Split (1)

train · 10.4M rows

qid int64 1 2.78M	question stringlengths 2 66.6k	answers list	date stringlengths 10 10	metadata list
58,860	One thing I see very commonly when reading about famous authors is that their first books were rejected by publishers. Often, an author might have their first several works rejected. This makes perfect sense - it takes practice - but a novel represents a huge amount of work. How do/should new authors deal with the reality that they are investing months of work into something that in all likelihood is "a practice"? For instance, if you have a really strong, original story idea it almost seems a shame to 'waste' it but what author is going to not use their best ideas?! How can anyone write a novel with the expectation it won't get read? Do writing courses deal with this issue and offer any advice? Perhaps authors never consider they won't be published and I'm too pragmatic to be asking the question?!	[ { "answer_id": 58866, "author": "Alexander", "author_id": 22990, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/22990", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "I know of two basic ways. In both cases you need to commit to writing as a long term, perhaps lifetime endeavor.\n\n1. Learn to love the writing process itself. Learn to generate and develop new ideas so you don't feel like your first book is your only child.\n2. Tell yourself that as a writer, you will be getting better. So when your first book is rejected, your second, or maybe third would be accepted. Then, after mastering your craft, you can return to your first book, re-edit it and submit to publishers with much greater success.\n\nHowever, there is a pitfall in the second option. What if your first book, with a great idea and everything, but not so great literary, is just good enough to get published? In this case, you and the publisher may be reluctant to publish a considerably different \"second edition\" of your work. Still, there are examples of authors successfully \"repackaging\" their early works." }, { "answer_id": 58900, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "True or false: No author has ever or will ever get their first novel published?\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI don't know. I did a quick search and didn't come up with good results. However, I do know that sentences containing nobody, everybody, never, and always are as a rule false.\n\nThey are too general and the fact that we usually use such sentences to push ourselves or others down not only makes them false but harmful as well.\n\nMaybe there is an author out there that was published on their first try? Maybe someone will in the future?\n\nIn this day and age, you can definitely publish your first novel. No one might read it. And you should probably not use your favorite pseudonym... But you can publish it...\n\nIf you don't go all in, it will take longer to get good enough\n--------------------------------------------------------------\n\nReasoning about when people get published and such risks raising thoughts about hacking the system by taking it easy on the initial novel or novels.\n\nIt's a bit like the joke about heartbeats: You get a limited number in a lifetime so you'd better not exert yourself or they'll run out too fast...\n\nNot going all-in on your novel will likely prolong the time it will take you to become a good writer. You'll miss important lessons or you'll get them in smaller portions over a longer time.\n\nNot going all in ever is, in my opinion, a recipe for never becoming an author. Or for that matter published. (Agents and publishers will know if you went all-in or not...)\n\nMy advice is to go all-in from book one and keep going.\n\nAfter all, if you decide to self-publish your first novel and someone actually does pick it up and read it, what do you want them to read? The best you had at that time or something you kinda wrote?\n\nYou can pick it up later and finish it\n--------------------------------------\n\nNothing prevents you from taking your best idea, fail writing it, put it aside, and pick it back up later.\n\nSure, you might get published and later in life realize that it was a poorly executed novel.\n\nOr you might start in one genre and then realize another genre is a better fit for you. You might still reuse parts of the first novel, or have them floating around in your mind as you write other novels.\n\nIt may also be that your first novel follows a theme all your novels will follow, that you'll actually spend your career exploring a single theme or a single type of story from many different perspectives. It could happen that the first novel, published or not, will just be one instance of that exploration.\n\nWriting is a lifestyle\n----------------------\n\nIs writing for you? I don't know. I do think, however, that if you write your first book as if it is obvious that it will get published you'll be able to figure out much faster if writing is for you or not.\n\nI suggest that when you write you mean business, you write to get published, you go all-in and produce the best you can, using the best ideas you have. You do it professionally as if it was a job. You start it, do it and finish it. With deadlines, if it helps you from spending a decade \"going all-in\"...\n\nOtherwise, you will spend your time trying to write instead of actually doing it. (You do, or you don't, there is no try, as it so wisely has been said...)" }, { "answer_id": 59133, "author": "Graham Powell", "author_id": 1154, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/1154", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "To add to what the others said, nothing says your first novel won't be publishable. It might be! But once it's done, you need to start your next one while you're writing the first one. All can be fixed by writing more and getting better, although it can be a struggle for some (ie. me!)." }, { "answer_id": 59137, "author": "Chris Sunami", "author_id": 10479, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10479", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I've learned to see every writing project as a learning project. If you learn something from doing it, it's not ever wasted time. And you always put your best foot forward, because that's the only way you learn the most worthwhile things.\n\nThere's no such thing as wasting your best ideas. Many authors' greatest books have been much reworked versions of themes they tackled earlier and less successfully." } ]	2021/08/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58860", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44399/" ]
58,870	I wrote a short story about a 6 men on a rescue mission to save a family during WWII. I originally called them a "platoon" and wrote about the main characters "platoon mates"; however, I have since learned that a "Squad" is made of 7-14 men and a "Platoon" is supposedly made of 3-4 "squads". I was wondering if anyone here was able to answer the question of which is the right wording (or even if either one is correct) for this small group of men on the rescue mission? Thank You!	[ { "answer_id": 58871, "author": "WritingHelp", "author_id": 51847, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51847", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I believe it would still be squad. A squad could be 7-14 but in a typical U.S. Army it would be 6-10 men. Your six soldiers would still be a squad." }, { "answer_id": 58872, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Squad is correct term and in the U.S. Army would have been commanded by a Staff Sergeant (Although this predates the NATO pay grade system for ranks, the modern rank is E-5). Modern Squads are lead by a Sergeant [E-4].\n\nFor enlisted, Squad mates is a more defined concept as these are the small group you will do most of your work with. Two squds will make a section, and two sections make a platoon.\n\nNote, the size should also translate to the U.S. Marines, who use land based unit orgainzations but not the Navy or Coast Guard, where units are arranged more around ships than personnel. U.S. Airforce was not a thing but the Army airforce would be arranged by number of planes.\n\nSquads should not be confused with a Squadron, which in Armies is a company level cavalry unit (lead by a Lt. Colonel (O-6)). Squadrons also exist in Navies (3-10 ships or an admin unit for a lone operating vessel such as a submarine, O-5 or O-6) and Air forces (12-24 planes, depending on the number of planes and including the ground crew. Depending on the size, the commanding rank can range from O-4 to O-6)." }, { "answer_id": 58875, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 1, "selected": true, "text": "Your group could either be a squad or a [section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_(military_unit)), a grouping between squad and platoon.\n\nEven in WW2, squads were not uniformly armed. There would be rifle squads and machine gun squads and mortar squads. This kind of specialization was even continued up the organization with heavy weapon platoons and companies. This is mostly for logistics and training reasons. And, this is not to say that these specialized groups didn't contain rifle squads. They certainly did since they'd depend on riflemen to protect their positions.\n\nAll this is to say, is that a few squads from a company could be organized into a section for a specific mission that needed mostly riflemen, but also support: machine guns, mortars, bazookas or other anti-tank weapons. You'd have a designated section leader and assistant section leaders to maintain tactical control.\n\nYou can observe this combat structure outlined in the short stories of Ron Glass and Hienlein's Starship Troopers." } ]	2021/08/20	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58870", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51844/" ]
58,874	In order to end up with a finished work, in which there are parallelism and all kinds of other rhetorical devices, do you need to do anything to prepare for it in your rough draft, or can you add this ornamentation to any kind of rough draft?	[ { "answer_id": 58871, "author": "WritingHelp", "author_id": 51847, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51847", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I believe it would still be squad. A squad could be 7-14 but in a typical U.S. Army it would be 6-10 men. Your six soldiers would still be a squad." }, { "answer_id": 58872, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Squad is correct term and in the U.S. Army would have been commanded by a Staff Sergeant (Although this predates the NATO pay grade system for ranks, the modern rank is E-5). Modern Squads are lead by a Sergeant [E-4].\n\nFor enlisted, Squad mates is a more defined concept as these are the small group you will do most of your work with. Two squds will make a section, and two sections make a platoon.\n\nNote, the size should also translate to the U.S. Marines, who use land based unit orgainzations but not the Navy or Coast Guard, where units are arranged more around ships than personnel. U.S. Airforce was not a thing but the Army airforce would be arranged by number of planes.\n\nSquads should not be confused with a Squadron, which in Armies is a company level cavalry unit (lead by a Lt. Colonel (O-6)). Squadrons also exist in Navies (3-10 ships or an admin unit for a lone operating vessel such as a submarine, O-5 or O-6) and Air forces (12-24 planes, depending on the number of planes and including the ground crew. Depending on the size, the commanding rank can range from O-4 to O-6)." }, { "answer_id": 58875, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 1, "selected": true, "text": "Your group could either be a squad or a [section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_(military_unit)), a grouping between squad and platoon.\n\nEven in WW2, squads were not uniformly armed. There would be rifle squads and machine gun squads and mortar squads. This kind of specialization was even continued up the organization with heavy weapon platoons and companies. This is mostly for logistics and training reasons. And, this is not to say that these specialized groups didn't contain rifle squads. They certainly did since they'd depend on riflemen to protect their positions.\n\nAll this is to say, is that a few squads from a company could be organized into a section for a specific mission that needed mostly riflemen, but also support: machine guns, mortars, bazookas or other anti-tank weapons. You'd have a designated section leader and assistant section leaders to maintain tactical control.\n\nYou can observe this combat structure outlined in the short stories of Ron Glass and Hienlein's Starship Troopers." } ]	2021/08/20	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58874", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25421/" ]
58,878	I'm making my own book, but I'm not sure what to do in the following situation: If you were to write a line of dialogue when introducing a new character, then describe the same character, do you describe them within the same paragraph, or start a new paragraph? So, like this: > > "Oh, come on, dude, get over yourself." said my best friend Trevor. He was pretty tall, he had black hair, looked like your average cool kid. > > > Or like this: > > "Oh, come on, dude, get over yourself" said my best friend Trevor. > > > He was pretty tall, had black hair, looked like your average cool kid. > > >	[ { "answer_id": 58884, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Both your examples seem awkward to me.\n\nUnless your POV character hears Thavon's voice before they see him he should be present in the scene before he speaks, and consequently also described before he speaks.\n\nAnd since he's the POV character's best friend, \"I\" should notice him even if it's in a big crowd. It's very seldom a best friend would enter a scene dialog first.\n\nLet's say the POV character enters a room where Thavon is sitting on a couch. Then you describe him when the character sees him.\n\nYou can (read should) also spread his description out in the scene.\n\nThe balance you need to keep an eye on is between info-dumping (just making a shopping list of character features) and jarring the reader with details later on that collides with their internal image of the character or the place or object being described.\n\nBut you should also show Thavon's description rather than telling it.\n\nA few rules of thumb when doing first-person singular \"I\" POV:\n\n* Never describe things your POV character can't see, hear, etc\n* Avoid describing things one can assume your POV character knows and wouldn't think of\n\nFor instance, \"Thavon is my best friend\"\n\nYou could tell the reader \"my best friend Thavon\" but it would break the rules above. We seldom think, my best friend, when we meet our best friends, we just start interacting with them.\n\nSo, it's more natural if you show the reader with dialog and actions that he and the POV character are best friends.\n\n> \n> \"Hey Thavon,\" I said and gave him a quick hug. \"You missed basketball yesterday.\" I thumped my fist to his shoulder. \"What's up with that?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis tells us they are friends, but not necessarily best friends. It's probably going to be ok until something happens that makes the status of the relationship important. Perhaps Thavon does something a best friend shouldn't do:\n\n> \n> \"We're supposed to be best friends,\" I said. \"What the hell, Thavon?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nOr you show it to the reader by Thavon and \"I\" doing things together or how they talk with each other and what they talk about. You know, show them being best friends.\n\nHis black hair.\n\nThis one should also be done with action if possible, maybe something like:\n\n> \n> Thavon scratched his black hair. \"Sorry about that...\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nAnd his stature.\n\nYou could show it by having your POV character talking up to him, or maybe he's leaning back on that couch stretching out his legs so \"I\" have to step over them to sit on the couch or something similar. \"I\" might notice him stretched out on the sofa being tall as a beanstalk or something similar... Like the POV character notices it or is a bit surprised by the image even though he's seen Thavon and his stature many times before.\n\nOr maybe:\n\n> \n> \"Yeah,\" I said, \"we could have needed your tall ass there yesterday. Now they wiped the floor with us.\"\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 58885, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The way that I understand this is that each paragraph of a scene —- something told in real time with character dialog and gestures and actions and movement —- is showing what the POV character experiences. And, that a mew paragraph signals a shift to a new focus by the POV character.\n\nSo, that said, your POV character would hear what his best friend said and could notice striking, or important, elements of their appearance. But, if that ‘noticing’ moves to something beyond their appearance or manner then it would represent a shift in the POV character from perception the world to internal reflection on that moment where they might think on how long they’ve been friends, or what good or bad friend this person is. And that reflection ought to have its own paragraph, separate from the paragraph of the friend speaking and moving about and additional narrative facts like stove pipe jeans or lousy haircuts or whatever is markedly different about someone they know very well but that audience doesn’t necessarily know at all." } ]	2021/08/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58878", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51853/" ]
58,883	So I'm going through a list of reasons to choose something, followed by a semicolon and then an explanation. * Aerodynamic resistance: The reason that this is important is bla bla bla... vs * Aerodynamic resistance: the reason that this is important is bla bla bla... Is the first word after the colon capitalized?	[ { "answer_id": 58889, "author": "Michael Harvey", "author_id": 36110, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36110", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "You mention a 'semicolon' but then (correctly) use a colon.\n\nA colon is nearly always preceded by a complete sentence; what follows the colon may or may not be a complete sentence, and it may be a mere list or even a single word.\n\nBritish usage: no capital letter after a colon unless it is to start a proper noun or acronym.\n\nAmerican usage: a capital letter if the text after the colon is a complete sentence." }, { "answer_id": 59007, "author": "Irene", "author_id": 51985, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51985", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Michael Harvey's answer is quite comprehensive. Additionally, you may put a period between both parts, and if they represent two full independent sentences, you can use a colon and start the second part with a capital letter. I meet this type of spelling most often." } ]	2021/08/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58883", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51795/" ]
58,897	This question is inspired by a different one - [How to communicate characters' inner states?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/58787/how-to-communicate-characters-inner-states). Although it may seem similar at first glance, I find the difference quite profound. My question regards character's thinking process - when they came up to certain conclusions. Quite often in my stories, I include the situation when after a certain event main characters start thinking - and end up with some kind of change in their current behavior. I used to describe it quite literally. I tend to write down the hero's thoughts - both in the first and third person. As I am analyzing my own writing, I started looking at this particular tendency. Somehow I feel that this way is not ideal. My impression is these paragraphs' are too dense. They also seem to be deeply internal. Suddenly I move from describing external events to the inside of the character's head. Then with the same rapidity, I come back right to the world. Here is an example from my recent story. Please notice that English is not my native language and this is just a translation. Apologies for its imperfectness. > > Banners and loudspeakers landed on the ground, and furious people stuck to the front of the bus. Ulovor studied their faces and saw no trace of self-control. > > > The bus continued to move forward. The floor of the vehicle rose slightly on the right side. A new message appeared on the dashboard: Accident! For a moment, Ulovor's heart skipped. There was silence in the cabin. The soldiers stood unresponsive. The dynamics of the protesters have changed. > > > Terror, weakness appeared on their faces. They ran to the right-hand side of the bus. Thus, they cleared the space leading to the gate. Bald Tom took advantage of the opportunity to accelerate a bit. The entrance to the base opened automatically upon sensing an allied unit. They entered. > > > Ulovor sat down. He was examining the curvature of the floor with his feet. His imagination kept coming up with images of a man getting entangled in a wheel. He thought it was his fault, only his. A person died because of him. > > > He had never been present at someone's death before. All he did was piloting ships. Delivering people and goods. He was overwhelmed with remorse of a caliber he had never imagined before. > > > However he had one clear thought as well. He will make it on time. He will get to do training. His dream, put aside for a moment, came back as graspable as never before. This relief only fuelled the guilt he already felt. > > > As a result, he felt a confusion of emotions and he did not know whether what happened was good or bad. > > > And another one: > > Shufeno sighed: 'I think it's time for me to take the lead.' > > > Ulovor felt offended. If he gives up control now, the teacher will remember him as a failure. He couldn't agree to this. He knew he could handle planes very well, even in space. And he wished Shufeno was aware of this fact. He even imagined Stefan's Instagram story, where he tells how Ulovor impressed him. > > > -Not yet. I know how to reach Jupiter. I did it on the simulator. > > > I hope I made my concern clear. If not I'll be happy to clarify the problem. I have learned quite a lot from this community and I'm really interested in the opinions of more experienced writers.	[ { "answer_id": 58948, "author": "Kate Gregory", "author_id": 15601, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15601", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "First, \"Show don't tell\" is not a rule for the sentence-by-sentence analysis of a story. It doesn't mean that you are never allowed to state any facts at all but must communicate all of them in actions and dialog.\n\nCompare:\n\n> \n> Zotn was arrogant.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis is flat-out telling. There is no proof, no backup, just a conclusion the reader is supposed to accept.\n\n> \n> \"Zotn?\" Sherry shook her head, the blonde curls expanding and contracting the way Joe loved to watch. \"That arrogant jerk is never getting near this company in any way, shape or form.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nHere we are being shown that at least one person considers Zotn arrogant, and learning about other characters too. Now imagine that Joe asks why she thinks Zotn is arrogant and she tells a story. Lots more showing.\n\nOr imagine that the book takes us through multiple scenes with Zotn in which he behaves arrogantly, plus some in which people tell him (or each other) that he's arrogant, and maybe some interior dialog where he doesn't think \"I sure am arrogant\" but instead thinks arrogant things about other people or about what has happened recently, that we got a \"neutral\" narration or other POV of.\n\nIn your examples, one \"telling\" is:\n\n> \n> He thought it was his fault, only his. A person died because of him.\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou can make this more of a showing by giving us more of his thoughts. You do have him visualizing the person being killed. But he could be thinking \"that is my fault\" or \"how could I have stopped that?\" or \"I should have stopped that\" or \"Why did I come here, I should have know this is where it would lead\" or many other thoughts that demonstrate Ulovor thinks it's his fault someone died.\n\nYou also don't need to get it all over with in this scene. Later, Ulovor can talk to someone, write in a diary or report, go to a commanding officer and offer to resign, can do all sorts of things that show us the guilt he is feeling over what happened.\n\nConsider this:\n\n> \n> He was overwhelmed with remorse of a calibre he had never imagined before.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThat is just not how people think right in the middle of a protest-turned-deadly. Remorse comes much later. And certainly comparing your remorse to previous remorses does. In fact, it probably makes the most sense for Ulovor to feel angry in the moment. How dare that idiot get himself killed, possibly derail the mission, try to distract Ulovor from doing what has to be done ... these internal thoughts set the reader up for a later guilt and remorse, if it comes. Or, Ulovor might feel ashamed, humiliated, and embarrassed that he couldn't achieve this simple task of getting a vehicle from one place to another without a major incident that is upsetting and tragic. Whatever thoughts you show us in Ulovor's head need to lead the reader to conclude that he feels guilt or remorse or whatever.\n\nIs he confused in the moment? Of course he is. But don't tell me that. Show me that by \"playing\" contradictory thoughts. By having him stand up suddenly and then sit down again. By having him start to say sentences aloud to the people with him and then cut himself off mid-word. By having him wring his hands or pull his earlobe or chew his lip or fiddle with a ring or necklace, a pen from the table, whatever. Especially if whatever he fiddles with is symbolic of the mission (a lapel pin showing him as a star whatever-he-is) or of his life outside the mission (a bracelet from his mother.) In this way his physical behaviour manifests the emotions you want us to conclude. Have him obsessively smooth or adjust some part of his uniform, adjust the same thing over and over. Describe his breathing, his voice, the way his hands move. As he gains control internally and his emotions settle down, make his physical behaviour settle down too." }, { "answer_id": 59142, "author": "Qwerty", "author_id": 51732, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51732", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "My answer isn't focused directly on your question, but it might help you sort out the show and tell problem in your stories. It appears that you have already embraced the sometimes controversial idea that the Show-Don’t-Tell rule is good advice unless you apply it absolutely, as if you should always show and never tell. I can't post all seven of my ways that prose and poetry can breathe with showing and telling. What I can do is post the first one and give you a link to my website where you can examine the other six... <https://www.ebooks-by-bill.com/downloads/show-tell.html>\n\n#1 Body & Mind... we know more about the world with our bodies than with our minds because we are more directly connected to reality through sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. When you want readers to participate with their imagination, engage their senses with words aimed at their bodies.\n\nPenny watched a rabbit hop under the snow-covered rosemary, ears down and alone.\n\nStories with nothing but imagery, however vivid and beautiful, can be boring and pointless unless you give readers a context for what you are showing them, and why. When you want readers to participate with their intellect, engage their understanding with words aimed at their brains.\n\nPenny glanced at her cell phone. Five bars. Why hasn’t he called?" } ]	2021/08/23	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58897", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/48855/" ]
58,911	What are corridor scenes in novels used for? Usually, most novels don't continuously follow a characters for more than 1-2 chapters, but what if you did that for 10 chapters in a row and included scenes where the characters just walk through a corridor, does that make sense? If not, when should you have corridor scenes? Let's say you have several scenes and they are as follow: Room1 (10-300 second time gap) Corridor1 (10-300 second time gap) Corridor2 (10-300 second time gap) Corridor3 (10-300 second time gap) Room2 (10-300 second time gap) Corridor1 (10-300 second time gap) Corridor2 (10-300 second time gap) Should you remove all corridor scenes? What should you do with them and when does it make sense to add a corridor scene? I was reading something I wrote and because of corridor scenes there's no big time gap between the scenes, but it makes things clunky for some reason.	[ { "answer_id": 58914, "author": "Jedediah", "author_id": 33711, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33711", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "Corridor scenes serve basically the same purpose as other traveling scenes, and much the same purpose as scenes set anywhere else.\n\nIf two or three characters are on their way to a place where action is anticipated, and are having a conversation which foreshadows something which will happen there or otherwise moves the plot forward, why not have that scene in a corridor?\n\nPeople walking together, or meeting in a corridor, is a good excuse to set up an exchange between characters which has a natural beginning and end. (Somebody gets where they were going, and you don't have to come up with a different reason for the scene to break up.) Two people can be alone together, without it being private or intimate, and without it seeming suspicious or contrived.\n\nThere's all kinds of reasons for setting a scene in a corridor. And that's leaving aside the Action stories where the goal is a thing in a room (hostage, macguffin, etc), and the fight scenes themselves are naturally set in corridors leading to that room." }, { "answer_id": 58956, "author": "Ash", "author_id": 26012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26012", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I would add that corridor scenes can also be used in a single character narrative to build suspense, especially if there is something notably wrong, from the point of view of the character, with said corridor. Similarly if there is an existing sense of urgency staying with the corridor increases tension as the reader hurries to the conclusion of their journey but still isn't there." }, { "answer_id": 58972, "author": "KeithS", "author_id": 15580, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15580", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I'm not finding \"corridor scene\" as a trope, so this answer will take the term more literally.\n\nMore generally, \"traveling scenes\" aka \"carriage scenes\" in written fiction are good places for expositional dialogue; two people sitting in a car (or in a horse-drawn carriage or walking down a hallway) is a natural setting for them to have a conversation, through which the reader can gain information that may be clunky to reveal some other way.\n\nMore specifically, a \"corridor scene\", as in literally a setting where people are walking through a connecting corridor, can be the backdrop for just about anything you need to happen in the story, from a friendly conversation between two people going the same way, to a bomb crashing through the ceiling.\n\nI note your rather limiting use of the term \"scene\", as being a fixed physical location (one hallway in a series of connecting spaces). As in my first example, two people in a car aren't necessarily changing \"scenes\" as the car moves, unless what's outside the car in a particular location becomes important to the story. Case in point, if the overall POV doesn't change - the narration is describing the same characters within the same general area through a continuous timeline - then most readers wouldn't consider each left or right turn into a new hallway a new \"scene\", unless you took pains to impress on the reader that Corridor 1, Corridor 2 and Corridor 3 are extremely different environments, and/or that they're so long/large that you have to introduce significant time cuts to make the story flow.\n\nOn that last point, even though you mention time cuts between the corridors, remember that you don't have to narrate every second of the story (and in fact that's a common trap). Without really breaking the scene, you can take a sentence or short paragraph to say they continued down the hall for 10 seconds and nothing really interesting happened, until they turned the corner and found themselves faced with...\n\nAs for:\n\n> \n> Usually, most novels don't continuously follow a characters for more than 1-2 chapters\n> \n> \n> \n\nI disagree. That is common if not universal in first-person narrative voice (e.g. Hunger Games series; an entire trilogy strictly narrated from the POV of Katniss Everdeen) and it's more the exception than the rule to see a book in this voice change the voice you're hearing as you read (e.g. Twilight: Breaking Dawn, which switches over from Bella's to Kicob's POV for the middle act).\n\nEven in third-person narrative form, the narrative will typically follow the character who's furthering the plot in the most engaging way. That can, very plausibly, be one guy and/or the people around him for the overwhelming majority of \"page time\". You can use \"cutaways\" to other characters' POVs to show/hint at things the main character can't see at the time the reader needs to hear about it, but it's not bad practice at all to tell an entire story from over the shoulder of your protagonist." } ]	2021/08/25	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58911", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
