better as a supporting cast better than a main character, but as a main it definitely can work.

Also, giving her a significant character flaw that drives her to make bad choices can provide some compelling depth.

To use an example, this character description reminds me of a character I've made in my own writing. The major differences are is that my character loves learning about history and exploration and is pretty smart. By herself she would either want to explore the unknown or learn more about the world (with a focus on history).

She is also severely overconfident of her own abilities to the point that even when she fails (by any reasonable objective measure) she absolutely does not admit she had made a bad decision. The situation itself was unwinnable and she arrived at the best possible outcome.

[Yora]

It's not clear to me what your character would be doing if she was left alone, without any distractions from people or events. Is she a drifting wanderer with no real goals in life? Because that's the impression I get. That sort of person would work better as a supporting cast better than a main character, but as a main it definitely can work.
That's exactly the thing that I am struggling with! :smallbiggrin:

So far, there isn't really much that would make the character proactive or constructive in any way.
The big problem I have with most fantasy characters, and which I really want to avoid, is that they either jump to every opportunity to save the world at the drop of a hat, or they just like so steal stuff to sell and waste in a tavern. As much as I like young Conan, everything he does is because he thinks it's fun to kill people and has no problem with stealing whatever he likes. The classic RPG adventurers are essentially the same thing. It works for that one character, but it's a rather poor template for general Sword & Sorcery protagonists (which is why all the Clonans have been forgotten, but the real one is still famous). King Conan goes hunting the enemies of his kingdom, but that works because he's the top dog in the world, and I would like to have a more mundane character.

Getting a character caught up in lots of adventures in different places is extremely hard if this character does not have a complete disregard for survival.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'm no expert on the genre, but don't westerns usually have characters like that? Drifters who wander into town, get mixed up in the local affairs, and move on after they have settled the big local problem? They're basically the same thing as an RPG hero, they just don't have infinitely deep pockets and steal everything that's not nailed down.

It's not a very realistic character, sure. But it's an archetype that is easily referenced and used. The main attraction with using such a character would be the plot and maybe the villain. She has no other reason to get involved in things than it's where she happens to be right now. But she has no real fondness for where she is once the problems are solved, so she moves on.

It seems to me that the reason why long term heroes are so often pre-destined, dedicated to thwarting evil or hunted is to get them to leave their comfort zones after they've done the big hero thing somewhere. They must continue risking their lives because their destiny or their mission or their safety is not complete yet.

Most people go on no adventures. So being on one must be an extraordinary circumstance.

Really, I think the question you have to ask yourself about this character is how realistic you really want to handle her decisions about going on adventures. If she's going to be an Indiana Jones character, make her interested in plundering the tombs of the seven pirate kings of a bygone age and you're done.

At least until seven adventures are finished.

But a realistic character would either retire or have their life changed drastically after one plundering. And not be eager to get themselves into another crazy situation. So that's where being hounded by whoever or whatever comes in handy.

Anyway, all this is aside the point. First, ask yourself what your goal is for this character. Is she supposed to be an entertaining adventurer, or do you want to use her to make some interesting or thematic point for your audience?

I get the impression that you just want a fun character for adventures, and if that's the point, just give her an interest in something random, a hate for something random, and wallpaper over the fact that constantly placing herself in peril makes her kind of a lunatic. It works for Indiana Jones and countless other adventuring heroes.

For instance, make her love going to see great bardic performances, and absolutely hate heights. Traveling the world to watch great operas and plays motivates her wanderlust, and having a fear of heights is a weakness that can paralyze her.

[Yora]

My early work on the world was as a setting for a game, where I was facing the same problem of making PC more than murderhobos. Back then, I had a good idea, which I had completely forgotten once the players had their own ideas for, admitedly quite stereotypical, characters and I just let them have their fun with those. (Settings with strong themes for a campaign really only work if the players are already familiar with it, like Star Wars or Dragon Age.)
The idea was to make the world tailored not for any kind of characters one could think of, but specifically for scouts and investigators. It's about young civilizations that have just gained the ability to expand into the unknown wilderness outside of the ancient ancestral homelands. The wilds are full of magical wonders and dangers still unknown to most people, and so the new kings and great chiefs need smart warriors who leave the borders of the familiar land to scout out what possible dangers lie beyond them and to learn what useful knowledge the other small kingdoms and tribes have discovered about the wilds.

I think that's just a perfect background for the character. The clans need their stongest warriors to protect the home and fight hostile neighbors, while the ideal people for the long-range scouting have just a little bit more eagerness than caution. They work alone or in small groups, with a very open-ended task and no clear destination. Their travels are important and not just because they have nothing else to do, which I think is a big step up from the typical sword and sorcery hero who doesn't have any goals but their own entertainment. It also neatly combines the classic trait of the character being a stranger in a strange land and not quite belonging at their home either with having responsibility to a community. The later is a huge deal in ancient societies, but something that typical Sword & Sorcery heroes never have to deal with. Serving a lord, though very indircetly, also is a very useful resource. Both in money and a safe place to return to, and also as insurance against attacks from locals. Where there is no government and no law, the best protection is to have powerful friends who would be angry if something happens to you and very pleased when someone is helping you.
Which makes me notice another interesting element: The character would also be an ambasador for her people, carrying the responsibility to maintain a good image for her clan. This can be used as a quite strong motivation to help out others even when it's a personal risk and there would be no immediate gain from it. It's also a nice source of internal conflict that can be used endlessly. Even if she really wants to do certain things, she can't allow to make enemies that will come back to be trouble for her people.
The concept also well supports a large range of stories. She can end up in very distant and exotic places at one point, and then go straight to being part of a skirmishing band protecting her home from attackers.