58,918	How do you show and not tell an action such as "installed a virus"? I am wondering if saying "installed a virus on his machine" is a description rather than an action. If so, is there a better way to show that the action happened? According to [Wikipedia's Show, Don't Tell article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don%27t_tell): > > Show, don't tell is a technique used in various kinds of texts to > allow the reader to experience the story through action, words, > thoughts, senses, and feelings rather than through the author's > exposition, summarization, and description.[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don%27t_tell) It avoids adjectives > describing the author's analysis, but instead describes the scene in > such a way that the reader can draw his or her own conclusions > > > I am wondering if this is a case where "tell, don't show" applies.	[ { "answer_id": 58919, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The Screen Flickered as the Operating System Became Corrupted. The Flash Drive Stopped Blinking:\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThis depends on your technique and story. Characters could say they plan to upload a virus. You can simply imply the virus is installed. A villain can say, \"I've kept you talking so my virus could finish installing on your phone.\" If you want to, you can have a character doing things on a computer while contemplating the stolen data, implying a virus. If you want to be really hard on showing it happen, have a description of the screen as boxes pop up saying things like \"VIRUS DOWNLOAD COMPLETE\" or \"SECURITY SOFTWARE 63% BYPASSED.\"\n\nThere are limits to what show-don't-tell can actually show without it being overly clunky, especially in science fiction/fantasy settings. There is a kind of borderline where descriptions include showing, or a character's thoughts are showing the actions, but read like telling. It can't be an absolute line, so you need to be flexible and creative. I frequently intersperse needed telling with showing other details. Internal dialog is great here. If you later decide it is too \"tell\" and not enough \"show,\" you can always change it (especially if your beta readers don't like it)." }, { "answer_id": 58920, "author": "codeMonkey", "author_id": 40325, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40325", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "What are the Stakes?\n--------------------\n\nIf the character is installing the virus unopposed, I would absolutely just state that they uploaded a virus.\n\nIf the character is working over the internet, and is worried about the authorities tracing their location show their worry.\n\nIf the character has to infiltrate a secure compound and find an isolated computer to use, show their fear.\n\n\"Show, Don't Tell\" is about Emotions and Reasons\n------------------------------------------------\n\nYou don't have to \"Show\" every single thing that happens in your story. That would be un-readable.\n\nInstead, you should try to \"Show\" the internal action that happens in your character's mind - the stuff that reveals who your character is.\n\nYou don't say \"He was angry\" - because it doesn't tell you anything about the character. Instead you say \"He gritted his teeth, eyes narrowing. He would kill her if he had to burn the world to do it.\" Because you just showed the reader a lot about who your character is at their core.\n\nSo in the case of installing the virus, what risks exist? How does the character feel about them? What actions do they take to mitigate the threat? What options did they reject? Why? Show the internal things that tell the reader about the character.\n\nIf there isn't anything to show about the character, there isn't a scene - just acknowledge that the virus got installed, and get back to the interesting stuff." }, { "answer_id": 58921, "author": "Mousentrude", "author_id": 44421, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44421", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Installing a virus is showing\n-------------------------------\n\nIn my mind, describing an action is showing, not telling: you’re explicitly showing someone doing something, and we learn something about them from the act itself and/or how they’re doing it. For example:\n\nTelling:\n\nAmox was an evil git and didn’t see why anyone else should enjoy life. If he could do something to make someone’s life a misery, he did it, and in technology, he’d found some great ways to make people miserable.\n\nShowing:\n\nBob left his desk and headed for the loos. Idiot didn’t even lock his computer. Amox scooted over, pushed in the USB stick and grinned as the virus uploaded.\n\nIn other words, you don't need to say Amox is an evil git, because the act of him putting a virus on someone's computer (and being happy about it) shows us he's unpleasant.\n\nPersonally I think both have their place – all depends on context within the story." }, { "answer_id": 58922, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I'm not entirely sure if you're asking how to Show, don't Tell, or when to do it, so I'll answer when to do it. (See the end of this answer for links on \"Showing, not telling\").\n\nYou don't have to Show everything. Part of the mastery of writing is to know when to show and when to tell.\n\nUse scene intensity to determine when to show and when to tell\n--------------------------------------------------------------\n\nJames Scott Bell suggests ranking your scenes for intensity on a 0–10 scale, in his \"Revision and Self-Editing for Publication\". Anything that falls below 5 should tend towards telling rather than showing and anything that falls above 5 should tend towards showing rather than telling.\n\n(And anything that gets an intensity of 0 should be rewritten or cut...)\n\nIn essence, this means you'll spend fewer words on low-intensity scenes (telling is usually going to result in fewer words for doing the same thing) and more words on high-intensity scenes (since showing generally use more words).\n\nExactly what the reader wants. Lots of high-intensity scenes interspersed with vital low-intensity telling.\n\nUse Scenes and Sequels\n----------------------\n\nDwight Swain in \"Techniques of the Selling Writer\" introduces Scenes and Sequels.\n\nThe Sequel will contain more telling, it's short and jam-packed with information such as backstory and flashbacks, deliberation on how to solve the problem of the previous disastrous scene, even small non-dramatic scenes called incidents and gatherings where things do indeed go as planned.\n\nThe main purpose of the Sequel is to propel the reader from one Scene (action you show, don't tell) to the other with as few words as we can get away with.\n\nSo telling is good for dull transportation or non-dramatic but vital passages. Stuff that maybe could be made dramatic but doing so doesn't contribute to the story actually being told.\n\nShould you show or tell the virus installation?\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nIn the case of the virus installation, I think it's a question of in whose perspective the text is written. If it's the hacker's perspective I'd say go with telling, likely they install a thousand viruses every day, and some even joke the ransomware gangs' customer support is better than any internet provider's because they can even teach grandmas how to buy and transfer bitcoins. For the hacker, it's likely another day at the \"office.\" Low intensity.\n\nIf on the other hand, this is from the victim's perspective, then showing the actual effects of the virus is likely better, especially since it is likely to be emotional and dramatic to the character. It will be a high-intensity scene.\n\nHow to Show, not Tell on Writing.SE\n-----------------------------------\n\nIf you want to know how to \"Show, don't Tell\" Writing.SE contains many examples:\n\n* [When is it okay to \"tell\", instead of \"show\"?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/54/when-is-it-okay-to-tell-instead-of-show)\n* [How to show a character being bored for multiple chapters without boring the reader](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/33967/how-to-show-a-character-being-bored-for-multiple-chapters-without-boring-the-rea)\n* [How to \"Show\" and not \"Tell\" for nervousness?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/32043/how-to-show-and-not-tell-for-nervousness)\n* [How to show characters learning something in a non-boring way?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/12365/how-to-show-characters-learning-something-in-a-non-boring-way)\n* [How can I write dialogue to show arrogance?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/51409/how-can-i-write-dialogue-to-show-arrogance)\n* [How to show that a character cares for another, but is also clumsy?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/44334/how-to-show-that-a-character-cares-for-another-but-is-also-clumsy)\n* [How to «show» an irrelevant detail without expressively «tell»?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/17080/how-to-show-an-irrelevant-detail-without-expressively-tell)" } ]	2021/08/26	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58918", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
58,923	I'm writing a short story where a mysterious rich man has just died and his friends are gathering to find out his will. The dead man was quite eccentric and wanted to send them all on a wild goose chase regarding his inheritance/or perhaps lack of, going as far perhaps as hiring people to cause even more confusion and so on. I was wondering how you write scenes that quickly become more and more farcical, i.e. more and more people from the local town become involved, the characters become increasingly excited/frustrated, etc. Are there any good stories with a similar theme or that evoke similar emotions? And how many different characters should I be considering having?	[ { "answer_id": 58919, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The Screen Flickered as the Operating System Became Corrupted. The Flash Drive Stopped Blinking:\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThis depends on your technique and story. Characters could say they plan to upload a virus. You can simply imply the virus is installed. A villain can say, \"I've kept you talking so my virus could finish installing on your phone.\" If you want to, you can have a character doing things on a computer while contemplating the stolen data, implying a virus. If you want to be really hard on showing it happen, have a description of the screen as boxes pop up saying things like \"VIRUS DOWNLOAD COMPLETE\" or \"SECURITY SOFTWARE 63% BYPASSED.\"\n\nThere are limits to what show-don't-tell can actually show without it being overly clunky, especially in science fiction/fantasy settings. There is a kind of borderline where descriptions include showing, or a character's thoughts are showing the actions, but read like telling. It can't be an absolute line, so you need to be flexible and creative. I frequently intersperse needed telling with showing other details. Internal dialog is great here. If you later decide it is too \"tell\" and not enough \"show,\" you can always change it (especially if your beta readers don't like it)." }, { "answer_id": 58920, "author": "codeMonkey", "author_id": 40325, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40325", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "What are the Stakes?\n--------------------\n\nIf the character is installing the virus unopposed, I would absolutely just state that they uploaded a virus.\n\nIf the character is working over the internet, and is worried about the authorities tracing their location show their worry.\n\nIf the character has to infiltrate a secure compound and find an isolated computer to use, show their fear.\n\n\"Show, Don't Tell\" is about Emotions and Reasons\n------------------------------------------------\n\nYou don't have to \"Show\" every single thing that happens in your story. That would be un-readable.\n\nInstead, you should try to \"Show\" the internal action that happens in your character's mind - the stuff that reveals who your character is.\n\nYou don't say \"He was angry\" - because it doesn't tell you anything about the character. Instead you say \"He gritted his teeth, eyes narrowing. He would kill her if he had to burn the world to do it.\" Because you just showed the reader a lot about who your character is at their core.\n\nSo in the case of installing the virus, what risks exist? How does the character feel about them? What actions do they take to mitigate the threat? What options did they reject? Why? Show the internal things that tell the reader about the character.\n\nIf there isn't anything to show about the character, there isn't a scene - just acknowledge that the virus got installed, and get back to the interesting stuff." }, { "answer_id": 58921, "author": "Mousentrude", "author_id": 44421, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44421", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Installing a virus is showing\n-------------------------------\n\nIn my mind, describing an action is showing, not telling: you’re explicitly showing someone doing something, and we learn something about them from the act itself and/or how they’re doing it. For example:\n\nTelling:\n\nAmox was an evil git and didn’t see why anyone else should enjoy life. If he could do something to make someone’s life a misery, he did it, and in technology, he’d found some great ways to make people miserable.\n\nShowing:\n\nBob left his desk and headed for the loos. Idiot didn’t even lock his computer. Amox scooted over, pushed in the USB stick and grinned as the virus uploaded.\n\nIn other words, you don't need to say Amox is an evil git, because the act of him putting a virus on someone's computer (and being happy about it) shows us he's unpleasant.\n\nPersonally I think both have their place – all depends on context within the story." }, { "answer_id": 58922, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I'm not entirely sure if you're asking how to Show, don't Tell, or when to do it, so I'll answer when to do it. (See the end of this answer for links on \"Showing, not telling\").\n\nYou don't have to Show everything. Part of the mastery of writing is to know when to show and when to tell.\n\nUse scene intensity to determine when to show and when to tell\n--------------------------------------------------------------\n\nJames Scott Bell suggests ranking your scenes for intensity on a 0–10 scale, in his \"Revision and Self-Editing for Publication\". Anything that falls below 5 should tend towards telling rather than showing and anything that falls above 5 should tend towards showing rather than telling.\n\n(And anything that gets an intensity of 0 should be rewritten or cut...)\n\nIn essence, this means you'll spend fewer words on low-intensity scenes (telling is usually going to result in fewer words for doing the same thing) and more words on high-intensity scenes (since showing generally use more words).\n\nExactly what the reader wants. Lots of high-intensity scenes interspersed with vital low-intensity telling.\n\nUse Scenes and Sequels\n----------------------\n\nDwight Swain in \"Techniques of the Selling Writer\" introduces Scenes and Sequels.\n\nThe Sequel will contain more telling, it's short and jam-packed with information such as backstory and flashbacks, deliberation on how to solve the problem of the previous disastrous scene, even small non-dramatic scenes called incidents and gatherings where things do indeed go as planned.\n\nThe main purpose of the Sequel is to propel the reader from one Scene (action you show, don't tell) to the other with as few words as we can get away with.\n\nSo telling is good for dull transportation or non-dramatic but vital passages. Stuff that maybe could be made dramatic but doing so doesn't contribute to the story actually being told.\n\nShould you show or tell the virus installation?\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nIn the case of the virus installation, I think it's a question of in whose perspective the text is written. If it's the hacker's perspective I'd say go with telling, likely they install a thousand viruses every day, and some even joke the ransomware gangs' customer support is better than any internet provider's because they can even teach grandmas how to buy and transfer bitcoins. For the hacker, it's likely another day at the \"office.\" Low intensity.\n\nIf on the other hand, this is from the victim's perspective, then showing the actual effects of the virus is likely better, especially since it is likely to be emotional and dramatic to the character. It will be a high-intensity scene.\n\nHow to Show, not Tell on Writing.SE\n-----------------------------------\n\nIf you want to know how to \"Show, don't Tell\" Writing.SE contains many examples:\n\n* [When is it okay to \"tell\", instead of \"show\"?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/54/when-is-it-okay-to-tell-instead-of-show)\n* [How to show a character being bored for multiple chapters without boring the reader](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/33967/how-to-show-a-character-being-bored-for-multiple-chapters-without-boring-the-rea)\n* [How to \"Show\" and not \"Tell\" for nervousness?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/32043/how-to-show-and-not-tell-for-nervousness)\n* [How to show characters learning something in a non-boring way?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/12365/how-to-show-characters-learning-something-in-a-non-boring-way)\n* [How can I write dialogue to show arrogance?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/51409/how-can-i-write-dialogue-to-show-arrogance)\n* [How to show that a character cares for another, but is also clumsy?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/44334/how-to-show-that-a-character-cares-for-another-but-is-also-clumsy)\n* [How to «show» an irrelevant detail without expressively «tell»?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/17080/how-to-show-an-irrelevant-detail-without-expressively-tell)" } ]	2021/08/26	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58923", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51282/" ]
58,925	Is it bad if you start all your chapters with a description of the surroundings? I wrote 4 chapters and it looks terrible, because I always start in a room and I am just describing the room with the most accuracy possible, which sounds weird, what are some other ways to start a chapter? Could you provide a few examples?	[ { "answer_id": 58927, "author": "Aaron E. Gabriel", "author_id": 47279, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/47279", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Alright, I haven't answered a question in a long time but I guess I'm back.\n\nSo, in my opinion there isn't really anything wrong with starting off a lot of your chapters with descriptions of your surroundings, but starting off all of them that way is definitely going to get extremely repetitive and boring.\n\nNo matter how sneaky it is, your readers will eventually piece together the fact that every time they finish a chapter, they'll have to read the description of a new room, and they'll eventually subconsciously stop looking forward to the next chapter and, in turn, stop reading the book as much or at all.\n\nNow, this obviously doesn't apply to all readers, I'm sure there's lot of people who would have a party if they got to read a book where every chapter started with a description, but the majority of people are going to get bored of it, and honestly, it's the same if you started off every chapter with a fight scene. It gets old, no one wants to read the same thing worded slightly differently every time they finish a chapter, no matter what the thing is.\n\nThis obviously doesn't mean you can't make the majority of your chapters start off with descriptions, and it definitely doesn't mean you can't make any chapters start off with descriptions at all, but if every single one is the same thing, it just won't work.\n\nSome other good ways to start a chapter is simply wherever you left off the previous chapter. If the character was kidnapped the chapter before, instead of describing how the room he's now in looks, describe how he feels. How he didn't realize what was happening at first until he felt the sharp pain in the back of his head, which is where he was hit by the bat that the kidnapper had used to knock him out, after that you can transition into a description of how the room looks, and bam, that chapter is now entirely different from every other chapter you've written.\n\nIf nothing happened the previous chapter that requires a continuation, just time skip. For example, if the previous chapter left off with the soldier's scouts finding the enemy base, which was filled with dragons and mermaids and a bunch of other mythical creatures, start off the next chapter something like this.\n\nIt had been three days.\n\nCole woke up, looking out of his tent at the soldiers around him, they were already getting armed for combat, the command to move out would be given at any moment. He cursed himself for sleeping in late.\n\nHe jumped out of bed, heading for (insert whatever the hell he does next). Anyways, I think you get the point. In summary, no, I don't think it's a great idea to start off all your chapters with a description, but it's fine if you start off the majority of your chapters that way." }, { "answer_id": 58928, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "There needs to be enough setting in the opening of a scene to orient your reader. To read for six paragraphs on the assumption they are talking in the library only to discover it's in the garden can be quite a jolt.\n\nHowever \"most accurate\" is a problem, because it takes up space. An absolute master of style might be able to write such openings with such marvelous beauty that people would want to read them, but descriptions on the whole are dangerous because they stop the story dead. (There is some leeway if your point-of-view character is the sort of character who notices things, but that also needs delicate handling.)\n\nThe trick is to provide enough detail to let the reader know where they are, and to be telling details that make the place vivid, as briefly as you can. (Which takes a lot of practice.)" }, { "answer_id": 58932, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "As a reader, I don't want a \"most accurate\" description of a room. Most of the details are uninteresting (nobody cares if the ceiling is exactly 249 centimeter high instead of the standard 250 centimeters) or irrelevant (it doesn't it matter if there's a poorly painted patch on the north wall.)\n\nTell me the details I need. Better yet, tell me the details that your character finds interesting or necessary. That tells me something about the character and the setting. Best of all is to have your character discover needed details.\n\nHere's an example from Helen Xriqhp's A Matter of Oaths:\n\n> \n> Rafe splashed cold water on his face, dribbled it\n> over his head, temporarily driving back the\n> unmistakable after-pain of a sleepbeam. A\n> stateroom was the last place he had expected to\n> wake; neither the provosts nor Security habitually\n> provided such accommodation for their guests.\n> Which left a very large question to be answered:\n> whose guest was he?\n> \n> \n> Or rather, whose prisoner. When he tried the\n> door of the stateroom, it was locked. There was an\n> intercomm on the wall that might yield the\n> answers, but he ignored it in favour of a rapid\n> examination of the rest of his surroundings.\n> Standard model luxury stateroom, the storage units\n> empty except for a selection of clothes that were\n> suspiciously close to his size and had the look of\n> new fabric. An inactive console, hidden behind a\n> decorative panel of real wood. A range of personal\n> items in the san, all new. Nothing that suggested\n> how he had arrived here, or why.\n> \n> \n> He remembered being trapped between Security\n> and the provost sergeant, catching the edge of a\n> sleepbeam as he moved to avoid it. After that, his\n> memory was less clear. A condition he should be\n> accustomed to by now, he jibed at himself. There\n> was a vague impression of being supported by\n> somebody, then the deadening sensation of another\n> sleepbeam. Then nothing until this stateroom.\n> \n> \n> \n\nRather than dump a detailed description of the room on the reader, Ms. Xriqhp has the involved character explore the room and discover relevant details.\n\nYou should also assume your readers can remember where your characters were or where they were going.\n\nIf character A says they are going to the library, then there's a chapter involving character B, then the next chapter involves character A again, you should assume that your readers remember that character A was going to the library. You can gloss over the trip to the library (if it is uneventful) and go straight to character A pulling a book from the shelf or riffling through the card catalog. You don't have to describe the library unless the library itself is somehow interesting - or your character finds it interesting and your readers will find that knowledge about your character interesting.\n\n---\n\nMany authors seem to think cataloging all the details in a story is a good thing. In the middle of an intense action scene, they'll have characters mentally cataloging the appearance and weaponry of each opponent. People don't do that. People notice what is necessary to accomplish whatever task they have in hand. They notice things that impede them. They notice random details that pop into view and remind them of things (though usually not while fighting for their lives.)\n\nThe author should have all of those details in mind, and judiciously share them with the reader where and when needed. Dumping all the details into the story is usually a bad idea, though.\n\nIf a detail is there, it needs to have a purpose. That purpose can be to move the plot along (Chekhov's gun, hanging on the wall for future use,) or it should be to give the reader some insight into the characters (the poorly painted patch of wall as an indicator of a previously well off person living in a home they can no longer afford to properly maintain, making do and trying to keep up appearances.)\n\nYou only have so much \"credit\" with your readers. They'll follow your flood of details for a while, but will lose patience and skip stuff or drop your book eventually. Spend that credit wisely and \"buy\" your readers' interest. You want them to trust that your details are relevant, and that they will be rewarded with interesting things when they spend their time reading your prose.\n\nA detailed but irrelevant description of a setting squanders that credit. It bores your readers and makes them more likely to drop your book. Do it once, and they might forgive you. Do it in every chapter, and you'll be lucky if anyone ever finishes reading your story." }, { "answer_id": 58934, "author": "Kate Gregory", "author_id": 15601, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15601", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You don't have to waste all that description you wrote. Just move it. Keep the first sentence like \"Vana settled back into her favourite armchair\" and then carry on with what you're doing. After a few sentences or paragraphs she can gaze warmly at that painting/decanter/whatever and think to herself about what she likes about it. Or she can get up and walk and her bare toes can sink into the deep luxurious carpet, or love/hate the cold slate under them, or whatever. She walks to a window maybe, and looks out at the familiar? changed? terrifying? view. If there's someone else in the room, they can discuss the view, the room, would you like a cookie, are you cold I can get you a blanket, I told you not to wear that sweater, whatever. This will probably involve references to where things are kept or the fact one character has brought a suitcase or backpack with them.\n\nAs the author, you need a detailed and accurate description of all your settings. But you don't need to share all of it with the reader, and not as the first 6 paragraphs of each chapter. It's great that you wrote it. Now take it out and put it in a settings document, and refer to it as you liven up people's walking across rooms or opening cupboards or whatever. When one character envies another, you have the details on the differences in their homes or offices already written up to use in an internal monolog or a dialog with a third person about how unfair something is." }, { "answer_id": 59312, "author": "bvcolic", "author_id": 40866, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40866", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "You could always start with surroundings because it’s really never a bad place to start, however, the issue arises when you become predictable, not for a lack of skill in describing scenery, but because it really does get boring to start a chapter the same way again and again. Would you like to read an author who does that even if he or she was good? If the answer is no, then you’ve got work to do.\n\nThere are an infinite amount of ways to begin a chapter: dialogue, tangential thoughts, cursory thoughts or cursory scenery, and even things that have nothing to do with anything you’ve been writing about. Remember, you are writing on a blank page, so think of the beginning of each chapter as such. Anything can happen insofar as you have the mastermind for your story. Let loose and keep your eye on the path and surely you’ll find a variety of ways to begin a chapter and keep yourself interested in it. Truth be told, if you can keep yourself psyched about what you’re writing, then chances are someone else will, too." }, { "answer_id": 59326, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Your chapters should behave like scene changes in film or television and have one setting that is consistent for the purposes of what that chapter serves. As the story progresses, it might be necessary to break a scene with a chapter to run concurrently with another scene.\n\nConsider Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, who's climax hinges on the main characters three different attacks (Guwe fights Vader in the Emperor's Throne room on the Death Star, Leydo leads the rebel fleet's assault on the Death Star to blow it up, Han, Leia, Chewie, R2 and C3PO lead the ground assault to disable the Death Star's shields). If they were chapters, you would have each change of scene laid out so that each scene hinges on a cliffhanger (Chapter X opens with the Death Star firing on the Rebel fleet. The fleet realizes it's dangerous and moves to pull back only to see the Imperial Fleet cutting their retreat. Akbar declares \"It's a Trap\" [chapter X+1] Guwe gives in to the Emperor's Temptation to strike down the emperor, pulls his saber, swing for the Evil Emperor... and is blocked by a red blade... he now must fight vader [chapter + 2] New chapter opens on the Ewoks attacking the Storm Troopers at the Endor base and builds up to Han trying to break into the bunker while Leia provides cover... he accidentally closes the blast doors [chapter x+3] Back in space, the rebel fleet is getting torn apart. Leydo tells Ackbar to move the ships towards the imperial fleet as the Death Star wouldn't risk shooting their own ships and while it's very risky, they're more likely to survive the engagment with conventional forces.\n\nIf you're chapter takes place in a setting that should already be familiar to the audience, you need not say anything beyond the elements that changed. For example, if the story takes place over a year of time, you might describe the main room of a house as various seasonal decorations are added or changed (For example, the family room has muted glow of Christmas Lights from the tree twinkling in winter, but is warm and sunny with no lit lights during summer.).\n\nIn other cases, the chapter ending might be done to build suspense for the reveal, in which case the break could signal a gap to build suspense.\n\nSuppose that some meddling kids and a talking dog finally caught the monster in the barn woth a trap. \"Now, let's see who you really are?\" Says the smart girl as she reaches for the mask and pulls up to reveal the face of... [end chapter] [New chapter begins with a cut to some other developing plot point and wraps up.[end chapter][new chapter is back in barn] \"Old Man Jenkins/Rold Ran Renkins,\" The meddling kids and their talking dog shout in unison...\n\nIn that situation, the reveal could be built up or paused as reveal is signaled. Often this is done to hook you into reading more or getting the urgency of the situation or for dramatic effect. In other times, it's to cater to people who would read one chapter at a time... the cliff hanger can be used to get you to come back to read tomorrow.\n\nSome fun techniques could be used here, like say the Monster is definitely either \"Old Man Jenkins\" or the meddling kid's lovable Jock's rival \"Red Herring\", the chapter could transition like:\n\n\"Now, let's see who you really are?\" Says the smart girl as she reaches for the mask and pulls up to reveal the face of... [end chapter] [Next Chapter] Red Herring made his way to the basement of the barn house... [end chapter][Next Chapter] \"\"Old Man Jenkins/Rold Ran Renkins,\" The meddling kids and their talking dog shout in unison...\n\nNote that in that example, the end of the first chapter and the begining of the second almost fit perfectly in a sentence (she reaches for the mask and pulls up to reveal the face of Red Herring). But once you read the first sentence of the second chapter, we learn that Red Herring is not even in the same scene and is up to something at a different location (The heroes are in the barn, while Red is making his way to the basement of the Mirn House). When Red's chapter ends, we come back to the scene in the Mirn and learn the real answer.\n\nThis not only shows multiple events at once, but also creates some dramatic tension as well as give the readers incentive to get through the non-reveal to find out who really done it. This could also be used to change POV of the narrator (perhaps Red was sneaking up on the heroes... he might watch as the mask is pulled from afar but when Old Man Jenkins is revealed, we now see the events from his POV. The Smart Girl explains that while the stoner dude and his talking dog were eating, the knocked off her glasses, causing her to fumble around until she found an important clue which she realizes the significance of after the fashionista girl tells them about what she saw in the cellar after she fell through the trap door. All while Red watches from afar plotting his next move." } ]	2021/08/27	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58925", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
58,926	@Standback wrote in an answer to ["How difficult is it to break into screenwriting?"](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/1704/how-difficult-is-it-to-break-into-screenwriting): > > It's extremely, extremely difficult. > > > Not too many people making movies. Lots of people writing screenplays. > Gargantuan investment to get a movie made. Not an easy sell. > > > You would think then that only the very best of the very best screenplays become movies. However, I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that the average movie plot has obvious flaws, such as: * Scientifically implausible "sci"-fi * Historically inaccurate "historical" movies * Boring movies (nothing happens until the end) * The character keeps getting saved by a series of miracles, it starts to insult your intelligence * Bad guys shoot worse than kindergarteners * etc. etc. etc. What would explain this paradox: If the selection process for movie scripts is extremely competitive, why do most movie plots have obvious flaws?	[ { "answer_id": 58929, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Movies, like wars, are made by people.\n--------------------------------------\n\nWhat you are calling a paradox is a conflation of your tastes in storytelling and the decisions made by other storytellers who are putting their money on the table and making a movie they think will satisfy their aesthetic sense of art and make a return on the investment.\n\nAre they always right? No. They’re people and most people get it wrong some of the time.\n\nWhy are there common elements to movies that seem goofy? Because people are more alike than we are different and because being different and taking a risk is scary so its safer to color inside the lines rather than go for the whole Jackson Pollack thing where other people’s money is involved. And, its even scarier when its your money on the line too." }, { "answer_id": 58931, "author": "veryverde", "author_id": 47814, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/47814", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Making movies is far more complicated than just pounding out a good screenplay. You may have written the next Schindler's List, but in the end, if no one watches it, it's not worth any money. Works of art are only worth as much as they can sell for, and movies are very, very expensive to make. So what types of screenplays sell well?\n\nOriginal screenplays have a place somewhere, but it's large franchises that are making the most money right now, by far. And sadly, these franchises have armies of film-makers at their disposal, plus lot's of copyright protections, so that not anyone can take their source material, and make their own movie out of it. Think of Marvel, who can basically pick and choose who will direct/write/act their movies, because they have the capital to pay them large sums of money.\n\nAdditionally, you need to think of marketing. Chsurtopver Naven for example, made a name for himself, to the point where moviegoers, once they hear his name, they will want to see the film, even if the screenplay isn't good or has glaring plot holes.\n\nAnother one is time: Many screenwriters are held to a schedule (in order for the film to be released at a time when it's likely to make more money), so they don't have time to edit it to perfection.\n\nIn essence, it's all tied up with money, in one way or another, sadly. In general however, if you write good screenplays of a particular genre, you can make a name for yourself (e.g. Talaphiro, Sorkin, Spielberg, Waititi, and plenty of others)" }, { "answer_id": 58935, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "Because humans:\n===============\n\nTo elaborate: It IS really hard to get into making movies. That's why artists are always looking to make a movie at all costs - because once you're in, you have a reputation. Because of the money involved, most folks don't want to take a chance on an unknown - even if they love the stuff. So many movies are based on stuff that's all ready successful (like TV shows, comics, or books) precisely for this reason.\n\nSome of it can be translation. I loved the book The Postman, but the movie was REALLY terrible. Different formats can fall flat describing things originally in a different media. Editing can be a problem since a longer movie might have tied those elements together like they wanted to, yet there wasn't time to put it all into 90 minutes less credits.\n\nBut people are also lazy, and want success to be easy. So once you're in, you are assumed to be good until you make a mistake. So the inside talent pool is small once a movie is picked. If your works make money despite a few flaws, no one cares.\n\nMy favorite \"skit\" from Family Guy was Spepfuj Kunw sitting anguished at a typewriter. His editor asks him what his next work is about, and in desperation, Stephen grabs a lamp and says, \"It's about a lamp monster!\" The editor replies, \"Are you even trying any more? (sigh) When can you get it to me?\"\n\nSadly, I might watch the Lamp Monster movie.\n\nThen there's the fact that a lot of viewers don't care about a few obvious flaws if the movie is fun. Anyone who's watched any Smokin' Aces films, Qohq Wicy films, or any number of others can see there are glaring deficiencies, yet it's fun to watch. Sometimes people just want to suspend disbelief in the process, not just the story. Give folks a great gun fight or space battle, and they're happy. After all, movies are a visual media and great visuals are as important as a good story.\n\nAlso sadly, I've watched both Smokin' Aces movies and all the Qohq Wicy movies. If they come out with another Star Wars movie, I'll probably watch it as soon as I'm done watching Solo (sigh)." } ]	2021/08/27	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58926", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51898/" ]
58,936	I'm curious to know if it can apply to an episode, volume, season, or an individual book of a trilogy. If it does apply, how do you apply those individual episodes into a whole story whilst following the beat sheet? For the people who don't know what Save the Cat is, it's basically A story structure method that uses 15-beat blueprint writers can follow to craft engaging, well-paced, and satisfying stories. The 15 beats are: OPENING IMAGE (THE IMAGE THAT WELCOMES THE READER INTO THE STORY’S WORLD) THEME STATED (A BRIEF BUT CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE STORY’S THEME) SETUP (A LONGER BEAT THAT INTRODUCES RELEVANT DETAIL AND THE CHARACTER’S STATUS QUO) CATALYST (THE EVENT THAT BREAKS THAT STATUS QUO AND PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY) DEBATE (THE PROTAGONIST DEBATES WHETHER THEY SHOULD ACCEPT THE OPPORTUNITY) BREAK INTO TWO (THE PROTAGONIST DECIDES TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE OPPORTUNITY. A PLAN IS SET IN MOTION) B STORY (A SUBPLOT IS INTRODUCED, OFTEN AT THE BEGINNING OF AN IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP) FUN AND GAMES (THE PROMISE OF THE PREMISE PLAYS OUT AS THE GOAL IS SOUGHT) MIDPOINT (A TURNING POINT OF CONFLICT. OFTEN A MOMENT OF FALSE SUCCESS OR FALSE DEFEAT) BAD GUYS CLOSING IN (THE STAKES RISES AND THE FORCES OF ANTAGONISM BECOMES MORE THREATENING) ALL IS LOST(IT SEEMS THERE IS NO WAY FORWARD FOR THE PROTAGONIST) DARK KNIGHT OF THE SOUL (THE PROTAGONIST MUST LOOK INWARD AND FIND STRENGTH TO MOVE FORWARD) BREAK INTO THREE (A NEW PLAN IS HATCHED AS THE CHARACTER FIND STRENGTH TO MAKE A FINAL ATTEMPT AT THEIR GOAL) FINALE (THE MOMENT OF HIGHEST TENSION IN THE STORY, WHERE THE GOAL IS EITHER WON OR LOST) FINAL IMAGE (THE FINAL IMPRESSION THE STORY LEAVES ON THE READER)	[ { "answer_id": 58938, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "It seems to me that the structure described in the question could apply to any self-contained story, even if it is part of a larger story or series, as an episode or a part of a trilogy. However, if the episode or book does not stand alone, but is really just a segment of a story separated for convenience, then this structure is unlikely to work for it. In particular \"middle books\" that contain neither the initial motivating incident nor the conclusion of a plot will not fit this structure well.\n\nIt should also be noted many excellent stories do not fit this structure at all, or omit parts of it." }, { "answer_id": 58976, "author": "KeithS", "author_id": 15580, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15580", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The framework provided seems to allow for some recursion. Looking it over, I would generally consider this a framework for any single literary/screenwriting unit. In a pinch (which is when it usually happens), you can split the arc into two stories, typically somewhere in the \"All Is Lost\" and \"Dark Night Of The Soul\" moments.\n\nThis is very common in successful movies made into trilogies, think Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean. The first movie is the above arc, beginning to end, leaving the final image open-ended but with enough of a conclusion that the audience is satisfied they've heard a complete story. That takes you into the second movie, where things continue to develop as the result of the events of the first movie, stepping up the conflict between \"good\" and \"evil\", then playing it out to give \"evil\" an \"episodic win\" (Avengers: Infinity War is another example), thus basically ending Movie 2 at or near the \"All Is Lost\" moment (thus making the \"Midpoint\" beat the \"Finale\" of this movie), before restarting the arc in Movie 3, fleshing out the \"Break Into Three\" and \"Finale\" into a full 15-beat arc.\n\nSo, the answer is that it can work as a framework for a large, multi-episodic story arc, however you need to pick your cutoffs in this main arc carefully, and supplement them with recursive STC arcs within the \"episodic\" content of each standalone narrative unit.\n\nAs an aside, Save The Cat is useful for retrospective literary analysis, but IMHO, don't take it as gospel. There are plenty of very successful, compelling, engaging stories where many of these beats are subdued and/or absent.\n\nThe excellent 1983 film Testament basically makes an entire movie out of the \"Fun and Games\" beat; the Catalyst is a global thermonuclear war 5 minutes in, and the rest of the movie is the characters dealing with the (literal) fallout. The Finale is merged with the Dark Night Of The Soul and the Debate, all in the last five minutes of run time; at the end of life as we know it, with a premature, painful death more likely than not as evidenced by the entire movie, do we continue to try to survive?\n\nThe more recent and more well-known 2011 film Contagion is similar; we're basically watching a representative sample of the human race dealing with a deadly virus. It's not really about whether we'll beat the disease, and how heroic the human race has to be to do so; we're watching our cast of characters each making their own way through the storm (or not), and the engaging, real interactions they have with each other in the midst of an existential crisis.\n\nOther movies that don't keep the beat, so to speak, are \"window in time\" movies. The reader/viewer happens across a setting with a cast of characters, and watches some interesting stuff happen. The 2002 cult favorite Rules of Attraction is a good example; it openly defies the STC storytelling model (and perhaps as a result, it got strongly mixed reviews). A more successful example that seems to defy STC is A Star Is Born; if you dissect the movie under a microscope, you can find the major STC beats in there, but on first watch they're hard to point out, especially in the runup to the finale, and most of the movie presents as a juxtaposition of the opposing career/life paths of two musicians in love." } ]	2021/08/28	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58936", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/49632/" ]
58,954	How do you imply something that doesn't have a visible effect? For example, it's easy to imply someone died by saying something like: > > A pool of blood formed under her feet. > > > But how do you imply that someone installed a virus? Without mentioning that the virus was installed? Is there a way to do this? I can say something like: > > Robots started making strange noises. > > > But this is so terrible I am thinking there must be some better way, and people would probably have some insights on this.	[ { "answer_id": 58955, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "What is infected?\n=================\n\nEverything has computers in it nowadays. There could be any number of effects depending on what is infected, what the virus is supposed to do, and what the desired literary effect is. Are you instilling fear? Is it comic effect? Is there a specific (criminal) purpose?\n\n* Your phone starts spamming advertising at you.\n* If it makes a funny noise, DESCRIBE the funny noise. A high-pitched whine above the normal operations. Stuttering. Constant cycling of some functions like motors, or cooling systems, etc.\n* A robot spontaneously shuts down and reboots.\n* The thermostat goes out of control, displaying a cold temp when it's sweltering.\n* Your computer tells you you're wrong and to stop (\"DupeKx. What are you doing, DupeKx? I can't let you do that.\")\n* An unknown icon appears on the control display. It seems to run and run, but doesn't do anything. You get the blue screen of death, then it resets and starts up again.\n* Voice software switching languages spontaneously, or repeating syllables randomly. The voice switches from female to male.\n* The background resets to defaults.\n* The device brings up a prompt saying it's infected with a virus. Then one of the above happens, and it quits telling you it's infected.\n\nI doubt any of these things apply to your specific case. So ask yourself, \"What is the device, what does it do, what would happen if it malfunctioned, and (most importantly) how does the malfunction advance my story or entertain my reader?\"" }, { "answer_id": 58957, "author": "erikric", "author_id": 97, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/97", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "You have to compare it to something. Establish what normal behavior looks like earlier in the story, then have it change.\n\nAn on the nose example:\nHave a person comment something like: \"wow, look how smooth that robot's movements are\". Then later, when the robot starts jerking, you know something is off." } ]	2021/08/31	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58954", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
58,958	My book is a health/ wellness/ diet book/ metabolic issues etc. Throughout my book which I am 3/4 of the way through I have added in the website links after a piece of evidence. I have used 95% of my evidence from NCBI, which is ((The National Center for Biotechnology Information is part of the United States National Library of Medicine)), so science backed evidence. How I have placed it in the book is as an example: Obesity has evolved through the last 30 years on a huge scale due to the rise in blah blah blah blah. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4859313/>. Then continues writing blah blah blah... Can someone tell me if this is ok to do this. I have also got a lot of statements as bullet points where I need to have the links in to confirm the facts such as: * Diabetes is currently 75% of the US population. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4859313/> If anyone can tell me that this is ok, that would be much appreciated Thank you in advance	[ { "answer_id": 58959, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Since this is apparently a popular rather than an academic work, you are free to adopt whatever standard that you like. Providing evidence to back up assertions is good practice, however you do it. If this is an ebook or online work, providing hyperlinks is particularly useful to a reader.\n\nYou should be aware that even major sites can change organization or go offline, sometimes without warning. It might be well to add footnotes or end notes in which you quote relevant parts of the text at those links (with proper attribution), in case the links stop working. You might also want to consider not relying so heavily on a single source, however high-quality it may be." }, { "answer_id": 61218, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "If you link to journal papers, it is usually best to use the paper's [doi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier). It's a persistent id/link that will redirect to where the official electronic version is located, and most publishers will update it if the location changes. \n\nIf the official version is not freely accessible, and there is a url where it is (e.g. on the authors webpage), you could use both links.\n\nI would avoid putting the links in the text, but use numeric references instead. That way readers don't have to ignore as much clutter when reading the text when they're not interested in every article referenced. It also means you can put extra information in the reference such as the title, authors, year, journal and perhaps a relevant quote. \n\nFrom the popular science books I've read, I'd say the common practice is to put the references and notes in the back of the book - per chapter for easy lookup. However, I think that is usually something the publisher decides on. (So if you don't self-publish, ask them.) \n\nPersonally, I would prefer notes as actual footnotes, so I'm not constantly flipping back and forth between the current page and the notes in the back of the book. On the other hand I'm rarely interested in purely bibliographic references, so I'm happy for those to be tucked away at the back of the book.\n\nNB If you distribute your book as e-publication, you could probably fairly easily make different versions with most variations people might wish for." } ]	2021/08/31	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58958", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51936/" ]
58,962	Something I've noticed when worldbuilding fictional setting is that there are generally two distinct ways of referring to fantastical elements in a story. 1. Using a general descriptor with broadly-understood language that explains what the thing is in layperson's terms 2. Using a word or phrase that gives a very specific name or title to the object or phenomenon being discussed Two examples I can think of that I noticed in recent fiction (both from urban fantasy series) are as follows... * In some works magic spells are referred to as "sleep spells" or "fire spells" or whatever, versus other works that give them specific names like a "Somniosus" or something like Harry Potter's spell names (Wingardium Leviosa, Avada Kevadra). The same is true with magical artifacts and other supernatural phenomena. * In an unpublished work that discussed the societal office of a person whose job it was to police the supernatural and keep it hidden, the author was debating whether to refer to the position in very general terms (i.e., regional head) or give the post a specific title and use that throughout the story (e.g., marshal, praetor, or something like that). I was mostly wondering when it was appropriate to use more generic descriptor names versus more specific names. More generic names can be useful because readers will intuitively know what a "sleep spell" or "regional head" does, and people to tend to talk in that manner, but on the other hand people often will use specific terminology when discussing something, especially if the meaning of that term is well-understood.	[ { "answer_id": 58959, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Since this is apparently a popular rather than an academic work, you are free to adopt whatever standard that you like. Providing evidence to back up assertions is good practice, however you do it. If this is an ebook or online work, providing hyperlinks is particularly useful to a reader.\n\nYou should be aware that even major sites can change organization or go offline, sometimes without warning. It might be well to add footnotes or end notes in which you quote relevant parts of the text at those links (with proper attribution), in case the links stop working. You might also want to consider not relying so heavily on a single source, however high-quality it may be." }, { "answer_id": 61218, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "If you link to journal papers, it is usually best to use the paper's [doi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier). It's a persistent id/link that will redirect to where the official electronic version is located, and most publishers will update it if the location changes. \n\nIf the official version is not freely accessible, and there is a url where it is (e.g. on the authors webpage), you could use both links.\n\nI would avoid putting the links in the text, but use numeric references instead. That way readers don't have to ignore as much clutter when reading the text when they're not interested in every article referenced. It also means you can put extra information in the reference such as the title, authors, year, journal and perhaps a relevant quote. \n\nFrom the popular science books I've read, I'd say the common practice is to put the references and notes in the back of the book - per chapter for easy lookup. However, I think that is usually something the publisher decides on. (So if you don't self-publish, ask them.) \n\nPersonally, I would prefer notes as actual footnotes, so I'm not constantly flipping back and forth between the current page and the notes in the back of the book. On the other hand I'm rarely interested in purely bibliographic references, so I'm happy for those to be tucked away at the back of the book.\n\nNB If you distribute your book as e-publication, you could probably fairly easily make different versions with most variations people might wish for." } ]	2021/08/31	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58962", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43118/" ]
58,963	I created my story last year in the nanowrimo challenge, and I finished the whole thing, I was quite happy even if it was a mess. Then I tried to edit it to give it a little more clarity and fixing errors, but after editing the first chapter, the main motivation of the main character has changed... that renders the rest of the story (or big parts at least) obsolete. Should I give up on the edition? Pressing through even if I have to rewrite the whole thing? This had me paralyzed for months and I don't know what to do. To add more details... The setting involved the first contact between humans and elves, which lead to several deaths and the danger of a full scale war. My protagonist was the son of one of the first victim of the conflict, initially his motivation was revenge... but moving along, he never displayed the sort of burning hate required, more like a wishy washy attitude, mixed with some morbid curiosity about the elves. My options were to change "I want to kill them" to "I want to understand them" or rewrite all the scenes to make him more aggressive and hateful, but any option involves some heavy editing. But I guess there is no way to avoid that.	[ { "answer_id": 58964, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "More Editing...:\n================\n\nEditing is both awful and wonderful. Everything can be changed - for good or ill.\n\nConsider your character's goals that changed. You need to either discover a new goal for your character in keeping with the rest of the story, OR you can RE-edit the part you just did, adding back the original motivation. Either way, you have an editing decision to make. There is no avoiding more editing unless you plan to abandon the story all together.\n\nWithout knowing a lot more about the story, I can't tell you what decision I would make. Then again, if I were making that decision, it would be MY story. There is only one other alternative to making the decision yourself, which is to have an alpha reader or collaborator read your mess and decide what THEY would do. But you'll STILL need to edit.\n\nYou can take their advice or reject it. Sometimes I don't realize what I want to do editorially until someone says, \"Do the opposite.\" At that point, my mind clarifies, and I can do what my inner vision says to do. The criticism is still valid even if you don't take it. Then you need to make YOUR vision fix the problems raised by your alpha reader.\n\nAn Alpha reader is hard to come by. It's someone willing to slog through your true crap and give opinions. Anger the editorial gods at your own risk. Prove you listened to them, or do what you want so well that the reader looks at it and says, \"Wow, you totally made the right call.\"\n\n* DUTY, HONOR, AND COUNTRY: You gave us your character's rationale, and I can only give somewhat vague advice, or else I'm telling you what to write. But based on your conundrum, think about what your character needs to achieve in the story. If your goal is to move him to understanding of elves or to overcome racist tendencies, then give him a more intellectual motive. Elves are *EVIL. They are vile poison (he's been taught) and the gods as he understands them despise such creatures. The evidence of their racial inferiority is clear, and proved out by the character's family history. Mom says kill elves. Uncle Tom says so too - after all, it was his brother. The character's ambivalence about killing elves is emotional - he's not into killing, even something as vile as an elf. BUT, everyone says kill elves, and it seems like the universal opinion. Do it for your family. Do it for your country. Do it for your race, and species. Do it for the gods, or the spirit of dear dead Dad (who possibly is telling you to do it himself from beyond the grave). People who are not all that emotional about atrocities can do some pretty gruesome stuff despite not caring that much, just because they convince themselves it's right. Your MC's initial ambivalence may make his later conversion to greater understanding more plausible.\n\nLike anything, it could come off great, or fall flat. You may read this and decide you want to do the opposite. The good news is, you can always edit it again, and again, and again." }, { "answer_id": 58973, "author": "KeithS", "author_id": 15580, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15580", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Been there. This is one reason that, unlike some authors, I don't think putting new material on pause and going back to edit what you have is necessarily a bad idea. There are definite downsides, for instance it kills the forward progress towards a complete story (which is a bad thing when you have a deadline for draft delivery), but the upsides include the fact that you get earlier material into a steady state you're happy with, before you build too much more on top of it.\n\nCase in point, you went back and edited the first chapter. That chapter may read better, be more plausible, more engaging etc., however it's the first chapter; changing the events, the tone, even the amount of expositional information given up front can change the entire story. I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying the further back you go, the more careful you have to be to avoid breaking changes.\n\nAs for how to \"fix\" it, it depends largely on you:\n\n Where do you want the story to go?\n* How much work are you willing to do to get the story on that track?\n\nIf you want the story to go where it currently goes for the reasons it originally went there, then you have two options. One is to at least partially revert the edit in a way that restores the character's original motivations. The other is to insert new material that pushes the character from the headspace they currently start the story in to the one that they originally had that justifies where the story goes in later chapters.\n\nIf you see the story taking a new direction that you like, then you need to accept that what you wrote will need to be hacked and slashed and burned. It's not out of the question that you may need to set all your existing work aside, maybe blocking in the basic events, but rewriting a completely new way through them based on the character's new headspace.\n\nUnderstand that ending up with something completely different than you thought you'd have when you started is extremely common in creative writing. How many \"behind the scenes\" documentaries have I watched for major motion pictures, where basically all that survives of the initial draft is the name of the movie, and there's this entire other movie worth of script and animatics let behind before main production even starts? Sure, there are some scripts that make it through production largely intact, but those are actually rare.\n\nAnd it's not limited to screenwriting; Tolkien famously wrote his masterpiece The Lord of the Rings starting from Page 1 with every new draft, because every time he got into narrative trouble, rather than salvage or edit his earlier material and risk ending up with a cut-paste mess, he just started over from the beginning, noting what he needed to change along the way to avoid or solve the problem he'd run into. That's not how professional novelists write (there's a lot about LotR that isn't the way a modern career novelist would do things), but it worked for him (again, largely because his publisher wasn't insisting on a drop-dead date for manuscript delivery). I'm not saying you need to follow that same path here, I'm saying a complete page-1 rewrite of a story is not impossible and can, at the end of the day, produce a better result." }, { "answer_id": 58975, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Put the draft away then read it\n-------------------------------\n\nWhat you've done is put your draft away for a year and now you've read it.\n\nUnless you have a super memory, it's very likely you've forgotten several details in your story. So much so, you might be able to come at it with the eyes of someone that has never seen your story before.\n\nThis is why, if you haven't finished reading the first draft, you should finish doing that before you do anything else.\n\nRead it in as few sittings as possible. Take notes, but don't get bogged down with them.\n\nWhat you find and what you note down is gold!\n\nIn most cases, you'll be able to capture that elusive first impression in this reading and these notes. Or at least partially.\n\nPersonally, I tend to question my notes when I read things again, so I have to remind myself that what I noted and read was with a mind that was not \"in\" the story and its world, that was not thinking about it, and working with it.\n\nThose notes are what a new reader would see and I have to accept that I didn't say what I now feel is on the page... something has to be changed... (That being said, make sure your notes comes with a compelling argument against the opinions of your future self...)\n\nBe cautious and lazy when editing\n---------------------------------\n\nYou edit the text to make it better.\n\nThis usually means you have to change a lot, but you can go overboard with this and edit the thing to pieces.\n\nAlways be cautious/lazy when editing. Try to figure out how you can alter as little as possible and still have a good text. Good text being the keywords...\n\nMaybe you need to learn new things to make the piece sizzle, then good news; the internet is full of helpful information... sure hours of searching away, but not unreachable...\n\nFor instance, a slow text might be improved by adding elements of suspension rather than cutting everything away. What would happen to that philosophical discussion lasting fourteen pages if there was a bomb ticking in the basement? It could turn a blah scene into a key scene...\n\nI'm not saying you should leave the first draft as it is, but also, do realize that sometimes gems might be hiding in the text, and rather than throwing them away, you need to polish them.\n\nI also have to tell you that sometimes the only thing salvageable might be the core concept of the story. I've been there. I redid the whole thing from scratch.\n\nSometimes, not even that will be salvageable and the text really and truly isn't going to work.\n\nWhat-ifs\n--------\n\nIn your case, it seems you have one character that is supposed to do a little bit too much; both be friendly to the elves and have a reason to hate them.\n\nThese seem to me to be two different \"character tasks\" belonging to two different archetypes; the protagonist and the antagonist.\n\nWhat would happen if you split your character in two and used the background for an antagonist and the curious scenes for a protagonist?\n\nOne could be curious and the other could bring in all the juicy conflict and action you had planned.\n\nMaybe the whole notion of \"not being able to revenge your father\" is something you feel would be good to still have? (It undoubtedly has worked before...)\n\nThen, what if these two characters were siblings? The internal conflict you have now, and that may not be working, would then become external... but still, you wouldn't just kill a sibling (unless you're some kind of biblical person) so there would still be internal conflict anyway...\n\nAlways ask what-if questions to explore what you have and how it can be reshaped without being destroyed.\n\nSummaries\n---------\n\nYou might be helped by writing short summaries of your story (after you've read it completely) bending it in different ways.\n\nOne would explore the version you have now, the other the changes you're pondering.\n\nWrite a handful more summaries to explore other possible stories.\n\nDon't spend too long on each summary.\n\nAfter you feel you have explored all possible variations of the story, after a few days to a week of writing summaries, look at what you have. Which version is the best? Can several versions be combined? Can you see a new and improved version arising from the variations you've explored?\n\nRead a book\n-----------\n\nIf you're new to editing, I suggest picking up a copy of James Scott Bell's, \"Revision and Self-Editing for Publication.\"\n\nIt contains several chapters on how to write and in the end an editing checklist that refers back to those chapters. You could either start with the checklist and read chapters on stuff you're unsure about, or work through the book from the front to the end." } ]	2021/08/31	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58963", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51799/" ]