I really think I am on to something here. :smallsmile:

As specific character traits, I've been thinking of perhaps having her tend to have a few too many bears in situations where it really would be much wiser to have only one. Not to regularly end up passed out drunk, but frequently being in a somewhat poor condition when she really should be at her best. Could be a bit too cliched, but I think it would fit the personalty of regularly getting too close to the limit and being somewhat careless, and I think it could be written in a way that it's not comically stumbling around and moaning about headache and loud noises.

[somaticon]

Haven't been online for a while but I write poetry and have had work in around a dozen different anthologies. My wife has a fantasy novel out at the moment as well. I'm currently researching for a historical text I'm writing. Oh I also edit and produce an online poetry and arts ezine called A New Ulster.

[Yora]

I just discovered an accidental pseudo-haiku in a chat window mostly covered by another window.


Fingers crossed
Just about Liftoff
Amazing Gravity

[Admiral Squish]

Haikus... Memories.
I once wrote haikus each day.
A writer's cop-out.

[Septimus Faber]

Haikus... Memories.
I once wrote haikus each day.
A writer's cop-out.

Do not insult them.
A haiku, properly formed,
Can be quite profound.

[Admiral Squish]

Do not insult them.
A haiku, properly formed,
Can be quite profound.

You speak the truth, friend.
But for me, 'twas a cop-out.
I explain below.

You see, I resolved
Upon new year's day those years ago:
'write something every day'

I started off well.
Then, the stories grew shorter...
Soon, only haikus.

[AdmiralCheez]

Here's a suggestion
"Haikus For Fun And Profit"
New name of the thread

[Yora]

I finally started writing on my first Sword & Sorcery story. I just read The Tower of the Elephant again yesterday, and realized that even though it's a famous classic, the plot is extremely simplistic. It only has five scenes covering perhaps 15 minutes at the most. I think I can manage something like that, and even if it's crap, it will still be a fun exercise.
All the simple sword & sorcery heroes are barbarians, so I want to do something different, and there are way to many charming thieves and assassins around these days. And while I was falling asleep yesterday, I had the big breakthrough:

Since it's supposed to be exercise and not for publication, I can go full out campy. So why not go with a big dumb brute monster instead of a big dumb brute barbarian? Something like a troll. Or a lizardman.
Like TROGDOR!

So I now started writing "Kalak and the Jungle Demon", which is about a lizardman warrior who goes hunting for a monster that has destroyed some villages. I hope I can make it to 10,000 words.

[Toastkart]

I've been in a writing slump for the past two months (longer if I'm honest). Real life obligations and stresses which I won't detail have robbed me of the energy, impetus, and inspiration to write even though I've really wanted to. For the entire month of November, I wrote maybe a thousand words. Today, however, I broke 3k. It feels good. Maybe I'll get this thing finished one of these days.

[Man on Fire]

Trying to come up with an idea for a story, I just remembered what is probably the ultimate writing tip, that is pretty much guaranteed to get around writers block every time:
"If you can't think of any way how the story could continue, have a man with a gun burst into the room."
It's just perfect. It's action, it's danger, it's a scare, and at least for the moment a completely unexpected twist! It raises so many questions: Who is that man? Why does he have a gun? What does he want? Where does he come from? Does he attack? Is he fleeing from something? Has something happened? Will something happen?! This is soo exciting! The suspense is killing me!
The hardest part is probably to limit yourself to just two or three o those and not create a full avalanche of new plot threads. I think I'll start my Sword & Sorcery story just like that: "It's a quiet winters nights, and without warning the doors of the great hall are trown open, revealing a large man with a wild beard and a bloody sword in his hand..." :smallbiggrin:

Funny thing I remember similair advice for DM. "If your party is getting bored, had a guy with machine gun behind the corner. You'll figure out what he was doing there later".

Anyway, I have been thinking about one thing - how to write character who defeats his enemies by outwitting them? I'm looking for a believable way to do this, not one that makes his opponents look like idiots, has him count on events he had no way of influencing happen exactly like he predicted (Death Note problem) or unbeliveable level of preptime. And sadly I get nothing so far, any ideas?

[Yora]

We are kind discussing this now in the Let's Read Thrawn thread. What I think to be quite important is that the readers need to be able to follow the mastermind characters reasoning step by step. Don't say, "the enemy will do this thing, because I understand how he thinks". Instead explain to the reader on what assumptions he bases his plan, and how based on this assumptions, each step of the plan seems plausible and likely to happen.
And never ever make a plan rely entirely on fact that the character knows, but is kept from the reader. That's just making up facts retroactively.

[Man on Fire]

We are kind discussing this now in the Let's Read Thrawn thread. What I think to be quite important is that the readers need to be able to follow the mastermind characters reasoning step by step. Don't say, "the enemy will do this thing, because I understand how he thinks". Instead explain to the reader on what assumptions he bases his plan, and how based on this assumptions, each step of the plan seems plausible and likely to happen.
And never ever make a plan rely entirely on fact that the character knows, but is kept from the reader. That's just making up facts retroactively.


Thanks, that sounds pretty soild. I'll have to visit Thrawn thread and read the discussion some spare time.