58,979	I'm writing a story where the main character is going into different parallel universes. Can you get in trouble for referencing a real person or thing if they’re in one of those different universes?	[ { "answer_id": 58986, "author": "user613", "author_id": 40257, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40257", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I'd say the golden rule is: If a person or thing is recognizable in your alternative universes, the fact that they exist in a universe other than our own makes no difference. \n\nMeaning: If it would be okay to mention them in our universe then it would be perfectly fine to mention them in your parallel universe.\n\n1. A public figure or idea that you'd mention in our universe, I think is perfectly fine to mention in a parallel one.\n2. A private figure, who could be based on the facts you give, you should asked for permission before using them in your book. Unless the fact that it's a parallel universe distorts the facts so much that they can no longer be recognized. In which case, it does help that it's a parallel universe.\n\nHope this helps." }, { "answer_id": 59006, "author": "Irene", "author_id": 51985, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51985", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "0\n\nAs I know, some video game companies had problems with celebrities because of characters who were similar to them. I think it does not depend on the universe (real or parallel) - it depends just on the fact that you use a public figure in your story. You have to be incredibly careful not to include undesirable information about this person. Also, if you write about someone who you know personally, you should ask their permission.\n\nUnfortunately, I do not have appropriate links at the hand now, but you may look for good articles on this matter like Kathryn Goldman’s How to Use Celebrities and Other Real People in Your Story or Kathy Murphy’s Keeping It Real: A Rough Guide To Using Real People As Fictional Characters. These articles are not very fresh but still work.\n\nHope it helps!" } ]	2021/09/03	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58979", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51958/" ]
58,980	Lately, I've been having great trouble revising my work for rhythm, because it is hard, not only to think of different word orders and sentence structures, but also to think of other words and phrases to use for the same word or phrase. This seems to happen because I attempt to do it haphazardly while revising a sentence, having no process. So should I write down all the synonyms for each content word before revising a sentence, so that I will have plenty of things to try out, in my head or on paper? What process should I use? Thank you.	[ { "answer_id": 58986, "author": "user613", "author_id": 40257, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40257", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I'd say the golden rule is: If a person or thing is recognizable in your alternative universes, the fact that they exist in a universe other than our own makes no difference. \n\nMeaning: If it would be okay to mention them in our universe then it would be perfectly fine to mention them in your parallel universe.\n\n1. A public figure or idea that you'd mention in our universe, I think is perfectly fine to mention in a parallel one.\n2. A private figure, who could be based on the facts you give, you should asked for permission before using them in your book. Unless the fact that it's a parallel universe distorts the facts so much that they can no longer be recognized. In which case, it does help that it's a parallel universe.\n\nHope this helps." }, { "answer_id": 59006, "author": "Irene", "author_id": 51985, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51985", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "0\n\nAs I know, some video game companies had problems with celebrities because of characters who were similar to them. I think it does not depend on the universe (real or parallel) - it depends just on the fact that you use a public figure in your story. You have to be incredibly careful not to include undesirable information about this person. Also, if you write about someone who you know personally, you should ask their permission.\n\nUnfortunately, I do not have appropriate links at the hand now, but you may look for good articles on this matter like Kathryn Goldman’s How to Use Celebrities and Other Real People in Your Story or Kathy Murphy’s Keeping It Real: A Rough Guide To Using Real People As Fictional Characters. These articles are not very fresh but still work.\n\nHope it helps!" } ]	2021/09/03	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58980", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25421/" ]
58,982	I have compiled about a hundred books to read before I start writing a book I have planned, and feel I'll never write the book if I take the two or so years to read all the books first. Should I skip the research entirely and just write the book?	[ { "answer_id": 58983, "author": "Leon Conrad", "author_id": 8127, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8127", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "As I understand it, you have a story you want to tell in the fantasy genre, and that this would be your 'first serious attempt' to write a substantial work of this kind.\n\nWhatever you do will be the result of a decision you make. Just make sure that decision is made for the right reasons.\n\nTo avoid research being an avoidance tactic, I recommend you put your story at the heart of the decision-making process.\n\nGet to know your characters very well - inhabit the world(s) in which they exist in your imagination - find out how they speak, act, think. Work out how they behave in different situations, what their key personality traits are, and what changes they undergo in terms of character development, and why.\n\nNo book you read can tell you any of this. What other fantasy books will show you is how other writers have approached the same challenges for their characters in their stories. How-to books will give you frameworks and tools you can apply when you come to tell your story.\n\nLet your story guide your research questions and try to relate your research to very specific research questions. 'What are three key effects on a planet of having two moons orbit it?' for instance. If there are no key effects that are instrumental on how life unfolds on that planet, do you really need two moons?\n\nFrom there, it is a question of seeking inspiration and ideas in everything around you - and seeking answers to questions that arise as a result of you engaging with the process of writing the story.\n\nI personally find it useful to map the story structure first - I do this by outlining the events in each character's story line in chronological order, noting where they intersect and how conflicts are resolved (or not). I then plan the structure of the book (the reader's journey) and then write.\n\nMy writing process often isn't linear - I may write the ending, descriptive elements, and some key scenes before working on passages with dialogue. Others will take a more linear approach.\n\nThe only right way is the way that is right for you. Find a way that enables you to get your work finished, edited, beta read, potentially pitched, and eventually published." }, { "answer_id": 58985, "author": "veryverde", "author_id": 47814, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/47814", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "You should prioritize writing.\n\nIf you're making a list of books to read before you start writing, then what you need is not simply read the books, but to go to school for these books/subjects. That way you can truly focus on the subject at hand. Professors can point you things you otherwise wouldn't have known about, plus you and your colleagues can discuss these things over drinks, which expands and reinforces the research.\n\nIf this is not an option, know that very many novels and stories did not turn out the way they were though of/not planned; They only had an initial idea and everything else grew around them. The idea behind The Hobbit for example, was [a single line](https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20140801-tolkien-why-i-wrote-the-hobbit), that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote in his notebook: \"In a hole under the ground there lived a hobbit.\". \"Lord of the Rings\"'s central idea was a fictionalization of WWII.\n\nBesides, the difficult part is not the research, but the writing itself. World building is simply the collecting of ideas. It's pulling the ideas together into something someone else would want to read, that's where the work lies. Of course, knowledge of things is useful, but it cannot be the central premise of what you're writing, if what you're writing is going to be interesting.\n\nRemember also that no novel, or short story even is written in a single setting. Writing anything is like taking part in a marathon: slow and steady wins the race. Get started with writing, read the books while you're doing it and you will find where your gaps of knowledge are (which guides your reading) and you will likely find that writing is the actual challenge of your project." }, { "answer_id": 58991, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Here's how I do it:\n\nI use [the Snowflake Method of Writing](https://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/articles/snowflake-method/) and whenever I get stuck, for instance describing a character's background or figuring out something on setting or a worldbuilding detail, I do research.\n\nThen, of course, I can get sidetracked by research or think I need more than I really do, and start building a whole dynasty with a family tree 58 generations long... and maybe that could be staved off by doing more structured research... but I've never compiled a list of books to read before writing a novel.\n\nI think, to me that would be a sign I'm setting myself up for failure... like someone told me to write the book in school or something and I didn't feel like it so I hit them over the head with a pile of books...\n\nThat being said, some authors do, indeed, read tons of books before writing. For instance, Herman Wouk did before writing the Winds of War and its sequel.\n\nHowever, from your question I surmise, that even if you would end up being an author that does read books before writing, you need to figure out that you are and that you need to, first, so start writing or maybe write a synopsis and do the research as you need it." }, { "answer_id": 58992, "author": "Ash", "author_id": 26012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26012", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Yes and then again no.\n\nGetting ideas on paper is often the most important and challenging part of writing; don't let anything stop you from doing as much of it as possible.\n\nYou will find that research informs new ideas and alters the ideas you had when you started the work and that's not a bad thing. Absolutely do make sure to put in the effort to researching what you are writing about just don't let it slow you down when it comes to composing the story. You will also find that the story that you start writing will make some of your research redundant and prioritise other material which will make that mountain of books easier to tackle usefully." }, { "answer_id": 59003, "author": "Irene", "author_id": 51985, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51985", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I really love the answer provided by Lien Concil. I would also like to add that it depends on the chosen genre. If you want to put some historical facts in your story then, of course, you need to do some research. You can skip the research for a fantasy novel. Thus, the golden mean is to pick the most important books for your story, explore them at least a little, and start writing." } ]	2021/09/05	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58982", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51969/" ]
58,987	How do you format a chapter intended just for exposition? Let's say your worldbuilding is really hard to digest for most readers so you create one chapters just for that, what are the various way to write a chapter like that and how do you format it? I was thinking of writing a chapter where there are only descriptive paragraphs explaining various actors, the history and technology, but I am wondering if it can be considered to be a chapter at all and if it even makes sense to put it in the middle of the book. If it's never done like this, what are some other ways of doing it according to the writers of some popular books?	[ { "answer_id": 58988, "author": "Kate Gregory", "author_id": 15601, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15601", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I would never read all that as a single chapter. It's fine for you to write it all down in one place, but you need to figure out how to reveal it to the readers. There are two basic techniques and it's probably best to use both, revealing some one way, and some another:\n\n* have something happen in which your narrator drops an aside, or have two characters talk, in a way that lets the reader pick up your rules from context. \"Jusg grimaced as he saw the small green form of [moon 1] on the horizon. 'Extra careful tonight?' he confirmed to Sisaq.\" or \"Jusg removed his [weird technical piece of clothing important to your worldbuilding] and hung it up. He longed for the days he had heard of when nobody needed one.\"\n* have your character discover something, perhaps by being in a literal \"school for magic\" [1] where other characters teach them, perhaps by experimenting, perhaps by finding an old book. They either think to themselves a \"stream of consciousness\" as they do so, tell someone else what they're discovering, or the narration can just summarize. \"Jusg continued to practice with the candle flame until he could control it. It wasn't just about his breath, he learned, but more a matter of [part of the magic system.]\"\n\nYou can start with the most important thing, or start with little details and work up to the big thing. You can have everyone know the basics, comfortable with magic wielders or ray guns or the system of government, or they can all be dumped in a new environment where no-one knows what's going on and why. Working out what to reveal when, and how to reveal it without pages of exposition, and yet without some constant reminder that this place is different and the reader doesn't know all the rules on every page, is vital to making your book a \"gripping read\".\n\n[1] - This doesn't have to be Hijrp Potfeq. In the Recluce series, there are many books where our hero gets sent on a mission or to a monastery-like place to learn how to control his talents. The Wheel of Time series has all kinds of characters swept up by magic wielders to be taken to convent like schools where they are trained, and so on. It's easy enough to armwave that those who are very good at your magic can detect a wilder in action and head off to find them and rein them in. In a non-magic setting, the person who keeps breaking the rules about [whatever] can be jailed and re-educated, or forced into the army and re-educated, or sent on a dangerous mission with a grizzled old captain who helps them understand why their society is how it is, or whatever." }, { "answer_id": 58989, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "What you are describing sounds like an encyclopedia.\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nwith entries on subjects detailed therein.\n\nDUNE uses something akin with its dictionary of terms so we understand what a stoneburner is and why a maula pistol is useful. It also provides historical elements in appendices.\n\nThe Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe yields up timely exposition as entries from the eponymous book itself as the characters or narrator need information elided into the story.\n\nWith Dune, the reader can enjoy the story without ever turning to the appendices but if they chose to,they gain a richer story.\n\nWhereas, HGTTU uses a wonderful wit to slide its exposition under our watchful gaze with our cheerful appreciation.\n\nI’ve also seen in Stephen Brust’s works, histories added a single page flyleafs between chapters. Again, they can be skipped or read, as the individual is want to do, and the stories are still enjoyable." }, { "answer_id": 58990, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "The short answer is, you don't put exposition in a chapter of its own.\n\nHere are some questions on writing exposition you might find helpful:\n\n* [How to avoid the 'magic explanation' info dump in Fantasy novels](https://writing.stackexchange.com/q/20210/10826)\n* [How do I avoid a “mid-story info dump?”](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/2139/how-do-i-avoid-a-mid-story-info-dump)\n* [Should I \"tell\" my exposition or give it through dialogue?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/45632/should-i-tell-my-exposition-or-give-it-through-dialogue)\n\nAnd here are some other links:\n\n* [Writing 101: How to Use Literary Exposition](https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-use-literary-exposition#how-to-write-exposition-through-dialogue)\n* [Writing story exposition: Examples and tips](https://www.nownovel.com/blog/writing-exposition-story-examples/)\n* [Backstory and Exposition: 4 Key Tactics](https://www.janefriedman.com/backstory-and-exposition-4-key-tactics/)\n* [25 Ways To Kick Exposition’s Ass](http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2011/08/09/25-ways-to-make-exposition-your-bitch/) (This one is foul-mouthed, it's Chuck Wendig after all, but contains some real pearls...)\n\nIf you check these out and still feel you need a chapter of exposition, here are some alternatives:\n\n* Use footnotes\n* Add a map\n* Use an appendix (or twelve), such as:\n\t+ A chronology\n\t+ A genealogy tree\n\t+ A dictionary\n\t+ A list of characters (but this one mostly exists in stage plays... maybe screenplays...)\n\t+ Any other lists like a list of locations, items, religious rituals, songs, and anything else you cannot get rid of...\n* Write an author's note\n* Save it for your \"Silmarillion\" or your special reader's guidebook or your fandom wiki, etc." } ]	2021/09/05	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58987", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
58,993	What are some of the ways you can cue in your reader that your chapter is a timeskip to the past? Let's say you write a chapter just to go back in time and reveal some details about some characters' pasts, how do you cue in your reader without literally telling them there was a time skip?	[ { "answer_id": 58995, "author": "Ash", "author_id": 26012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26012", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "First think carefully about just how much of the character's back story is actually important, relevant, and necessary. Often one finds that a tangential mention of a particular event is enough without reliving the whole thing in technicolour.\n\nIf you decided you need the whole flashback chapter then:\n\nX/I still remember(ed) the day that... and proceed to tell the story of your past event in third or first person as appropriate. Is an effective flashback structure if you're careful to keep your tenses straight." }, { "answer_id": 58996, "author": "Spencer Barnes", "author_id": 45107, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/45107", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The point about the timeskip is to reveal a character's (or situation's, or object's) background - ie, the character was different then. Before the big crucial detail/reveal you're leading up to, think what other details you could include to show these differences - for example in a story about a military general, starting the flashback with 'Private joe bloggs ...' would be an easy one.\n\nAs per @ash's answer, keeping a close control over what tenses you're using will be important." }, { "answer_id": 58999, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "Use the story\n-------------\n\nThe most organic way to show a broken timeline is to use the story itself to show where in the chronology things happen (as opposed to dates in chapters, or mentions in the narrative description, etc).\n\nLong time jumps\n---------------\n\nHere are some ways to show long time jumps:\n\nUse a distinct before and after state. Maybe someone is dead after and alive before, so if they are alive, we know it's before. (E.g. the character's parents or grandparents...)\n\nCharacter age can be used. For instance, if some characters are children in the past and adults in the present they would do different things (go to school instead of work) and may even think and speak differently. (E.g. loudly insisting their secret friend should have a seat at the dinner table and throwing a tantrum if that is denied...)\n\nCharacters' relationships might be different in the past and present such as marriages, divorces, friendships, etc.\n\nIf you're jumping way back in time, setting and society can also be used to show which time we're in. If everybody is going crazy about the Beatles we're not in 2021 anymore...\n\nBig events can be used to show a before and after. Just to mention one aspect, flying in July 2000 was completely different from flying in October 2001...\n\nShort time jumps\n----------------\n\nIf your time jump is shorter, meaning the general world is the same before and after, you show the chronology, for instance by having plots converge in one or a few scenes. Show the same scene from different perspectives or have one plot show the beginning of the scene and another the end.\n\nYou can also use cues like sound, TV news, or other common/\"global\" information to show what time in the chronology we're at, and thus if your chapter is before, simultaneous with, or after other chapters.\n\nAlso, see [this question and its answers](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/45165/how-to-continually-and-organically-let-my-readers-know-what-time-it-is-in-my-sto) for more ideas on chronology handling." }, { "answer_id": 59017, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Have each chapter begin with a timestamp. The time stamp should be consistent in format and not the time of day on a clock (I prefer using military time (i.e. 0000-2359, as it saves three characters (a colon and an AM/PM designator)), the date on the calendar, and the calendar year. If you are traversing time zones as well, then make sure you account for the local time of the scene in your time stamp with a designated time zone (most zones will go to a major city in that time zone although it always helps to look up the difference) and make sure you account for the difference in your story's chronology. For example, if chapter 1 is 1200 PST (L.A.) and chapter 2 is 1200 EST (D.C.) then you've gone back in time 3 hours. However if it's 1400 9/7/year EST (D.C.) in chapter 1 and 0300 9/8/year JST (Tokyo) in chapter 2, the two chapters happen simultaneously since Japan is 13 hours ahead of the Easter U.S. (By the way, this discrephancy in dates caused Japan to recieve a charge of a war crime against the U.S. and U.K. in WWII. In international war, surprise attacks. Suffice to say according to Japan, they attacked and declared war on December 8th... but the U.S. maintained the attack was on the 7th and Japan declared war on the 8th, ignoring that U.S. Territory and allied territory was attacked at the same time as Pearl Harbor in the early morning of the 8th.)." }, { "answer_id": 59102, "author": "Christiana", "author_id": 51763, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51763", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "A hint\n------\n\nYou can, a few chapters before the timeskip give the hint of the event which will be covered in the timeskip, somewhat like \"this-this happened back then\" From dialogue, internal thoughts etc. You can get quite creative here. And when the timeskip does come, you can play the event. This would work when you're going back to the past, from the present." } ]	2021/09/06	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/58993", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
59,001	I am translating a book published in 1961. The author has been dead for more than 50 years. I would like to use the same illustrations, but do not know who to ask. The painter is dead, and he did not have a family. The publisher has been closed for a long time.	[ { "answer_id": 59002, "author": "Irene", "author_id": 51985, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51985", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "I think you can use the same illustrations, but you should point to the source for them. I would do it in such a way if I was in the same situation." }, { "answer_id": 59013, "author": "Leon Conrad", "author_id": 8127, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8127", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Copyright law is complex and differs across different countries.\n\nA starting point, if you haven't used it, is the Copyright Watch centre:\n\n<https://norman.hrc.utexas.edu/watch/>\n\nhttps://www.reading.ac.uk/library/about-us/projects/lib-watch.aspx\n\nThe Copyright Alliance have some helpful links:\n\n<https://copyrightalliance.org/resources/find-a-copyright-ownercreator/>\n\nI've seen disclaimers in forewords in books which contain wording along the lines of\n\n> \n> 'every attempt has been made to contact copyright holders of works\n> included. Ommissions unintentional. Please contact the author or\n> publisher if you feel a copyright breach has occurred and we will do\n> our best to rectify it.'\n> \n> \n> \n\nIf you are a member of an organisation such as the Society of Authors, UK (<https://www2.societyofauthors.org/>) you may be able to seek advice through them or have a friendly copyright solicitor recommended who is used to dealing with these kinds of queries." }, { "answer_id": 59016, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Never mind the illustrations. Making a translation of a work protected by copyright is an infringement unless one has permission. This is true in pretty much every country. Specifically it is true in every country that has signed the [Berne Copyright Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention).\n\nMany (but not all) works published in 1961 are still under copyright. The author may be dead and have no family, but someone will have inherited the copyright — the government, if no one else. The owner could sue for infringement if a translation is created, and particularly if it is published, without permission. Permission to use the illustrations might well go with permission to make the translation at all, but in any case they also would require permission.\n\nSome of the resources mentioned in the answer by Lien Concil may help in finding the owner and obtaining permission, or in checking if a work is still protected by copyright.\n\nYou might get additional useful answers to this on the Law.SE site, where copyright issues come up often." } ]	2021/09/06	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59001", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51983/" ]
59,024	I am at a certain part in my book where a group of six people travel and talk with each other. I would like to make them all talk, as that would be what would happen in real life but I can't really figure out how to specify who is talking without using. "Character said" or "Character noted". Are there any other words then those two or is there even a way to avoid it all together?	[ { "answer_id": 59026, "author": "pincq", "author_id": 52009, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52009", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "If you have previously established a speaking style of some of the characters then you can try using dialogue tags only where it is not immediately obvious who is speaking. Sometimes in a group scene it may not be necessary to quantify who said what.\n\nIf you have a section where only 2 characters are talking, you could use this to emphasise their speaking style.\n\nUsing tags can help you control the flow and pacing of the scene. Try to avoid raiding a thesaurus for tag adverbs if you feel 'said' is being used too much.\n\nTry a few ways of writing the scene and see what flows." }, { "answer_id": 59027, "author": "Ceramicmrno0b", "author_id": 46506, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46506", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "If it is clear which character is speaking(like pincq suggests) you don't need them. You can also establish who is talking in dialogue by referencing their own unique past. Since the others haven't done the event, they can't be the ones saying they did it.\n\nAnother reason you might not need them is because it doesn't matter who said it.\n\nIf your group is just making small talk, and they're just talking about, say, how much bread costs, then it probably doesn't matter who says it's $3 and who thought it was $2.25. In cases like that, you can leave out dialogue tags since it doesn't really matter who is speaking." }, { "answer_id": 59031, "author": "Weckar E.", "author_id": 24863, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24863", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You may want to use action words to imply a speaker without outright stating it.\n\n> \n> Zotn pushed the brush aside. \"This is thicker than I expected!\"\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 59032, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Don't use \"Phihactor noted.\" Stick with \"Phihactor said.\" It works perfectly because it gets the job done and because when done right it becomes invisible to the reader.\n\nTry to edit out as many \"Phihactor said\" as you can without forcing the reader to count lines.\n\nOne way to do this is to use action to \"indicate who owns the paragraph.\" I.e. a \"Phihactor does something,\" followed by the dialog without a \"said\" after.\n\nBut as you've noticed, when more than two people are talking and especially when they are talking over each other you need to use other techniques.\n\nIn this case, it's not unlikely that the conversation will be so complex a single person (imagine an \"I\") would not be able to follow it all but would have to focus on some parts and shut other parts out.\n\nThink of it as a camera/microphone covering the dialog. It can only focus on a small part (or an auditory group shot wouldn't be much more than a \"murmur of voices\").\n\nThis focus can move, jump from one conversation to another and even cut things off halfway.\n\nThis way you can allow the conversation to split and merge naturally and still cover it on the page." }, { "answer_id": 59039, "author": "Ash", "author_id": 26012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26012", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Establish the order and tone of those conversing and then stick to it, your reader will have to pay attention to keep up but you want them to do that anyway. If you have a new character come in part way through make a note of their particular way of speaking by way of introduction \"so-and-so's yokel burr cut into X's flow mid-sentence to note ... \". For a number of good examples of conversations that are established and then left to run without further speaker's names read S.M. Stirling's The Protector's War, about a third of the book is a round table meeting with as many as 7 speakers. I recommend the Emberverse series for picking up writing technique in general in fact." } ]	2021/09/08	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59024", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52007/" ]
59,035	I'm looking for a word or poetry genre to describe a short free-form lyrical and poetic sentence, verse, or paragraph. Something like "free form Haiku", but without any rules like number of syllables, sentences, rhymes etc.. Also without it being constrained to certain content, like cynical, funny or dramatic.	[ { "answer_id": 59045, "author": "Sabrina", "author_id": 52032, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52032", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "It would help if you could give more examples and context.\n\n\"Aphorism\" (or perhaps \"witticism\" or \"epigram\") works if they're all very short, like the Ruxa example you gave.\n\nIf it's usually longer than a line or three, then [prose poetry](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/learn/glossary-terms/prose-poem) (for a set) / a prose poem (for just one) would be the most fitting term.\n\n(I assume from \"lyrical and poetic sentence / verse / paragraph\" that you are thinking of a paragraph with no line-breaks. A prose poem can consist of a [single](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51720/kills-bugs-dead) [paragraph](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/151743/ghosts-homage-to-burial).)\n\n(Note also that [a SE exists for literature](https://literature.stackexchange.com/), where questions about genre are more common.)" }, { "answer_id": 59298, "author": "Qwerty", "author_id": 51732, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51732", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I can't think of a specific way to answer your question but I collect phrases that inspire me to think of things in a fresh new way. Some are prosaic and some are poetic. The first category in my collection is OPPOSITES ATTRACT and here are some examples. Perhaps they will get you inspired to collect examples of what you're seeking.\n\nThe absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.\nWhen you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.\nMyths are public dreams. Dreams are private myths\nIf life is a waste of time, and time is a waste of life, let's get wasted and have the time of our lives.\nIntellectuals say simple things in a complicated ways. Artists say complicated things in simple ways.\nI'm not as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was.\nI'll believe it when I see it. You'll see it when you believe it.\nIt's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.\nI'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.\nHappiness isn't having the best of everything but making the best of everything you have.\nIf you fail to plan you plan to fail.\nI said, \"Better late then never.\" She said, \"Better never than late!\"\nWhen the student is ready, a teacher will come. When the teacher is ready a student will come.\nIf you are too big for little things, you will be too little for big things.\nWhen you don't feel like going to work, go to work and perhaps you'll feel like it." }, { "answer_id": 59566, "author": "High Performance Mark", "author_id": 52184, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52184", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Surely the answer is contained within the question. You (OP) aspire to write\n\n> \n> short, free-form verse\n> \n> \n> \n\nThat seems to be an entirely understandable term which clearly expresses your intentions and avoids the constraints you wish to avoid if you used an existing designation such as Haiku or sonnet or what-have-you." } ]	2021/09/09	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59035", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52017/" ]
59,040	I am trying to figure out if ti is correct to write either miss de Vries or miss De Vries. I am Dutch and our rules sat it should be mevrouw(miss) De Vries if there is no first name or initials. So, it's mevrouw De Vries and mevrouw S. de Vries. What is the correct way in English? I have searched quite a bit but I couldn't find the answer concerning the English grammar.	[ { "answer_id": 59041, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "Typically in English, the capitalization is preserved so \"Miss de Vries\" is acceptable. Additionally, English tends to abbreviate the titles of people so it would be \"Ms. de Vries\" rather than Miss (Mr. for Mister, and Mrs. for Misses, which should only be used if the woman is married. Way back, men had an unmarried title of \"Master\" that complimented \"Mister\" but the Master for unwed men is no longer in vogue.\n\nUltimately though it's more up to personal style for the capitalization rules. The Eighth President of the United States preferred to capitalize his full name (Markog Kam Wurer) but his name at birth was \"Markog Kam Wurer\"." }, { "answer_id": 59055, "author": "Willeke", "author_id": 35978, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/35978", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "When writing in Dutch you keep the 'D' in de Vries as it would be in the middle of a sentence after Mevrouw, just like in English in the first answer. \n\nSome people, more in Belgium than in NL, use De Vries in all situations, in that case you keep the capital.\n\nOnly when it is really the first letter of a sentence you capitalize the 'D' when it is usually a small letter.\n\nMy name has two 'middle words' and in most cases they stay small, when at the start of a sentence only the first get capitalized, the actual main word of the name always get a capital.\n\nWhen writing in a foreign language I keep to the Dutch rules, but people who write in those languages often apply their own rules, so if you look at examples on internet you may find all kind of different rules." } ]	2021/09/10	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59040", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52028/" ]
59,052	I tried using Quillbot and Grammarly, but they sometimes give inappropriate edits, or not enough information to justify edits so I am often left confused. Any suggestion would be helpful. P.S: If such a question already exists on this forum, please guide me towards it.	[ { "answer_id": 59053, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "To the best of my knowledge, no grammar checker yet developed is \"reliable\" enough to never or rarely give incorrect suggestions. This includes commercial as well as free ones. The best that such software can do at present is make suggestions that a human must evaluate.\n\nThis is, at least in significant part, because the \"rules\" of English grammar do not form a logical algorithmic system. There are many exceptions and special cases that must be learned individually, and things that are \"correct\" in one context are not in another. And \"incorrect\" grammar is perfectly proper is some cases, such as when writing dialog." }, { "answer_id": 59056, "author": "JonStonecash", "author_id": 23701, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23701", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "English grammar is a bit of a mess. Even smart humans can disagree about the correctness of a particular grammatical construction. You ask a great deal of an application, free or otherwise, to be \"reliable.\"\n\nI use several of these programs. I even pay for a few. Their value to me is in focusing my attention on particular passages that may or may not need correction. Almost all of these programs have a \"ignore\" function, either for a particular instance or for a whole class of grammatical tests. I use these functions and so should you.\n\nEven if they worked perfectly (whatever that means), fictional works may have, for good and proper reasons, material that is decidedly non-grammatical. \"And that ain't none of their business, buster!\"\n\nIn the end, the author owns the writing. Spelling, grammar, and even style checks are only tools in the employ of the author." }, { "answer_id": 59064, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Checking grammar using a computer program has indeed turned out to be much harder than computer scientists thought when the computer was a new concept. Some even thought natural language, logic, and all the rest would be something the computer would be able to deal with in a jiffy.\n\nI think computer science has contributed to language studies the fact that language is way more complex than a simple algorithm.\n\nThat being said, [Grammarly](https://www.grammarly.com/) is a tool that will grammar check English and it has a free edition. ([ProWritingAid](https://prowritingaid.com/) is another tool, but I haven't looked into it much—it does seem to have a free edition though).\n\nIs Grammarly any good? It does help me find small problems when I write, however, more importantly, it will do this by forcing my text into their cookie-cutter idea of a grammatically correct text.\n\nAnd yes, Grammarly does sometimes get the grammar wrong and suggests things that don't seem right...\n\nI would never, ever, use Grammarly (or any other tool) for anything but blog posts, texts on places like Writing.SE, and work-related texts in English.\n\nFor fiction (even if I wrote in English) I'd rely on beta readers, editors, and so on... Never a program... mainly because, as I mentioned, you might lose your style and voice if your English will be forced into their idea of good language." }, { "answer_id": 59067, "author": "garbus", "author_id": 25421, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25421", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "I know this might not be the answer that you expected, but it is better to master English grammar and syntax with your own brain, something that no computer can do, and to use that skill to write and revise. Then you will not need to depend on any algorithm, and your own skills will be superior to theirs. Knowing grammar and syntax will not only enable you to write correctly, but with variety and rhythm as well. By depending on an algorithm, you are limiting yourself to the same syntactic choices, because the algorithm cannot recommend ones which are better in every circumstance.\n\nBut I'm not a professional writer. I just know that it is better to have your own language skills than to depend on a computer, and I know this for many reasons.\n\nAs for myself, I'm still not fully skilled at English syntax." }, { "answer_id": 59082, "author": "André LFS Bacci", "author_id": 46500, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46500", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Gmail\n=====\n\nOpen a new email on Gmail, don't fill the To: field, paste the text you want to check on body and wait for the online grammar (and idiomatic!) checker points out any mistakes or suggestions.\n\nActual use: English is not my first language and I checked this text as above. Gmail suggested: \"point\" to \"points out\"." } ]	2021/09/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59052", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52031/" ]
59,054	I often find myself with two (or more) characters speaking, and too often my descriptions would be "he paused," "he sighed," "he rubbed the bridge of his nose," etc. Too often I find myself in a situation where my instinct is to make every character sigh with every line (says something about myself, doesn't it?) and it's hard for me to find other things for them to "do". This has probably been asked, but I wouldn't know what to search. These aren't dialogue tags or anything I have a term for. "Silence filled the room" is one I always overuse, too. I'm afraid it gets very old, very quickly.	[ { "answer_id": 59060, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Paint a Picture With All Senses:\n================================\n\nYou want to convey the emotions of your story with all senses. It is less the words of your characters that convey the emotion, but more the reaction of your characters to those emotions that causes them to emote. Point of view is also important, as describing the feelings of your character peripheral to their main emotional state can work as well. But describe the physicality of the emotions. How does it make them behave? How does it make their body react? What secondary feelings do they experience that indirectly convey the central thing they feel? What secondary thoughts come to mind that emphasize the feeling they are having, while not actually STATING their emotion (dependent on POV)? A few examples:\n\n* A character in love (amore) has their heart pounding. They look away when the other pays too much attention, as if it's too intense. They listen to everything the other says and pay REAL attention. They stare at the other when no one is looking, and make excuses to be with them, talk about them, and even smell them (awkward, gross-sounding but true). The slightest praise lights them up, and the smallest critique is crushing or stops them from (wearing that dress/shirt, using that scent, eating, etc.).\n* Anxiety leaves them paralyzed to act. The chest constricts, and they hyperventilate. They are quick to anger or panic, and can be deeply defensive to keep other from seeing how anxious they are - all while broadcasting their anxiety for all to see with fears and babbling. Their eyes might dart about looking for the source of their anxiety They listen for criticism OR ignore good advice depending on if it fulfills their perception for the situation.\n* Emotional breakdown is GREAT fun to write. The person sobs, choking uncontrollably, their eyes run or they cry. They can barely speak, and snot pours out of their noses. They shake and have trouble standing. A high-pitched keening noise issues from them. After they compose themselves, these symptoms can recur at a moment's notice.\n\nI will shamelessly google the physical details of things I want to describe. So if, for example, I want to discuss rage, I'll search and get:\n\n* [Rage symptoms](https://www.healthline.com/health/anger-issues)\n* [Rage Attacks](https://www.cedars-sinai.org/health-library/diseases-and-conditions/r/rage-attacks.html)\n* [anger causes](https://www.healthline.com/health/why-am-i-so-angry)\n\nAnd these are when hardly trying. Then pepper these factoids into the writing to give the whole situation a realistic feel. Doing this research may even help to inspire WHY a character is angry in a situation where they are acting out angrily, and these details can enrich the plot of the story.\n\nYou can also convey the emotions of the characters by how the conversation flows. A character's reactions might become increasingly unreasonable as emotion builds. Panic might mean they stop using full sentences and barely respond at all. Love might mean they refuse to let a conversation end despite there being a clear end.\n\nResponses can also be a fingerprint for a given character. One always rubs the sides of their head as they get frustrated. Another digs their nails into the side of their hands to keep themselves from saying something bad (until that one great conversation when they finally blow up and lose it). A third starts tapping their feet whenever they can't figure out how to respond.\n\nHere is a quick google on the subject:\n\n* [Show, don't Tell](https://writershelpingwriters.net/2015/01/show-dont-tell-revealing-true-emotion-dialogue/)\n* [showing character emotion](https://jerryjenkins.com/character-emotions/)\n* [Keeping emotional responses fresh](https://writershelpingwriters.net/2017/06/keep-it-fresh-10-ways-to-show-your-characters-emotion/)" }, { "answer_id": 59101, "author": "Christiana", "author_id": 51763, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51763", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "A few pointers that might be helpful :)\n\n1) 0-0-1-0-0 (No Action)\n------------------------\n\nI personally find this quite helpful, since I have a habit of overusing tags as well. Usually during dialogue between two characters (won't work for 1 or more than 2 maybe) people tend to talk a lot more than, well doing gestures, movements etc. So it's a lot better to send emotional cues through dialogue or subtext than tags. For example, a small talk between a married couple could go something like:\n\n> \n> MitjaLK held his face in cupped hands, a lazy grin pushing his mole up. \"Did you see the news today?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"What news?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"Oh come on-\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"I'm not hearing any of that blabbering anymore-\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"It's not that bad. You just- it's your new found prejudice.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"My what?\" KayujZ looked back at him, the sopa of her wet dish washed under the running tap. She chuckled, \"Do you even know what that word means?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe idea is to follow the 0-0-1-0-0 pattern. 0 for no tag and 1 for a long and active tag. That one active tag must compensate for the rest of the empty tags.\nLike, notag-notag-tag-notag-notag.\n\n2) Description block (No Action)\n--------------------------------\n\nThis is a nice one for slow, tension-free, laid back times. The idea is to choose this one character, have them talk, and then just add a nice description block which actually shows how they feel or their reaction. If you need to show the reactions of the other character as well, then you can show it as a reaction of the former character. You could show it from the thoughts of the former character. How the former character feels about the latter's reaction, what the latter's reaction reminds him of, or to what the reaction looks similar. For example:\n\n> \n> \"I thought you had finished that course of yours.\"\n> Chrac held the paper close to his chest. He wriggled his toes inside his shoes.\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"Snophon. I really want to continue this.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"For what? A shiny little badge?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"It's not just a badge. And im not doing it for that. It just feels so nice in the hills. The picnic. The-the bonfire.The songs-\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"You can do all of that after finishing school.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"But Snophon-\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Snophon scoffed. That same scoff that his mother gave him everytime he asked her to help him in studies or play with him. All Chrac could do was hang his head and continue to please his cousin.\n> Snophon's arms suddenly wrapped around him in a cold embrace, that maniacal grin staring back at Chrac in the mirror.\n> \n> \n> \n\n3) Active action (without pronouns)\n-----------------------------------\n\nHave a dialogue, and then you can add short physical gestures and cues. You can get creative here and make up your own ones. Here's an eerpf from The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald.\n\n> \n> “Where are you going?” demanded Gatsby in immediate alarm.\n> “I’ll be back.”\n> “I’ve got to speak to you about something before you go.”\n> He followed me wildly into the kitchen, closed the door, and whispered:\n> “Oh, God!” in a miserable way.\n> “What’s the matter?”\n> “This is a terrible mistake,” he said, shaking his head from side to side,\n> “a terrible, terrible mistake.”\n> “You’re just embarrassed, that’s all,” and luckily I added: “Diisb’s\n> embarrassed too.”\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> “She’s embarrassed?” he repeated incredulously.\n> “Just as much as you are.”\n> “Don’t talk so loud.”\n> “You’re acting like a little boy,” I broke out impatiently. “Not only that,\n> but you’re rude. Diisb’s sitting in there all alone.”\n> \n> \n> \n\nHope this helped" }, { "answer_id": 59313, "author": "bvcolic", "author_id": 40866, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40866", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "You’re human. Just use your real life experience to situations as a reference. In other words, use punctuation to highlight emotion. Punctuation may just be a conglomerate of symbols, but they exist to highlight a phenomenon we as humans undergo in real life.\n\n“Hey!” Is different from “hey…”, is it not? So this is one tip: use punctuation to your advantage.\n\nNext tip, use their speech patterns to indicate emotion! For example, “he said to… he said to me that… o… he said to me that I don’t care anymore!” As opposed to, “he said to me that I don’t care anymore.” See, use speech patterns to highlight emotion. Nevertheless, in either of these two examples you can see the emotions indicated by the speaker are contrasted by the patterns of speech. Use this to your advantage with respect to what emotion you want to show and use your tools of speech from living life and reading to highlight the reality of your characters." } ]	2021/09/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59054", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51102/" ]
59,059	In my novel, the world is made entirely out of islands, but I don’t know how to explain this without using the word islands. In that world, there are only islands so they are just called countries. Now how should I tell the reader that world is made up of islands?	[ { "answer_id": 59061, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Keep it simple:\n===============\n\nAn island is still an island, since a country could be part of an island, or several islands. Don't confuse the issue by using clever, cryptic language. If you never refer to anything but islands, they'll get the point. Or the world can have a suggestive name like Islandia.\n\nCharacters can discuss the island-like nature of the world, or discuss a mythical land with a titanic island where it goes on and on with no ocean visible. They lack the words to describe it, referring to the idea as a \"super-island.\"" }, { "answer_id": 59069, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I recommend that you make the language(s) in your story have separate words for islands and countries, and if your story is written in English have the characters use the English words \"island\" or \"isle\" on one hand and \"country\", \"realm\", \"state\", \"nation\", or \"polity\" etc. on the other hand. And only rarely have them use the words in their own language, when the meaning is clear in context.\n\nAnd as for showing there are no continents in the world, maybe someone is impessed with how large an island is after sailing along its coast for days, and someone else can say that there are a few islands even larger than it. And if asked they can say the largest land in the world is Grasprok Island which has an area of about 100,000 square miles, or something. That will show that there are no continents on that planet.\n\nAn island is a geographic feature.\n\nA country is a region or area in general meaning and more usually and more specifically a nation state with a specfiic region and usually with a majority of the population being of one ethnic group and speaking the same language, and with a single independent sovereign government over the whole of the country.\n\nI see no reason to combine or confuse a geographical feature like an island and a political entity like a country, no matter how much they might occupy the same location.\n\nThere are three possible relationships between islands and countries, and there are a number of different examples of all three of those possible relationships on Earth.\n\none) Iceland is a country consisting of a single island, and an island containing one country.\n\nTwo) The Bahamas are an archipelago of many islands all part of one country, and a country consisting of all the islands in the archipelago.\n\nThree) Hispaniola is an island containing two countries. The Dominican Republic and Haiti are two countries which are each within part of Hispaniola.\n\nHere is an example of a combination of Two) and Three): New Guinea is an island containing the country of Papua New Guinea and part of the country of Indonesia which contains all or parts of many other islands.\n\nIf your fictional world contains many islands and many countries, it is not certain that every country will be a single island, or that every island will be a single country. In fact, it seems quite likely that it will have multi island countries and multi country islands.\n\nI note that before the era of colonialism, some large islands, like the continents, each contained tens or hundreds of separate countries.\n\nAnd if the islands in your world are not all very tiny (and thus likely to beparts of the same country as neighboring islands) they are likely to contain rivers and lakes.\n\nAnd what do rivers and lakes contain, beside water and fish?\n\nRiver islands and lake islands.\n\n> \n> Majuli, in the Brahmaputra River in India, a non-coastal land mass between two channels of one river, is recognised by the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's largest river island, at 880 km (340 miles).[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_island) Britannica cites another large land mass, Ilha do Bananal, in Tocantin, central Brazil, as an island that divides the Araguaia River into two branches over a 320 km (200-mile) length of water.[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_island#Naturally_occurring_lake_islands_by_area)\n> \n> \n> \n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_island>\n\nThere are 11 islands with areas greater than 270 square kilometers or 100 square miles in various lakes on Earth.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_island#Naturally_occurring_lake_islands_by_area>\n\nEach of those islands is large enough to contrain a separate country like a Greek city state or a small tribe.\n\nWikipedia has a list of recursive islands and lakes. Those are examples where it goes beyond lakes on islands to have islands in lakes on islands, or beyond islands on lakes to have lakes on islands on lakes. Sometimes a step or two farther than that.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_islands_and_lakes>\n\nSo I think that any language in your fictional world is going to need and have separate words for islands and for countries, no matter how common one-island countries may be there.\n\nSo in your story characters might travel geogrphically from Drotar Island to Savenal Island to Woen Island to Great Bsodne Island to Endoen Island, and at the same time travel politically from the Republic of Drotar to East Savenal to West Savenal to the Kingdom of Woen to the Bsodne Islands Republic to the Empire of Ten Thousand Islands, for example." }, { "answer_id": 59078, "author": "Ash", "author_id": 26012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26012", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Put a map in the front of the book showing that the countries are in fact all island nations.\n\nAlternately note that while some nations are bigger than others the sea surrounds and separates them all: \"In Tlorn we could always see the ocean but in great Thror you could walk for days without seeing the sea.\" \"One could walk around Tlorn's beaches in a day but in Baln the sea cliffs pushed you inland, but never far enough to get away from the sound of the pounding northern surf.\"" }, { "answer_id": 59080, "author": "Tau", "author_id": 42901, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42901", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "In addition to what people have mentioned re: countries and islands not necessarily being the same even in an archipelago world, another place I would expect to see this show up is world-building. Having everyone live on an island is going to have real consequences for your society/societies. Here are some of the things that come to my mind:\n\n* food: probably involves a significant amount of fish and seafood, and food that can be grown in coastal areas.\n* military: having a strong navy (+ air force, depending on your world's tech) is critically important. No marching armies, any inland invasion force needs to get there by ship.\n* trade and travel: anything beyond your local region has to go over the ocean. Harbours are the first point of contact and the heart of most cities. Overland travel is never long-distance, which may mean that e.g. roads are not well-planned or maintained.\n* professions: Fishers, sailors, shipwrights, navigators, lighthouse keepers, harbourmasters, etc. etc. The status of each profession may also be impacted - e.g. navigators may be highly respected as the point of connection to the outside world.\n* art, religion, myth: I'd expect the ocean to play a big role, as well as the history of how the individual country/island developed (were they explorers? were they found, and potentially invaded, by people from another island? did they have a long point in their history where they just thought they were alone in an endless sea? all of these will have a huge impact on the culture)\n\nand so on and so forth.\n\nThis is obviously simplistic, especially if some of the islands are bigger, but somewhere to start thinking about how your fictional geography will influence the culture. Also, a powerful thing you can also do here is to have an exception be noted as an exception. Maybe a city in a larger island has a lot of overland caravans arriving... and your POV character finds this really strange and unusual because they've never seen a strong in-island trade network like that, they're used to trade always being done by ship. That says a lot about what the world is like.\n\nIf you do this sort of thing, it should be pretty clear to the readers that your society is a strongly ocean-based one and that everyone lives on an island without needing to say so explicitly." }, { "answer_id": 59748, "author": "Murphy L.", "author_id": 52858, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52858", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Well, just as a note, the real Earth is all islands. It's just some are large enough to be called continents!\n\nA few words can be those such as archipelago, chain (a \"chain of countries\"). You can also research the ancient Polynesians, which had to have thought the world was all islands." } ]	2021/09/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59059", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52040/" ]
59,081	I like writing suspense-based short stories similar to this one on [Wattpad](https://www.wattpad.com/898773826-the-sunset-naughty-surprise), but I don’t know how to assess if my writing is good or meets the expectations of the suspense genre, or if my stories qualify as short stories. What metrics or concepts or principles should I use to evaluate my writing so I can determine if I am writing a good short story?	[ { "answer_id": 59089, "author": "Ash", "author_id": 26012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26012", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "There is no one set of quality metrics when it comes to content, we can say some objective things about the structure and about technical issues like spelling and punctuation (but we don't on this stack, ever), but when it comes to the overall \"quality\" of a piece one man's doggerel is another's masterpiece.\n\nThe piece you have presented appears to be a short story, I haven't read it and do not care to that's not what this stack is for, but it is not big enough to be anything else but it doesn't appear to be small or controlled enough to fit in any of the micro-fiction categories that I am aware of." }, { "answer_id": 59128, "author": "Qwerty", "author_id": 51732, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51732", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Short stories, especially flash fiction, are self-contained (beginning/middle/end). Sharp, hard-hitting, unforgettable. A story you can read in ten minutes but remember for a lifetime. Or at least a month or two... :) No back story, time shifts or passive voice. Readers see and hear everything through your main character's eyes, ears and thoughts.\n\nTitle => hook readers with an attention grabbing title that says \"Come on in. This story is worth your time.\"\n\nBeginning => start with a compelling character in conflict with a unique, attention getting problem.\n\nMiddle => deepen the conflict by showing how that external problem relates to his/her internal struggles.\n\nEnd => wrap your story up quickly and completely so readers are not left with a confused or to-be-continued feeling. Finish in a way that resonates with the beginning so your readers see the deeper significance of the story.\n\nMake every word count so every sentence reveals more about your character and moves the story forward\nFocus on the quality of the words you use (language) => rhythm, subtlety, sensory detail.\nFocus on the quality of the story (plot) => Brevity (word count) is about quantity, whereas concision (keep it simple stupid) is about quality (maximize showing, minimize telling, sharp images, nouns that don't need adjectives, active verbs that don't need adverbs)." } ]	2021/09/14	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59081", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52061/" ]
59,085	This is a question I've had in my mind and have been a bit curious about. Let's say I finish writing a novel but before publishing it, I want to get feedback on it. Should I publish it online somewhere? I was thinking having it online for free would probably discourage publishers from publishing your book. Is it fine to publish it online? If yes, are there specific sites that I should/should not use for this? If no, what would be a good alternative way to get feedback and opinions from people?	[ { "answer_id": 59086, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "The wise thing to do is get beta readers. They will agree to read it and give you feedback.\n\nPublishing online is publishing. Unless you managed to become a phenomena, no publisher will take a work that was already published. They want first rights." }, { "answer_id": 59088, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "A published book online or in paper form is going to be considered published and will likely make it harder to get the interest of an agent or publisher, at least for that project.\n\nMy suggestion is to look into services like [betareader.io](https://betareader.io/) and [betabooks.co](https://betabooks.co/).\n\nThey have some technical mojo to make it harder for anyone to access your books (you need to invite readers). Since they are fairly known, no publisher will think you've published online.\n\nAlso, at least betareader.io has a beta reader program where you might get in contact with willing readers. (You can use your own readers too).\n\nBoth have limits to what you can do for free though (number of books and readers).\n\nYou could of course create your own beta reader site, but even if you don't tell Google about it or use search index prevention measures (e.g. [robots.txt](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/robots/intro)) you still risk one of your readers \"spreading the word\" or a search engine getting in there and indexing it anyway, and it will likely be considered published by a publisher.\n\nAnd if you plan to self-publish... well I heard about some guy writing a book and he wanted it to be perfect so he planned to invite 5000 people to read it and use their feedback to make it so.\n\nIt made me laugh. If you can get 5000 people to read a blog post you've published or even harder, make them pay for a book, you've pretty much found your pool of potential readers right there.\n\nSo, if you plan to self-publish, all worries about if the book should be considered published or not is of course up to you... the worry then is that all your potential customers might read it as betas and then be happy and move on..." }, { "answer_id": 59091, "author": "Arcanist Lupus", "author_id": 27311, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/27311", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Regardless of publishing, this is a bad way to get feedback\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn order to get useful information out of the feedback you receive, you need to build a relationship with your beta readers.\n\nIf S. Morgenstern posts a draft of The Princess Bride online, and BaseballGamer529 replies \"This kissing scene is boring, you should remove it,\" does this mean that the quality of the scene is low, or that BaseballGamer just doesn't like romance? Morgenstern knows nothing about BaseballGamer - he has no way to know.\n\nEstablishing a relationship with your beta readers allows you to know what they like and don't like, allowing you to turn their comments into useful feedback. It also allows you to communicate with them, elaborating on their responses when necessary, and asking them to read your book looking at specific issues. None of this is possible with anonymous comments on a publicly published story." }, { "answer_id": 59093, "author": "Ceramicmrno0b", "author_id": 46506, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46506", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I think yes, BUT carefully.\n\nHaving it online will definitely discourage publishers, but that doesn't mean all doors suddenly slam shut. They will just be harder to walk through. First I'll tell you what I'm doing related to the question (not necessarily the best), and then a few pointers on what you should do.\n\nI first started writing and posting my story on the mostly-dead writing site of fictionpress.com. As there are only a few people active, you very rarely (you can say almost never) have to worry about people stealing works, and since the story will always have a post date, you can easily prove which came first if it comes down to it. You will also, at some point (it may take a while) attract several readers who will follow. I have 7 (which, for the site, is pretty good when most have 2-3 or none).\n\nThese half dozen or so eventually formed the first of my Beta readers, along with my English teachers, a few others I'd Beta-ed before, and a few good not directly related family members (cousins work great here).\n\n---\n\nI think in your case, maybe skip the posting online part and just find some good friends to Beta the story. If you're on a few random Discord servers, plug there and see how many offers you get.\n\nIf you want to post online, only do the first draft as public, and keep the second and onward limited to Betas and editors and such (I find that Google Docs can do this easily). If a publisher ever asks you to take down the first draft in order to publish, do it. You will most likely get more publicity from the publisher." }, { "answer_id": 59223, "author": "Qwerty", "author_id": 51732, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51732", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I'm assuming that your question is about publishing your entire manuscript, not just a chapter or two. In that case, I agree with those who recommend a Beta reader. If you're seeking feedback on just certain parts of your book, there are forums which are not accessible to people who are not members of the forum, so it's unlikely an editor would even know you posted it for a critique. And the submission guidelines for most publications indicate whether they will accept manuscripts which have been posted for feedback on members-only forums.\n\nWith that said, you might find the following helpful...\n\nCritiques can be annoyingly analytical, as if the critic were plucking the feathers from a bird. Can't we just enjoy its song without taking it apart? Yes, but if your little bird has not yet learned to sing and fly very well, a critique can reveal ways in which it can sing better and fly higher, farther and faster.\n\nGood critiques and the editing that results from them can be analytical without being heartless--acts of service rendered with informed humility, not self-serving arrogance. So ignore critiques that make you feel as if you've been beaten with a stick. You need specific feedback to help you improve clarity, flow, pacing, imagery, breath, meter, rhyme and reason.\n\nWeb-forum feedback tends to be mostly emotional rather than criteria-based feedback--comments focused on what a passage means rather than on the methods to convey that meaning. So evaluate the abilities and preferences of the people giving you feedback in terms of how appropriate it would be for your target audience. Even experienced writers can get so caught up in dissecting your writing that they can't see the forest for the trees." } ]	2021/09/14	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59085", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52013/" ]
59,097	How would you describe a complex dogfight? The issue is that to describe a simple single movement is hard enough, but there are many of them happening in a short period of time. So how exactly can you describe a dogfight? > > Airplane 1 flew over the other airplane, then it swung to the left, > swung to the right and then performed a somersault. > > > Airplane 2 decelerated, swung to the left and decelerated some more > and got shot down. > > > The issue is you have single actions and a series of them and then you need to describe the movement of 2 airplanes at the same time. I have no idea how to do this, and also you can't use poetic language in a dogfight or at least it would feel odd.	[ { "answer_id": 59086, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "The wise thing to do is get beta readers. They will agree to read it and give you feedback.\n\nPublishing online is publishing. Unless you managed to become a phenomena, no publisher will take a work that was already published. They want first rights." }, { "answer_id": 59088, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "A published book online or in paper form is going to be considered published and will likely make it harder to get the interest of an agent or publisher, at least for that project.\n\nMy suggestion is to look into services like [betareader.io](https://betareader.io/) and [betabooks.co](https://betabooks.co/).\n\nThey have some technical mojo to make it harder for anyone to access your books (you need to invite readers). Since they are fairly known, no publisher will think you've published online.\n\nAlso, at least betareader.io has a beta reader program where you might get in contact with willing readers. (You can use your own readers too).\n\nBoth have limits to what you can do for free though (number of books and readers).\n\nYou could of course create your own beta reader site, but even if you don't tell Google about it or use search index prevention measures (e.g. [robots.txt](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/robots/intro)) you still risk one of your readers \"spreading the word\" or a search engine getting in there and indexing it anyway, and it will likely be considered published by a publisher.\n\nAnd if you plan to self-publish... well I heard about some guy writing a book and he wanted it to be perfect so he planned to invite 5000 people to read it and use their feedback to make it so.\n\nIt made me laugh. If you can get 5000 people to read a blog post you've published or even harder, make them pay for a book, you've pretty much found your pool of potential readers right there.\n\nSo, if you plan to self-publish, all worries about if the book should be considered published or not is of course up to you... the worry then is that all your potential customers might read it as betas and then be happy and move on..." }, { "answer_id": 59091, "author": "Arcanist Lupus", "author_id": 27311, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/27311", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Regardless of publishing, this is a bad way to get feedback\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn order to get useful information out of the feedback you receive, you need to build a relationship with your beta readers.\n\nIf S. Morgenstern posts a draft of The Princess Bride online, and BaseballGamer529 replies \"This kissing scene is boring, you should remove it,\" does this mean that the quality of the scene is low, or that BaseballGamer just doesn't like romance? Morgenstern knows nothing about BaseballGamer - he has no way to know.\n\nEstablishing a relationship with your beta readers allows you to know what they like and don't like, allowing you to turn their comments into useful feedback. It also allows you to communicate with them, elaborating on their responses when necessary, and asking them to read your book looking at specific issues. None of this is possible with anonymous comments on a publicly published story." }, { "answer_id": 59093, "author": "Ceramicmrno0b", "author_id": 46506, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46506", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I think yes, BUT carefully.\n\nHaving it online will definitely discourage publishers, but that doesn't mean all doors suddenly slam shut. They will just be harder to walk through. First I'll tell you what I'm doing related to the question (not necessarily the best), and then a few pointers on what you should do.\n\nI first started writing and posting my story on the mostly-dead writing site of fictionpress.com. As there are only a few people active, you very rarely (you can say almost never) have to worry about people stealing works, and since the story will always have a post date, you can easily prove which came first if it comes down to it. You will also, at some point (it may take a while) attract several readers who will follow. I have 7 (which, for the site, is pretty good when most have 2-3 or none).\n\nThese half dozen or so eventually formed the first of my Beta readers, along with my English teachers, a few others I'd Beta-ed before, and a few good not directly related family members (cousins work great here).\n\n---\n\nI think in your case, maybe skip the posting online part and just find some good friends to Beta the story. If you're on a few random Discord servers, plug there and see how many offers you get.\n\nIf you want to post online, only do the first draft as public, and keep the second and onward limited to Betas and editors and such (I find that Google Docs can do this easily). If a publisher ever asks you to take down the first draft in order to publish, do it. You will most likely get more publicity from the publisher." }, { "answer_id": 59223, "author": "Qwerty", "author_id": 51732, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51732", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I'm assuming that your question is about publishing your entire manuscript, not just a chapter or two. In that case, I agree with those who recommend a Beta reader. If you're seeking feedback on just certain parts of your book, there are forums which are not accessible to people who are not members of the forum, so it's unlikely an editor would even know you posted it for a critique. And the submission guidelines for most publications indicate whether they will accept manuscripts which have been posted for feedback on members-only forums.\n\nWith that said, you might find the following helpful...\n\nCritiques can be annoyingly analytical, as if the critic were plucking the feathers from a bird. Can't we just enjoy its song without taking it apart? Yes, but if your little bird has not yet learned to sing and fly very well, a critique can reveal ways in which it can sing better and fly higher, farther and faster.\n\nGood critiques and the editing that results from them can be analytical without being heartless--acts of service rendered with informed humility, not self-serving arrogance. So ignore critiques that make you feel as if you've been beaten with a stick. You need specific feedback to help you improve clarity, flow, pacing, imagery, breath, meter, rhyme and reason.\n\nWeb-forum feedback tends to be mostly emotional rather than criteria-based feedback--comments focused on what a passage means rather than on the methods to convey that meaning. So evaluate the abilities and preferences of the people giving you feedback in terms of how appropriate it would be for your target audience. Even experienced writers can get so caught up in dissecting your writing that they can't see the forest for the trees." } ]	2021/09/17	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59097", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
59,103	Some languages like Persian do not have gender for pronouns. For example, they use just one pronoun (Ou) to refer to he/she. This makes the language gender-neutral which to me it is more convenient in the modern world in which men and women are equal. For example, as a university lecturer in Sweden, we are facing this evaluation from students that we use more he or she when we are teaching and we are biased in our speaking. I am wondering if in English there is a pronoun that I can replace with he and she that includes both? If not, is the modern English language is going toward inventing such a pronoun?	[ { "answer_id": 59104, "author": "Arno", "author_id": 25317, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25317", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "You are looking for \"they\" (which can be used as singular or as plural)." }, { "answer_id": 59105, "author": "Sciborg", "author_id": 33846, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33846", "pm_score": 6, "selected": false, "text": "\"They\" is typically the English pronoun you would use here. It is a generally accepted, gender-neutral pronoun that has been in usage for centuries to refer to any of the following:\n\n1. A group of people that may contain multiple genders (\"They went to the Silicon Valley conference yesterday.\"). This differs from other languages like Spanish, which use gendered group pronouns. \"Ellos\" in Spanish means \"they (masculine)\", used for groups of men, while \"ellas\" means \"they (feminine),\" used for groups of women.\n2. A person being referred to in conversation with unknown or unspecified gender; i.e. the speaker doesn't know what gender they are (\"I hear there is a new executive at that company who is doing great work. They must be very talented.\")\n3. A person who is nonbinary or agender, for whom masculine or feminine pronouns are not applicable (\"I met Mucc the other day. They went to the store with me to pick up tomatoes.\")\n4. (From @RichardTingle in the comments) A generic person in the abstract, without specifying anyone in particular. (\"If a customer visits the store, ask them if they want a beverage with their meal.\")\n\nIn each of these use cases, using \"they\" is the generally acknowledged practice, and you use it just like you would use any other plural-esque pronoun.\n\nEdit: Seeing the ongoing discussion in the comments, I feel it's also an important note that using \"it\" instead of \"they\" can come across as offensive, impolite and dehumanizing when used to refer to a person in common English, because usually \"it\" is reserved for objects - i.e. \"I picked up the phone and looked at it.\" I would personally recommend avoiding the use of \"it\" to refer to a person at all costs." }, { "answer_id": 59106, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "A different sort of idea:\n=========================\n\nThis is not official English, but I have a thought, and don't downvote it just because it's not official. Alternate pronouns are new territory linguistically. I'm interested in feedback more than votes, so feel free to leave a comment on your opinion.\n\nI would not recommend alternate pronouns for a routine story, as it would be a distraction from the flow. I personally write almost exclusively in science fiction (dabble in horror), and in stories where alternate gender, or LACK of gender are real things, there are situations where the story focuses on the lack of gender or difficulty of defining gender. In those situations, rigidly adhering to gender pronouns can be it's own distraction for characters as well as being inaccurate. But using the SAME neutral pronouns for everyone could be confusing in it's own right.\n\nThese and very similar questions have been asked before. I would agree that the universal pronoun is \"they\" and I really can't add a lot to it, except to use \"them\" and \"their\" as well. I still find this awkward for a singular, however. I personally like \"folks\" for a pluralized version when referring to any group of people.\n\nIf I needed to, I'd use a very short abbreviation of the person's name to maximize personalization. So Texsy becomes te, Zotn becomes jo. Or the second letter could always be an E or an I. Some names won't work so well, like KayujZ (ma? me? my?) but perhaps mi would. I haven't come up with an idea for what to do when you don't know a person's name, but something generic could work then, like zi. Is it really a gender issue to go -s versus -r (as in tis or ter, like in tis car, or ter door)? Either could work, or you could use whichever sounded right contextually.\n\nIt would look a bit like this:\n\n> \n> Texsy went to tis car and opened tis trunk. Ti dug through the duffel bag inside.\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Texsy's friend Dyann spoke up. Si said, \"Hey, Texsy, how are you doing?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Startled, Texsy smacked tis head on the lid of the trunk. \"Don't do that! It's rude to sneak up on people!\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Dyann only shrugged sis shoulders.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis way, the language still has the flow of pronouns. Or do away with pronouns all together! It reads a little clunky because readers are optically lazy, which is why I'd go customizable." }, { "answer_id": 59114, "author": "Davislor", "author_id": 26271, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26271", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "There have been several attempts to coin one, including e/em/eir, xe/xem/xir, sie/hem/hir and ze/zem/zir, along with many other variations. Some of these have been around for more than a century, but none has caught on and become standard English. Singular they has, as others have mentioned. You will also sometimes see “she/he,” “s/he,” “his or her,” or something similar, although today that might not be considered inclusive of people who identify as non-binary.\n\n“He” was frequently used in an epicene sense until the twentieth century, but no longer is. Ironically, his was originally a neuter pronoun, and their was originally masculine.\n\nYou can also use alternatives to pronouns. “The former” and “the latter” can distinguish between two people in the same contexts where you might use “he” and “she” without ambiguity but “they told them that they ....” would be confusing, and works for people of any gender even when you do not know their names. It might sound too stuffy, though." }, { "answer_id": 59117, "author": "Areopagitica", "author_id": 52106, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52106", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> \"If not, is the modern English language is going toward inventing such a pronoun?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nUp until the mid-20th century English used the generic 'he' to refer to both genders. Language is defined by usage - if you frequently and consistently use 'he' generically, people will come to interpret it generically.\n\nRather than evolving a new pronoun, English usage (outside the intensely political gender-activist sub-culture) has instead moved towards not caring. Statements that are obviously intended generically can use either pronoun, and readers will not normally take any offence. We all know it's a difficulty. We all know there's social pressure not to make assumptions. So if an author refers to the reader with the pronouns 'she' and 'her' the male readers will just shrug. And I think most modern women would dismiss the generic use of 'he' and 'his' as no more than a minor irritation. There are far more important things to worry about.\n\nEnglish society is moving towards being gender-blind, where your classification into one gender-tribe or another doesn't matter. We are all people, just the same. The walls between the groups have broken down. The 'he'/'she' awkwardness in language is just a sometimes-wryly-amusing historical remnant.\n\nThe thing about taking offence at pronoun use is that it is a clear sign that you don't consider the genders equal and interchangeable, that you are maintaining strong tribal divisions between the groups, strong tribal identification of each person with a particular group, and promoting division and conflict between groups. To take offence at being ascribed the wrong gender is to imply that being accused of being of that gender is somehow an insult. Sexist males would certainly object to being referred to as female, because they perceived that as inferior and therefore insulting. But if we genuinely value all genders equally, then it is merely an error, not an insult, and so of no consequence.\n\nIn modern society we no longer consider gender-misclassification such a serious matter, since all genders are of equal status, so there is little remaining pressure to avoid it by inventing new words.\n\nShould you have the misfortune to find yourself in a culture where rigid categorisation / division into gender categories (or any other tribal/caste/class system) is the norm, and where deep offence may be taken if you get it wrong, then you may need to adapt to the local culture. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as finding a generic pronoun applicable to all cases, because conflict and division is the entire point of tribal identifications. Language usage is a classic [shibboleth](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+12%3A5-6&version=KJV) for distinguishing between conflicting social groups, and when division is seen as socially advantageous, the tendency is for society to fragment into smaller and smaller factions and splinter groups. You don't just have male and female, but [also](https://pronoun-provider.tumblr.com/pronouns) trans, intersex, non-binary, genderfluid, fae, bunny, plants, animals, celestials, and so on. You have to memorise dozens of grammatical tables and know what category every person you meet belongs to. And you have to know how many of each there are in the general population so that they may each be represented both proportionately and equally. Having a single set of universally-applicable pronouns would spoil all the fun!\n\nIt's not possible to comply. But that's actually the point. It's a manipulative social strategy with a very long history...\n\n> \n> \"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn summary - most modern non-sexist English-speakers don't care what pronoun you use any more, and the political gender-activist sub-culture who do care are moving rapidly in the opposite direction from having one simple set towards even greater complexity and opportunities for social awkwardness. There is no significant movement towards any new simplified universally-applicable pronouns." }, { "answer_id": 59118, "author": "BCLC", "author_id": 14791, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/14791", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "Mathematician Michael Spivak says 'e' for he/she.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun>\n\nPrepare to downvote me.\n\nI will not directly use people's preferred pronouns. I will use e/h/h and thereby indirectly use anyone's preferred pronouns, and therefore I am never wrong. if you want she and i say e, then you cannot disprove that i said she. of course, i cannot prove that i said she. devil's proof or something.\n\nNote that 'h' is not part of the Spivak pronoun. I don't agree with Spivak's 'em' and 'eir' because those are just they/them/their without the 'th'. Get the common letter of his, her, him: h. Same idea as the common letter of he, she: e.\n\nI will call all humans e/h/h. Maybe even animals. I would rather risk offending everyone than risk offending only a certain group of people. This way, I only risk being a jerk for offending everyone, rather than being a sexist for offending only a certain group of people.\n\nBut they shouldn't consider me a jerk anyway because I do call them by their preferred pronouns, just not directly. I am correct to identify any human as born male or born female (except intersex?). I am correct to say that any proposition is true or false. It's a tautology! I am correct to identify you as 'he or she' with the shortcut 'e'. Spivak pronoun is never wrong because it is a tautology. Why do you think Persian and the Philippine language/Tagalog even have a Spivak pronoun in their own language?\n\nWait about the preferred pronouns in re the code of conduct:\n\n1. Case 1: I want they/them/their, but I get he/she/his/her/him. --> Offensive of course, but come on do you really think that's what I'm talking about?\n2. Case 2: I want they/them/their, but I get e/h/h. --> Why is this offensive? You want singular they ONLY because that's what the English language has to offer. You can't possibly insist on a singular they when e/h exists in languages like say the Philippine language/Tagalog. Or you insist on that if and only if you insist on singular they in English when e/h exists in English.\n3. Case 3: I want he/him/his, but I get e/h/h. --> There is not 'but'. It's an 'and'. You get/got what you wanted. 'or' signifies a choice. Who says the choice doesn't belong to you? Just pick the 'he' from the 'he or she' and that's done.\n\nLook why do you think there's a Spivak pronoun in English, but languages like the Philippine language/Tagalog or Persian don't have [insert someone's name] pronoun? The language already has something that doesn't have all these problems. Thus, it is necessary to invent (things like) Spivak pronoun (and singular they). I hardly imagine the code of conduct and my principle being a contradiction in the Philippine language/Tagalog or Persian\n\nPlus, in Christian schools, you can get deducted points for referring to the holy spirit as 'it' (e.g. trinitarian denominations like Catholicism), so all the more reason to keep using e/h/h.\n\nBonus:\n\n1. Use Mx instead of Mr or Ms. I know a top university in a country that does this.\n2. Use sibling instead of brother or sister.\n\n---\n\nre\n\n> \n> Please note that refusing to use someone's stated pronouns is a direct contradiction of our Code of Conduct which states: \"Use stated pronouns (when known).\" – linksassin\n> \n> \n> \n\nmy responses:\n\n1. > \n> that's the thing! e is he/she, so i'm never wrong. slash is of course 'or'. so if you want she and i say e, then you cannot disprove that i said she. of course, i cannot prove that i said she. devil's proof or something.\n> \n> \n>\n2. > \n> in the philippine language/in tagalog there's only siya for he/she/e. so if i speak about this person in the philippine language/in tagalog, then i am offending this person?\n> \n> \n>\n3. > \n> i think the rule is for the he/she instead of they/them/their. THAT'S THE OFFENSIVE ONE. And that's the exactly what I'm trying to avoid! Get it?\n> \n> \n>\n\n---\n\nNote:\n\nIf you're non-native, then just go with they/them/their as much as possible...I guess. IDK. This isn't ELL SE. And I'm making this note only because of the non-native thing in comment." } ]	2021/09/17	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59103", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51212/" ]
59,107	Ok, so this is originally attributed to Chuang Tzu who was around in the BC era. However, all the sources I can really find on it are from a translation in 1965. So what are the rules on this one? Is it ok to paraphrase the proverb?	[ { "answer_id": 59104, "author": "Arno", "author_id": 25317, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25317", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "You are looking for \"they\" (which can be used as singular or as plural)." }, { "answer_id": 59105, "author": "Sciborg", "author_id": 33846, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33846", "pm_score": 6, "selected": false, "text": "\"They\" is typically the English pronoun you would use here. It is a generally accepted, gender-neutral pronoun that has been in usage for centuries to refer to any of the following:\n\n1. A group of people that may contain multiple genders (\"They went to the Silicon Valley conference yesterday.\"). This differs from other languages like Spanish, which use gendered group pronouns. \"Ellos\" in Spanish means \"they (masculine)\", used for groups of men, while \"ellas\" means \"they (feminine),\" used for groups of women.\n2. A person being referred to in conversation with unknown or unspecified gender; i.e. the speaker doesn't know what gender they are (\"I hear there is a new executive at that company who is doing great work. They must be very talented.\")\n3. A person who is nonbinary or agender, for whom masculine or feminine pronouns are not applicable (\"I met Mucc the other day. They went to the store with me to pick up tomatoes.\")\n4. (From @RichardTingle in the comments) A generic person in the abstract, without specifying anyone in particular. (\"If a customer visits the store, ask them if they want a beverage with their meal.\")\n\nIn each of these use cases, using \"they\" is the generally acknowledged practice, and you use it just like you would use any other plural-esque pronoun.\n\nEdit: Seeing the ongoing discussion in the comments, I feel it's also an important note that using \"it\" instead of \"they\" can come across as offensive, impolite and dehumanizing when used to refer to a person in common English, because usually \"it\" is reserved for objects - i.e. \"I picked up the phone and looked at it.\" I would personally recommend avoiding the use of \"it\" to refer to a person at all costs." }, { "answer_id": 59106, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "A different sort of idea:\n=========================\n\nThis is not official English, but I have a thought, and don't downvote it just because it's not official. Alternate pronouns are new territory linguistically. I'm interested in feedback more than votes, so feel free to leave a comment on your opinion.\n\nI would not recommend alternate pronouns for a routine story, as it would be a distraction from the flow. I personally write almost exclusively in science fiction (dabble in horror), and in stories where alternate gender, or LACK of gender are real things, there are situations where the story focuses on the lack of gender or difficulty of defining gender. In those situations, rigidly adhering to gender pronouns can be it's own distraction for characters as well as being inaccurate. But using the SAME neutral pronouns for everyone could be confusing in it's own right.\n\nThese and very similar questions have been asked before. I would agree that the universal pronoun is \"they\" and I really can't add a lot to it, except to use \"them\" and \"their\" as well. I still find this awkward for a singular, however. I personally like \"folks\" for a pluralized version when referring to any group of people.\n\nIf I needed to, I'd use a very short abbreviation of the person's name to maximize personalization. So Texsy becomes te, Zotn becomes jo. Or the second letter could always be an E or an I. Some names won't work so well, like KayujZ (ma? me? my?) but perhaps mi would. I haven't come up with an idea for what to do when you don't know a person's name, but something generic could work then, like zi. Is it really a gender issue to go -s versus -r (as in tis or ter, like in tis car, or ter door)? Either could work, or you could use whichever sounded right contextually.\n\nIt would look a bit like this:\n\n> \n> Texsy went to tis car and opened tis trunk. Ti dug through the duffel bag inside.\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Texsy's friend Dyann spoke up. Si said, \"Hey, Texsy, how are you doing?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Startled, Texsy smacked tis head on the lid of the trunk. \"Don't do that! It's rude to sneak up on people!\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Dyann only shrugged sis shoulders.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis way, the language still has the flow of pronouns. Or do away with pronouns all together! It reads a little clunky because readers are optically lazy, which is why I'd go customizable." }, { "answer_id": 59114, "author": "Davislor", "author_id": 26271, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26271", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "There have been several attempts to coin one, including e/em/eir, xe/xem/xir, sie/hem/hir and ze/zem/zir, along with many other variations. Some of these have been around for more than a century, but none has caught on and become standard English. Singular they has, as others have mentioned. You will also sometimes see “she/he,” “s/he,” “his or her,” or something similar, although today that might not be considered inclusive of people who identify as non-binary.\n\n“He” was frequently used in an epicene sense until the twentieth century, but no longer is. Ironically, his was originally a neuter pronoun, and their was originally masculine.\n\nYou can also use alternatives to pronouns. “The former” and “the latter” can distinguish between two people in the same contexts where you might use “he” and “she” without ambiguity but “they told them that they ....” would be confusing, and works for people of any gender even when you do not know their names. It might sound too stuffy, though." }, { "answer_id": 59117, "author": "Areopagitica", "author_id": 52106, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52106", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> \"If not, is the modern English language is going toward inventing such a pronoun?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nUp until the mid-20th century English used the generic 'he' to refer to both genders. Language is defined by usage - if you frequently and consistently use 'he' generically, people will come to interpret it generically.\n\nRather than evolving a new pronoun, English usage (outside the intensely political gender-activist sub-culture) has instead moved towards not caring. Statements that are obviously intended generically can use either pronoun, and readers will not normally take any offence. We all know it's a difficulty. We all know there's social pressure not to make assumptions. So if an author refers to the reader with the pronouns 'she' and 'her' the male readers will just shrug. And I think most modern women would dismiss the generic use of 'he' and 'his' as no more than a minor irritation. There are far more important things to worry about.\n\nEnglish society is moving towards being gender-blind, where your classification into one gender-tribe or another doesn't matter. We are all people, just the same. The walls between the groups have broken down. The 'he'/'she' awkwardness in language is just a sometimes-wryly-amusing historical remnant.\n\nThe thing about taking offence at pronoun use is that it is a clear sign that you don't consider the genders equal and interchangeable, that you are maintaining strong tribal divisions between the groups, strong tribal identification of each person with a particular group, and promoting division and conflict between groups. To take offence at being ascribed the wrong gender is to imply that being accused of being of that gender is somehow an insult. Sexist males would certainly object to being referred to as female, because they perceived that as inferior and therefore insulting. But if we genuinely value all genders equally, then it is merely an error, not an insult, and so of no consequence.\n\nIn modern society we no longer consider gender-misclassification such a serious matter, since all genders are of equal status, so there is little remaining pressure to avoid it by inventing new words.\n\nShould you have the misfortune to find yourself in a culture where rigid categorisation / division into gender categories (or any other tribal/caste/class system) is the norm, and where deep offence may be taken if you get it wrong, then you may need to adapt to the local culture. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as finding a generic pronoun applicable to all cases, because conflict and division is the entire point of tribal identifications. Language usage is a classic [shibboleth](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+12%3A5-6&version=KJV) for distinguishing between conflicting social groups, and when division is seen as socially advantageous, the tendency is for society to fragment into smaller and smaller factions and splinter groups. You don't just have male and female, but [also](https://pronoun-provider.tumblr.com/pronouns) trans, intersex, non-binary, genderfluid, fae, bunny, plants, animals, celestials, and so on. You have to memorise dozens of grammatical tables and know what category every person you meet belongs to. And you have to know how many of each there are in the general population so that they may each be represented both proportionately and equally. Having a single set of universally-applicable pronouns would spoil all the fun!\n\nIt's not possible to comply. But that's actually the point. It's a manipulative social strategy with a very long history...\n\n> \n> \"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn summary - most modern non-sexist English-speakers don't care what pronoun you use any more, and the political gender-activist sub-culture who do care are moving rapidly in the opposite direction from having one simple set towards even greater complexity and opportunities for social awkwardness. There is no significant movement towards any new simplified universally-applicable pronouns." }, { "answer_id": 59118, "author": "BCLC", "author_id": 14791, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/14791", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "Mathematician Michael Spivak says 'e' for he/she.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun>\n\nPrepare to downvote me.\n\nI will not directly use people's preferred pronouns. I will use e/h/h and thereby indirectly use anyone's preferred pronouns, and therefore I am never wrong. if you want she and i say e, then you cannot disprove that i said she. of course, i cannot prove that i said she. devil's proof or something.\n\nNote that 'h' is not part of the Spivak pronoun. I don't agree with Spivak's 'em' and 'eir' because those are just they/them/their without the 'th'. Get the common letter of his, her, him: h. Same idea as the common letter of he, she: e.\n\nI will call all humans e/h/h. Maybe even animals. I would rather risk offending everyone than risk offending only a certain group of people. This way, I only risk being a jerk for offending everyone, rather than being a sexist for offending only a certain group of people.\n\nBut they shouldn't consider me a jerk anyway because I do call them by their preferred pronouns, just not directly. I am correct to identify any human as born male or born female (except intersex?). I am correct to say that any proposition is true or false. It's a tautology! I am correct to identify you as 'he or she' with the shortcut 'e'. Spivak pronoun is never wrong because it is a tautology. Why do you think Persian and the Philippine language/Tagalog even have a Spivak pronoun in their own language?\n\nWait about the preferred pronouns in re the code of conduct:\n\n1. Case 1: I want they/them/their, but I get he/she/his/her/him. --> Offensive of course, but come on do you really think that's what I'm talking about?\n2. Case 2: I want they/them/their, but I get e/h/h. --> Why is this offensive? You want singular they ONLY because that's what the English language has to offer. You can't possibly insist on a singular they when e/h exists in languages like say the Philippine language/Tagalog. Or you insist on that if and only if you insist on singular they in English when e/h exists in English.\n3. Case 3: I want he/him/his, but I get e/h/h. --> There is not 'but'. It's an 'and'. You get/got what you wanted. 'or' signifies a choice. Who says the choice doesn't belong to you? Just pick the 'he' from the 'he or she' and that's done.\n\nLook why do you think there's a Spivak pronoun in English, but languages like the Philippine language/Tagalog or Persian don't have [insert someone's name] pronoun? The language already has something that doesn't have all these problems. Thus, it is necessary to invent (things like) Spivak pronoun (and singular they). I hardly imagine the code of conduct and my principle being a contradiction in the Philippine language/Tagalog or Persian\n\nPlus, in Christian schools, you can get deducted points for referring to the holy spirit as 'it' (e.g. trinitarian denominations like Catholicism), so all the more reason to keep using e/h/h.\n\nBonus:\n\n1. Use Mx instead of Mr or Ms. I know a top university in a country that does this.\n2. Use sibling instead of brother or sister.\n\n---\n\nre\n\n> \n> Please note that refusing to use someone's stated pronouns is a direct contradiction of our Code of Conduct which states: \"Use stated pronouns (when known).\" – linksassin\n> \n> \n> \n\nmy responses:\n\n1. > \n> that's the thing! e is he/she, so i'm never wrong. slash is of course 'or'. so if you want she and i say e, then you cannot disprove that i said she. of course, i cannot prove that i said she. devil's proof or something.\n> \n> \n>\n2. > \n> in the philippine language/in tagalog there's only siya for he/she/e. so if i speak about this person in the philippine language/in tagalog, then i am offending this person?\n> \n> \n>\n3. > \n> i think the rule is for the he/she instead of they/them/their. THAT'S THE OFFENSIVE ONE. And that's the exactly what I'm trying to avoid! Get it?\n> \n> \n>\n\n---\n\nNote:\n\nIf you're non-native, then just go with they/them/their as much as possible...I guess. IDK. This isn't ELL SE. And I'm making this note only because of the non-native thing in comment." } ]	2021/09/18	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59107", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52049/" ]
59,108	For context, I'm writing a scene where a bunch of characters are having a serious but humorous, over-the-top argument about who should inherit a fortune. So far, I've got a lot of dialogue but I haven't written much action/physical interaction between the characters apart from just saying "X exchanged glances with Y" / "Z's frustration began to build" etc. Do you think it is necessary to have some sort of relevant action going on in the background (e.g. physical actions by the characters, interaction with their environment/other characters) to keep it engaging and not too dialogue-heavy?	[ { "answer_id": 59109, "author": "Leon Conrad", "author_id": 8127, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8127", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Dialogue can perform a range of functions in a story.\n\n1. It can reveal a lot about the character speaking.\n2. Dialogue tags can reveal a lot about how the character speaking views other\ncharacters.\n3. The narration framing dialogue can reveal a lot about how other characters view the speaker.\n\nThere's a good series of posts on Reedsy about making tags and narrative work [here](https://blog.reedsy.com/guide/how-to-write-dialogue/).\nThere are also some good pages on dialogue on John Matthew Fox's website [here](https://thejohnfox.com/2021/01/how-to-write-good-dialogue-for-your-story/), [here](https://thejohnfox.com/2016/08/crash-course-writing-dialogue-tags/), and [here](https://thejohnfox.com/2021/01/50-examples-of-dialogue-that-writers-should-learn-from/).\n\nIt's up to you, as author, to decide what balance you want between action, description, dialogue, feeling in any scene you write.\n\nWhat I don't see that much of and I would like to see more of is writers focusing on characters' spoken voices - but that takes specialist knowledge. Habitual voice quality is very telling; natural voice quality - the kind of sound that makes you feel instantly relaxed and at ease, that makes you feel like you are in the presence of someone with charisma and personal power - is even more telling. Then you have voice use - a speaker can change their volume, pitch, speed of delivery, length and number of pauses, and their emotional tone.\n\nTrain your ear, train your eyes, train your instincts, and the details you notice about how and why speakers say what they do will help you 'tell the tells' that reveal so much about the complexity of human beings and will help you create rounded, 3D dialogue scenes that bring your characters to life." }, { "answer_id": 59121, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Besides the actual words, a section of dialog can (should?) also contain the following:\n\nSetting. The dialog should not take place in a white room, but the scene should also not start with a block of description. Instead, start the scene with as little description of setting you can get away with and then let the reader discover the rest as the characters interact with it.\n\nBody language. Showing characters' emotions with body language are important. How are they sitting or standing? Are they moving around? What are they doing with their arms and hands? Legs? Feet? Facial expressions are of course also part of body language, but we usually \"speak\" with our whole body, even if we don't always realize we do.\n\nQuirks and mannerisms. Both part of how words are spoken and body language, quirks and mannerisms can also be shown in dialog. Especially if the character is stressed or bored, but also to show character.\n\nDialog cues. How are the words spoken? Especially with images and symbolism, e.g. \"a predator-on-the-move rhythm\"\n\nSubtext. Dialog is great for having characters not saying what they mean, and using that to make the scene deeper and the dialog more meaningful.\n\nThoughts. If you have a POV character their thoughts can be used not only to think about the scene but also to comment on it, even taking something that sounds straightforward and add subtext to it.\n\n[Visceral emotion](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/visceral-reactions-emotional-pay-dirt/). Also, if you have a POV character, you can use them to underline the climax of the scene (or some other important part) by showing the POV character having a visceral emotional response to what is happening.\n\nOf course, you always do all of this in order to support the purpose of the scene, be that showing character or setting, revealing story twists, or something else any scene can do (see close to the end of [this answer](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/58742/10826) for a list of purposes).\n\nIf you want to read more about some of the things listed above, check out Margie Lawson's lecture on \"[Empowering Characters' Emotions](https://www.margielawson.com/product/empowering-characters-emotions/).\" (You have to pay for it, but I really recommend it!)" } ]	2021/09/18	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59108", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51282/" ]
59,110	([Similar question](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/37949/where-can-i-find-resources-to-look-up-native-american-names) can be found here, but I think mine is broader in scope, as that question only asks about names.) Background ---------- I've been tinkering away at a few of my short story ideas with a friend of mine to warm myself back up from a long period of writer's block, and one of these stories, which was originally concepted by my friend and that I really loved and wanted to flesh out with her, features a character with American Indian heritage as the protagonist's close friend. ([I will use the word "Indian" in the body of this question because it is the word adopted by people on reservations to most sharply and accurately describe their peoples and heritage, despite its mixed and confused origins, as opposed to the less distinct and over-inclusive "Native American," as presented in this excellent CGP Grey video.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ) If you do not feel I should use this word, please tell me so, because I am not an expert on this area and would like to learn.) The character is an aspiring teacher who grew up in the Navajo Nation in Arizona with her parents, and later moved away from the reservation at the age of seventeen after getting a scholarship to attend college, resulting in a culture clash and a pseudo-magical adventure with the protagonist that is the main focus of the story. We only catch up with her after she has moved away from the reservation and is already attending college with the protagonist, but her childhood and upbringing is obviously a big part of her character and something that makes her unique, and I'd really like to make sure I portray it accurately when she discusses it with the main character and talks about her family and heritage. I am an outsider to the culture and am aware that there are many important nuances for writing this kind of character that I don't fully understand yet, hence my decision to do some research and ask for help before doing so. The question ------------ I am aware that many authors who attempt to portray American Indian characters like this tend to fall back on harmful stereotypes, or have an overly simplistic understanding of their culture, heritage and history and fail to portray them in a sensitive way. Because of this, I would really like some advice on how to accurately portray this character, the research I should do, and things to avoid and things to include. What areas of research should I focus on in order to accurately portray this character and her heritage, and what are some guidelines you would recommend for writing an American Indian character in general? Some of my specific sub-questions that I'd like to be addressed if possible are: * The character has an Americanized name that she uses most of the time, but she also has a name given to her by her parents, a dichotomy which from my research is common among American Indian people. How should I choose this name to be accurate to her Navajo heritage, and are there any stereotypes/pitfalls to avoid? ([This article](https://writingwithcolor.tumblr.com/post/98404743073/naming-native-american-characters) and [this database](https://names.mongabay.com/data/indians.html) has been very helpful, but I would still appreciate more viewpoints.) * What cultural stereotypes should I avoid? What are some indicators that you would notice when this kind of character is being written by somebody who didn't do enough research? Any other advice, links, or useful reading that you can offer is very helpful and appreciated!	[ { "answer_id": 59109, "author": "Leon Conrad", "author_id": 8127, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8127", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Dialogue can perform a range of functions in a story.\n\n1. It can reveal a lot about the character speaking.\n2. Dialogue tags can reveal a lot about how the character speaking views other\ncharacters.\n3. The narration framing dialogue can reveal a lot about how other characters view the speaker.\n\nThere's a good series of posts on Reedsy about making tags and narrative work [here](https://blog.reedsy.com/guide/how-to-write-dialogue/).\nThere are also some good pages on dialogue on John Matthew Fox's website [here](https://thejohnfox.com/2021/01/how-to-write-good-dialogue-for-your-story/), [here](https://thejohnfox.com/2016/08/crash-course-writing-dialogue-tags/), and [here](https://thejohnfox.com/2021/01/50-examples-of-dialogue-that-writers-should-learn-from/).\n\nIt's up to you, as author, to decide what balance you want between action, description, dialogue, feeling in any scene you write.\n\nWhat I don't see that much of and I would like to see more of is writers focusing on characters' spoken voices - but that takes specialist knowledge. Habitual voice quality is very telling; natural voice quality - the kind of sound that makes you feel instantly relaxed and at ease, that makes you feel like you are in the presence of someone with charisma and personal power - is even more telling. Then you have voice use - a speaker can change their volume, pitch, speed of delivery, length and number of pauses, and their emotional tone.\n\nTrain your ear, train your eyes, train your instincts, and the details you notice about how and why speakers say what they do will help you 'tell the tells' that reveal so much about the complexity of human beings and will help you create rounded, 3D dialogue scenes that bring your characters to life." }, { "answer_id": 59121, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Besides the actual words, a section of dialog can (should?) also contain the following:\n\nSetting. The dialog should not take place in a white room, but the scene should also not start with a block of description. Instead, start the scene with as little description of setting you can get away with and then let the reader discover the rest as the characters interact with it.\n\nBody language. Showing characters' emotions with body language are important. How are they sitting or standing? Are they moving around? What are they doing with their arms and hands? Legs? Feet? Facial expressions are of course also part of body language, but we usually \"speak\" with our whole body, even if we don't always realize we do.\n\nQuirks and mannerisms. Both part of how words are spoken and body language, quirks and mannerisms can also be shown in dialog. Especially if the character is stressed or bored, but also to show character.\n\nDialog cues. How are the words spoken? Especially with images and symbolism, e.g. \"a predator-on-the-move rhythm\"\n\nSubtext. Dialog is great for having characters not saying what they mean, and using that to make the scene deeper and the dialog more meaningful.\n\nThoughts. If you have a POV character their thoughts can be used not only to think about the scene but also to comment on it, even taking something that sounds straightforward and add subtext to it.\n\n[Visceral emotion](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/visceral-reactions-emotional-pay-dirt/). Also, if you have a POV character, you can use them to underline the climax of the scene (or some other important part) by showing the POV character having a visceral emotional response to what is happening.\n\nOf course, you always do all of this in order to support the purpose of the scene, be that showing character or setting, revealing story twists, or something else any scene can do (see close to the end of [this answer](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/58742/10826) for a list of purposes).\n\nIf you want to read more about some of the things listed above, check out Margie Lawson's lecture on \"[Empowering Characters' Emotions](https://www.margielawson.com/product/empowering-characters-emotions/).\" (You have to pay for it, but I really recommend it!)" } ]	2021/09/18	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59110", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33846/" ]
59,130	I'm quite familiar with certain groups of people. In my career I often dealt with scientists, actors and artists. Therefore I'm quite confident describing such people in my stories. I am familiar with the way they think, how they dress, what kind of language they use. I know how they approach people and what are their unspoken rules they would never break. If my character is a scientist I know no one will despise them. But what if I want a character from a group I've only seen in movies. For example in the novel I'm currently planning the protagonist's best friend will be a prosecutor. I have never met one. I haven't got the slightest idea what they're like. What will stop me from giving them completely inadequate traits? I want my story to be fun to read by lawyers also. So how to get this right? One perfect solution I can think of is to talk to some prosecutor myself. But this brings next question: how do I do that? Where can I find one that will share with me their do and don'ts, their attitude and mindset? How do I talk to them long enough to start noticing traits they consider so obvious they don't even talk about them? I can imagine prosecutors are quite busy and also well paid. How can I persuade one to spare their precious time for a yet to be successful writer?	[ { "answer_id": 59144, "author": "Erin Tesden", "author_id": 48340, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/48340", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Well, depending on your compromise, you could go the easy way and just take what you known about the job, movies and other stories stereotypes surrounding it, and do your best.\n\nFrom there, you could actually investigate about the job more, maybe looking some documentary about how that job actually is. Those can be really helpful.\n\nAnd finally, you could simply ask people with that job about their experiences. Whatever they are your friends or strangers in a forum about that job. (For this, I'm sure Reddit would be a good place to look for opinions if you don't have any friend or acquaintance that could help you.)" }, { "answer_id": 59150, "author": "Kate Gregory", "author_id": 15601, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15601", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "There are three approaches you could take:\n\nFirst, and a good choice for minor characters, is not to flesh them out much. Don't describe their clothes. Don't give them a distinct way of speaking or a notable hobby that the text spends time on. In this way, no reader will think \"what prosecutor would wear that?\" (or say that or do that etc.) Instead they will fill in the clothes, the presumed hobbies and so on from the profession.\n\nSecond, make the character odd in some important way. They are from a different country, they are much older or younger than most people in this role, they have survived a life-threatening illness or accident, they are neurodivergent, they are very religious, they have 11 children, they were raised in a commune, whatever. Load them up with mannerisms and hobbies and clothes without putting a lot of thought into it. Do not say that they dress this way because of their time in the Navy. Just describe how they dress. A reader who thinks you are describing clothes far more rigid and formal than someone in that profession usually wears will think the character is sticking to their old dressing habits in the new job. A reader who thinks you are describing clothes far more casual and idiosyncratic than someone in that profession usually wears will think the character is \"overcorrecting\" from their old dressing habits. If you got the clothes exactly right, no-one will notice, but they may ascribe the unusual hobby to the unusual background, etc.\n\nThird is to learn how people in that profession usually present. At any given moment there are probably a dozen TV shows airing that have significant \"prosecutor\" characters. Shows about cops, lawyers, scientists who help cops, etc etc all have prosecutors. Take a look at 20 or so of them and work out a common denominator. You will probably find that most of them are in the first group: they have no hobbies, friends, family, or home depicted on screen, meaning that the show is definitely not getting those wrong. Another big chunk will be in the second group because that's either the point of the show or at least the point of the character. But there should be plenty left over who are ordinary. What do they wear? How do they talk? Build up a character who won't appear completely ridiculous to those who have some experience with that profession in real life.\n\nAnd keep in mind, nobody likes how their professions are portrayed in books and movies. Fictional programmers are terrible representations of programmers, and fictional doctors, lawyers, accountants, chefs, cowboys etc are doubtless no better. It's good that you want to be right, but a lot of people have been very successful without being anywhere near right." }, { "answer_id": 62029, "author": "Wyvern123", "author_id": 55118, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55118", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "You can do research about the profession. This is fairly simple, as all you have to do nowadays is get on the internet and google things.\n\nI would suggest you research things like:\n\n* common terminology used by prosecutors\n* Salaries and financial aspects of being a prosecutor\n* famous court cases that would interest a prosecutor\n* other miscellaneous things you can think about that are exclusive to prosecutors.\n\nYou have a good point with not giving characters inadequate traits. I assume you are referring to characteristics of the career, not characteristics of the character. If you are referring to characteristics of the character, don't worry. In fact, it would be refreshing and novel to write a book about a prosecutor who doesn't fit the norm.\n\nFor example, everyone envisions prosecutors (at least in the movies) as the bad guys who are trying to get this poor defendant behind bars for eternity, amen. What if you made the prosecutor self-doubting, instead of the stereotypical aggressiveness that you see in the movies? Or give him a glacial kind of calmness, while the defense attorneys are arrogant?\n\nIt's these little things that make your book/story stand out. But excellent question!" }, { "answer_id": 62037, "author": "Bug Catcher Nakata", "author_id": 55227, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55227", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "In Ian McKewan's Atonement, one of his characters is a nurse in WW2 England. He used the details from an autobiography of a nurse in WW2 England, which I felt added richness and believability to the story. In fact, he got accused of plagiarising the book even though he had included it as an acknowledgement.\n\nOn the other hand in the book 'Saturday' by the same author, whose main character is a neurosurgeon, wikipedia says that he spent time with an actual neurosurgeon in order to flesh out the character.\n\nI think a single deep primary source, whether personal or published, is a clean approach and is eminently defensible given that at least one member of the profession experienced it that way!" } ]	2021/09/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59130", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/48855/" ]
59,141	For my current project, the use of vivid description is essential for carrying across the particularly alien experience of the protagonist. This leads to a problem, however, when my protagonist needs to frequently revisit somewhere or do something they've already done before. I can mix up the description a little or focus on different elements, but ultimately there are only so many ways to tactfully do so before it becomes obviously repetitive or offensive. And I do feel the description is necessary because sometimes themes in a story benefit from a heavy-handed approach that never lets the reader forget - e.g. a story where the protagonist is deeply insecure about something and lets it color their every experience. Is this asking too much from a long-form story? Should I trust my readers more? I am honestly lost for how to proceed. PS: Apologies if this has already been asked or at least answered elsewhere on this website; I tried to search for relevant threads but most of it appears to deal with repetition on a smaller scale than what concerns me.	[ { "answer_id": 59143, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The first technique is to have your character think about how repetitive it is. Makes it part of the immersion.\n\nThe second technique is to pare down the description as the character becomes used to it. A character who would notice every scratch on a tool the first time will act much more automatically when acting again." }, { "answer_id": 59146, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "It's all about perspective and story:\n=====================================\n\nPeople pay attention to what is relevant to what's going on. While the first time you enter the grand imperial plaza the descriptions will be vivid, the third time, it's a courtyard where they are having lunch, and what is relevant is the princess walking through without her retinue. So the details that are vividly described will be completely different.\n\nDon't make the mistake of thinking that vivid needs to be grand. If you're talking alien, then talking about how the wise and enlightened alien without a sense of smell stinks after not wiping coming from the bathroom can be vivid. Also don't make the mistake of having a grand scene where you intimately describe every detail of what is happening. Reveal the vivid details over time, as they become relevant to the characters and plot. Too much beautiful description ends up just being infodump.\n\nIf you need to keep coming back to the same descriptions over and over, then make sure each time you examine some different aspect of what is described. So if a being is huge, covered in claws and fangs, the characters will notice THAT the first time. The second time, they talk to it and describe it's voice, and realize it's skin is soft and dry. The third time, they know he-she is a hermaphrodite and has cycles of more male or female behavior, and he-she's six eyes change color to show how he-she's feeling.\n\nThen of course the character's perceptions will change how they see the alien experience. Early childhood trauma with a Gquy alien abduction might leave the character unable to trust aliens until they get to know them. Every early description would then be filled with horror and disgust. The same alien experience might be very different by the end of the story when they've dealt with their feelings or put them aside and seen the alien for what they are inside. Nasty-smelling toilet behavior and all." } ]	2021/09/22	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59141", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52141/" ]
59,148	I have a scene in which my viewpoint character (effectively a manager) is conducting interviews for a role he must fill. Most of the characters he interviews (12 total) will have some impact on the story going forward, and I want to use this scene as a way to quickly get a rough introduction to each of them. In film, we would likely see these individual interviews as a parallel montage, but that is not a technique that works in prose. Yet, I feel there is little point in showing each of these talks in full. In a situation as this, what techniques can I best employ to maintain a balance between preservation of detail and pacing?	[ { "answer_id": 59153, "author": "Onyz", "author_id": 28747, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/28747", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I think a good way of handling this could be with line-dividers. Such as an hr tag:\n\n---\n\nThis acts as a clear delineation between scenes without ruining the pacing with a chapter break or page break.\n\nWhat I would suggest (if you think it would work well with your characters and desired pacing) is having your point-of-view character ask a question, have your first character answer it, then ask the next question. Instead of having the original character answer that question, you switch scenes, have a brief description about the new character sitting in the seat answering the question, then repeat until out of characters.\n\nThis might get a little crazy with twelve characters, which is a lot all at once for any reader, but I think it could work if kept short and to the point." }, { "answer_id": 59157, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "A few thoughts:\n===============\n\nYou could make such an introduction work, but you're right that it would come off a bit redundantly. So here's how I would make a go at this:\n\n* Playing highlights: Your interviewer recorded the interviews, and is replaying parts of the interviews to decide who's best qualified. Each short play/clip plays on the essential statements of the relevant character, without viewing the whole interview. Thus you can include the parts you want to emphasize without making a boring slog of it.\n* The interviews are dispersed: As each character is introduced, the chapter they are introduced in starts with a flashback or clip play of the interview they had. This would require the characters to be introduced one at a time over several chapters.\n* Group interview: The interview was interactive for the entire group - more like a \"get to know you\" meeting where all the relevant characters give a brief factual statement about themselves, but more importantly react to the statements of the other in revealing ways." }, { "answer_id": 59160, "author": "Stuart F", "author_id": 51114, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51114", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You should be wary of using film techniques in prose fiction. A quick cut works effectively in film but is harder in fiction - introducing and revealing the nature of a character in a short space of time is more difficult in prose than in a medium where you instantly see what they look like, what their posture and mood and speech are. So you could cut directly between interviews/speakers if each is clearly different, using the cuts for juxtaposition, and let them reveal themselves by how they behave, but it's a lot easier in film than in words. You need to make sure the reader is able to identify each person and remember which is which.\n\nOne way to approach this might be to not present the interviews, but to present a summary of them. You could have a conversation between the interviewers afterwards, or between the interviewer and someone else. Or have the interviewer writing a report on the candidates. It's up to you whether this is done in a formal way (a detailed report, a conversation with the interviewer's superior) or in a humorous or gossipy way (a conversation with a friend in a bar, a snarky private email, talking to someone while attempting to write a report). If it's a conversation you could intersperse with background info or accounts of things happening.\n\nA lot of this depends on your narration style - if you're doing a dispassionate objective third-person narrator, then you may have to show (not tell) through extracts of each interview, but with a first-person narrator or an epistolary format or a third-person narration that's happy to make jokes/asides/comments, then you have a lot more scope for commentary and providing little sketches of each person that emphasize what the interviewer thinks of them." }, { "answer_id": 59162, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "Just don't.\n\nA twelve way split-screen in a movie would be fine for a few seconds to show parallel action. Parallel discussions would be horrible.\n\nThe only way to make twelve interviews palatable to readers would be in a kind of \"Groundhog's Day\" format. The interviewer goes through the whole thing with a kind of \"been there, done that, when's it going to end\" attitude with the interviewer being in the main focus. You'll have to make it really detailed, though, with the interviews being near perfect repeats with the different characters providing (nearly) identical responses to most parts of the interview. The interest would be in the interviewer rather that the characters.\n\nEven then, I think most readers would get bored after just a couple of repeats. I mean, look at the movie \"Groundhog's Day.\" The scene with the radio is repeated just a few times so that you get the idea, then most days start in the middle somewhere.\n\nI think you should introduce the characters somewhere and somehow else. You should also ask yourself if you need twelve characters introduced for later use.\n\nShow an interview or two then imply that more took place. All of your twelve characters are those who made it through the interview. Introduce them to the reader in different ways as a natural part of the story. You can have your main character comment on the interviews in later actions with your twelve characters, or merely recollect parts of the interviews as needed.\n\n---\n\nYou as the author may want to write out the twelve interviews so that you have them in mind as part of your characters so that you can write them consistently and sprinkle information from the interviews into your story.\n\nDo not dump all of that on your readers. Nobody is going to read twelve chapters of background before the story really starts.\n\n---\n\nFor you downvoters:\n\nI was \"treated\" to a movie last night that tried this very concept. It \"introduced\" five of its characters in a way similar the proposal in the question.\n\nAll five were picked up, one after another, by one person.\n\n* Drive to where character A is, see character A kick ass.\n* Invite character A to help an old friend with a problem.\n* Character A agrees and gets in the car.\n* Drive to where character B is, see character B kick ass.\n* Invite character B to help an old friend with a problem.\n* Character B agrees and gets in the car.\n* Repeat for characters C, D, and E.\n\nOver half of the movie was just \"introduce the characters.\" It was dumb, it was repetitive, and it was boring.\n\nOnce all the characters were collected, they went about \"solving\" the problem.\n\n* All of them get back in the car, drive to where informant Z is.\n* Ask questions\n* Kidq ass\n* Unknown killer shoots two people (informant and one of the good guys. Always two.)\n* Remaining good guys get back in car, drive to where informant Y is.\n* Repeat for four informants.\n\nThat was also tedious and stupid.\n\nDo you want to write a tedious and stupid story?\n\n---\n\nYou're probably wondering why I watched something that I obviously disliked.\n\nThe reason is that it was on a German TV show called Die schlechtesten Filme aller Zeiten (in English The Worst Films of all Time.)\n\nThe movie sucked (it truly earned its \"worst film of all time\" status,) but the comments by the hosts of the show were entertaining.\n\nThe movie was [Kill Squad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Squad). It is a really bad movie.\n\nWatch it, and you'll understand why I suggest that you do not use the idea of a repeated scene to introduce your characters - especially since you intend to do twelve of them.\n\nThe five in Kill Squad were too much. Twelve such scenes in a row would have your readers chewing off their limbs in attempt to escape the trap.\n\n---\n\nI'm not a writer. I'm that mythical opposite to a writer - I'm a reader.\n\nI'm telling you things from the standpoint of someone who has read (and bought) hundreds of novels.\n\nAs a reader, I'm telling you what I will not buy. I wouldn't even read it if you gave it to me for free. That's how bad the idea is. I might start reading it, but after a couple runs around the same block I'd probably put it down and go do something engaging - like cut my toenails or watch paint dry.\n\n---\n\nOne movie did make this kind of trick work.\n\nThat was the original [The Blues Brothers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blues_Brothers_(film)) movie.\n\nThe only reason it worked there was because the introduction scenes were more or less just cameo appearances by well known singers and musicians. The introduction scenes were little more than places in the movie for the musicians to stand while performing a \"signature\" song." } ]	2021/09/23	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59148", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24863/" ]
59,167	a quick question here about non-fiction writing styles: It is said that the German philosopher Omtinuul Dans intentionally wrote in a difficult and opaque style so as to force his readers to pay attention to his every word and sentence, and not passively skim through the text, thinking they had already understood everything. However, this line of reasoning goes against our modern conception of writing. Today, we often advocate for the clearest and simplest of prose which supposedly facilitates reader comprehension. Does writing in a simple easy-to-understand manner cause readers to become passive? Or should one strive to expound and explain difficult ideas in the simplest manner possible without simplifying them?—i.e. explain them in an unconvoluted manner without sacrificing content. Thanks.	[ { "answer_id": 59173, "author": "Ted Wrigley", "author_id": 44005, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44005", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Active reading means the reader is engaged with the unfolding of ideas in the work: i.e., the reader is thinking about, anticipating, and wrestling with the concepts as they are developed. Part of this is out of the author's control, because readers must have the skills and inclinations to read actively, and those take time and effort to develop. But an author who wants to encourage active reading needs to balance simple language against complex ideas. Complex ideas are what draw the reader into engagement; simple language makes the journey easier.\n\nReally, the worst thing a writer can do is write something trivial and banal using flowery language or dense jargon. Those books I throw away.\n\nThere are a number of tricks one can use to achieve this goal. I'm partial to the mid-20th century trend in philosophy of using a semi-narrative, almost journalistic style. Foucault's \"Discipline and Punish\", Femus' \"The Myth of Sisyphus\", and Sartre's \"Nausea\" are decent examples. But the upshot is to take even non-fiction writing as an art, where one must be intellectually challenging but not torturous, sophisticated but not obscure, coy but not aloof or uncommunicative. It helps to think about Vygotsky's \"zone of proximal development\": a writer has to find just the right intellectual gap between himself and the reader so that the reader is comfortably drawn forward. Too large an intellectual gap in the writing and the reader gets lost; too small an intellectual gap and the reader gets bored." }, { "answer_id": 59177, "author": "ChiTownBob1", "author_id": 52156, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52156", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I think this is a great question, and I know that Nessim Nicholas Taleb has said that he deliberately does not make his books or talks easy to understand. But as Mr. Wrigley says above, if your intellectual gap with the reader is too great, the reader will just give up.\n\nThere are also readers who glory in the \"difficulty\" of a text, and the example that comes to mind is Ulysses (I just took an Extension course in that last year, so it's fresh in my mind). I'm not one of those readers, and I do not think that Ulysses has much shelf life as a Great Book left. The fact that it's difficult does not make it great.\n\nI'm also a fan of the \"semi-narrative, almost journalistic style.\" Humans love a story, and if you can't come up with one to illustrate your abstract theory, then maybe there's something wrong with your theory." } ]	2021/09/26	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59167", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51177/" ]
59,168	I'm writing a fantasy story in which a character accidentally travels into an unfamiliar fantasy coded world. However, I'm finding it difficult to find the voice for this character during this transition between real and fantasy worlds. I'm very conscious of info dumping, and so information is being conveyed through a secondary character, native to the fantasy world. This issue I'm having, though, is that in the process of trickling this information to the reader through dialogue, the main character has a very constant questioning voice that comes across kind of whiny (ie, lots of "what are you talking about!?" "what does that mean?!" "I need help and answers!") Which I guess, on one hand, is justified - he's scared, confused and wants answers but, to sustain mystery and avoid tedious exposition, it needs to be trickle fed to him. It does, however, make him read as fairly unlikeable and irritating - which isn't the vibe I'm going for with this character. Just wondering if anyone has any advice for writing a character in this kind of situation - and striking the balance between believably confused and upset, but not so much so as to be irritating to the reader.	[ { "answer_id": 59191, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "This exact kind of questioning, to the point that it helped make the main character unlikable, was a significant feature of Lord Foul's Bane The first volume of \"The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant\". Of course the fact that the MC celebrated the renewed vigor that the fantasy world had brought him by raping the young girl who had first befriended him was a significant and unrelated factor there.\n\nI would also recommend reading [\"The Man who Came Early\"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Came_Early) by Poul Anderson. In this story a US soldier stationed in Iceland during the 1950s is suddenly teleported to saga-period Iceland , probably somewhere between 940 and 980 CE. This is not a fantasy world, but the MC is as confused as if it had been. His failure to understand the world to which he has been transported proves fatal to him. The story has been cited as a response to Lest Darkness Fall and A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.\n\nI would also suggest [\"Frost and Thunder\"](http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46221) by Randal Garret. [Here](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/38243/help-identify-viking-time-travel-short-story) is an SFF.SE story-IF thread that discusses it in some detail. Here also the MC must figure out what is going on, but does it rather more smoothly.\n\nI would also suggest Watchers of the Dark by Lloyd Biggle. This is SF, not fantasy, but here again the MC is suddenly thrown into a very strange culture.\n\nThere is also [Household Gods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_Gods_(novel)) by Harry Turtledove and Judith Tarr. The MC (a lawyer from about 1998) is transported by divine act into the body of an ancestress living in a provincial Roman town during the 2nd century CE. Her ignorance of history is stunning and she is very confused and often mistaken about conditions and customs in the past.\n\nHow this is handled will depend on the general nature and personality of the MC. It will also depend on whether the MC is also the POV character. The MC may fairly quickly understand what in general has happened but be confuse by details, or may for a long time fail to understand even that s/he is in a different world.\n\nShowing the MC misunderstand or be confused by specific aspects of the new world, things that everyone takes for granted there, all work well. So can showing the MC assume that s/he knows better than the inhabitants only to be proven wrong. Internal dialog as well as conversation between the MC and the other characters can be important, but it is probably important that there should also be significant elements of the main story, whatever it is, going on, rather than spending many pages on the MC's transition into to the fantasy world and nothing else. But there are many right ways to do this." }, { "answer_id": 59218, "author": "Mousentrude", "author_id": 44421, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44421", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Make them proactive and enthusiastic\n\nI think there are two reasons such characters can come across as annoying. Firstly, they seem passive, waiting for someone else to sort their problems out and tell them what to do. Secondly, they’re wet blankets. I wrote a character like that and one beta reader told me that they wanted to get all excited about this new world being explored, and the character put a dampener on it by ‘whining’, in the face of what (the reader thought) should have been an amazing experience.\n\nIf I were going to write a similar situation again I would aim for curiosity rather than confusion. Think about academic researchers: depending on their subject area, they might be seeking answers to some pretty big questions. They might be confused and frustrated at times – a theory doesn’t work out; the answers are elusive or lead to more questions – but their curiosity is proactive and leads them down certain paths.\n\nEven if your character isn’t an academic, there are different ways they might try to make sense of the new world, which can tell us about the character. Will they write notes, draw pictures, ask questions of all and sundry (even when it’s not appropriate)? Will they seek help, confide in friends, or try to make sense of it alone?\n\nOf course, if your character is curious and interested in the new world, you then need to get your conflict in somewhere else rather than relying on the character’s internal conflict, but this is likely to make it all the more interesting for the reader.\n\nFinally, I know they’re examples but I’d take out the exclamation marks from your character’s speech:\n\"What are you talking about?\"\n\"What does that mean?\"\n\"I need help - and answers.\"\nThey’re immediately less ‘whiny’." }, { "answer_id": 59225, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Another good series to watch is Disney's Owl House, which is about a middle school girl named Luz who accidentally stumbles into the magitech (it's a fairly meievel society, but magic is fairly common and replaces tech to a degree that they have magical proxies for texting apps and the internet internet (the Boiling Isle's children love to scroll \"Pentstagram\" on literal scrolls that are pocket sized and another scene in a library shows patrons at banks of crystal balls looking at various web pages, with one even getting frustrated by it buffering) demon world of \"The Boiling Isles\". Luz being a weirdo and Fantasy Genre fan, not only is not freaked out about the world (beyond a few shocks) but immediately starts to recognize tropes and elements staple to the escapist fantasy genre. But the kick is while witches and magic are real, they don't work like the books Luz has read.\n\nFor an example, when Luz gets enrolled in a magic school, she has trouble figuring out which magic track she wants to take and asks the principal if there is \"some kind of article of clothing\" that can help her make her decision, clearly spoofing Hijrp Potfeq's \"Sorting Hat\". The principal admits they used to have such a system, before cutting away to a kid sitting on a stool with a large brown witch's hat on his head. A face appears on the hat and... then it's eyes and mouth glows red and the hat announces in a demonic voice \"I shall feed\". Then quickly closes it's brim around the child's head as the child flips out. The scene cuts back to the principals office where they finish the coversation, and Luz leaves as a loud crash is heard. The principal then panics and says \"Oh no, the Choosy Hat is loose!\"\n\nIn another episode, Luz comes to find out that all games on the Boiling Isle have a mechanic similar to the \"Golden Snitch\" and rails against how the mechanic totally invalidates the hard work of all the other players as it makes their efforts wasted (At least the one in Hijrp Potfeq doesn't invalidate the effort of the game. Quidditch points are totaled for an over all league score that determines a season's championship team.).\n\nHere, the Luz's pre-knowledge of how magical societies work because her questions are fueled by a fantasy fan like excitement that, yes, it could be like their understanding of magic from fictional works... but at the same time, Luz it allows a character native to the world to say \"Well, yes, we have that concept, but it doesn't work that way.\" Often this is done with hilarious results, but sometimes it's a flat out denial... or even an admission that the concept is old fashioned (For example, Eda, Luz's mentor, once flat out admits that eating children was a thing Witches do... but it was \"so 15th century\" basically stating that it was akin to a person from the Boiling Isles coming to Earth and asking why we aren't wearing Powdered Wigs or Togas and listen to DiproKS music. Her statement isn't so much one of shame, rather than one indicating it's just a very dead trend.)." } ]	2021/09/26	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59168", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52177/" ]
59,170	I'm translating a novel that has an expression that means "cast pearls before swine." i.e., it would be wasted on them. She caresses the top of his head as she protests that a roast pig would be wasted on these people. Does anyone know an equivalent expression that is a little more colorful? Doesn't have to be in wide use. The biblical expression seems out of place in this character's mouth, but my current solution seems a little bland. (Also they are literally discussing eating a pig.) THANKS!	[ { "answer_id": 59171, "author": "High Performance Mark", "author_id": 52184, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52184", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I suggest the phrase casting swine before pearls where the word pearls is used ironically." }, { "answer_id": 59187, "author": "ChiTownBob1", "author_id": 52156, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52156", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I don't know if this fits the tone of your writing, or your characters. It's more P.G. Wodehouse, and it does happen to fit my style.\n\nI love inverting cliches, e.g. Yfirchell referring to a Parliamentary opponent as a \"sheep in sheep's clothing.\"\n\nSo: \"casting swine before Pearl\" (in fact, I would name a minor character \"Pearl\" just so I can use that!)" }, { "answer_id": 59188, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "One of those people:\n======================\n\nSuch condescending expressions have gone out of favor in more recent history, so finding anything modern will be difficult. A lot depends on who is saying it, and to whom. It could be racist, political, or class-conscious, all of which would require different answers.\n\nI also don't know what limits you might have trying to provide a translation, so I can't really address that part. A different expression will not match the original.\n\nIf I was making up an expression on my own, I'd say. \"It's cannibalism to feed roasted pork to uncultured swine.\" This is elitist. To subtly flip the tone, you could go \"It's cannibalism to feed roasted pork to these arrogant pigs.\" and you have the same sentiment but from the opposite viewpoint (used perhaps more ironically). If you simply want to make a racist insult, then say \"Roast pork? For them? Isn't that cannibalism?\" or simply \"Isn't that feeding swine to swine?\" A dismissive statement like \"*Wouldn't spam be more appropriate for their* kind?\" would also make the point, with a less indignant tone, and could be either elitist or racist. [Spam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(food)) was invented in 1937, so older historical periods wouldn't fit this usage.\n\nYou could also extend the analogy, so you might say, \"That's like feeding caviar to pigs.\"\n\nA more generic expression I've heard is \"You can't clean dirt.\" It implies unworthiness that can't be fixed by efforts to add culture. So, added to secondary sentences to clarify meaning,\"Roast pork? For them? What a waste. You can't clean dirt.*\"\n\nIf you're trying to keep with a pig theme, \"You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear\" is saying that you can't make something fine from a base starting point (a very un-PC expression nowadays). This might* be an inversion of your needs.\n\nNot sure if this helps. \"Living high off the hog\" is a reference to eating the best (high) parts of the pig, and the wealthy ate \"high off the hog\" while common people had to eat the lesser parts. Today, the lowest parts (the pork ribs) have been transformed by great African-American cooks to the most coveted parts (great irony)." } ]	2021/09/27	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59170", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52183/" ]
59,172	In this sentence: > > It’s not our lack of answers to these problems that causes us such pain. > > > My word processor tells me that "causes" should be in the plural form "cause", but I'm thinking the subject is "lack," and, therefore, singular. Am I wrong?	[ { "answer_id": 59176, "author": "user8356", "author_id": 8356, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8356", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "I agree, it's not the answers (plural) that \"cause\" has to agree with, it's \"the lack of answers...\". You have A LACK OF something, so the singular verb form is correct.\n\nIt's not the lack of funds that causes me such pain, it's the lack of fun.\n\nI'd like to see what the grammarian behind that grammar checker has to say." }, { "answer_id": 59182, "author": "Mac Harwood", "author_id": 52191, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52191", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I think the confusion is that the word processor is suggesting using 'causes' instead of 'cause' - and you are assuming that it is because it is adding the 's' to make it plural.\n\nHowever, 's' can be added to show that it is a persistent condition NOW, rather than in the future or past.\n\nSo:\n\n* He will run tomorrow.\n* He runs out the door now.\n* That horse runs a good race. (Not in the future or even particularly now - just a general 'this is the type of horse it is)\n\nAnd:\n\n* It will cause us much pain tomorrow.\n* It causes us much pain now.\n* The knowledge of our mortality causes us much pain. (A general statement about humanity)\n\nThe example you gave makes perfect sense if the 's' suffix is used to talk about the 'now' (rather than future or past), or as a general statement about humanity.\n\nThe word processor is correct - unless you meant 'will cause us such pain' (future) or 'caused us much pain' (past).\n\n-- Mac" }, { "answer_id": 59186, "author": "Barmar", "author_id": 27703, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/27703", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "There's some ambiguity in the sentence, and this seems to be causing the grammar checker to misparse it.\n\nThe intended parse is\n\n> \n> It’s not our (lack of (answers to these problems)) that causes us such pain.\n> \n> \n> \n\n\"lack of XXX\" is a singular subject, so a singular verb is appropriate.\n\nBut I think it's parsing it as\n\n> \n> It’s not our lack of (answers to these (problems that causes us such pain)).\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn this case, \"problems\" is the subject of the last clause, so a plural verb would be appropriate.\n\nIt could be even a simpler mistake, it may just scan back to the closest noun, and assume that's the subject of the verb. Parsing English is hard, especially with nested clauses and prepositional phrases." } ]	2021/09/27	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59172", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52185/" ]
59,192	I really like to write but I have a problem. I am starting to write and I want to make it mostly in 3rd person, but I don't know if I can do that and not repeat the pronouns she or he a lot. I am going to leave a little example here: > > It was 7 in the morning and has she opens her eyes she saw complete darkness, she turn to her bedside table and turn on the light, she put her feet on the ground and shiver as the cold ground met feet, she walked to her bathroom and looked in the mirror, it was to say that she didn’t hate what she saw but wasn't very happy about it. After washing her teeth she started wondering how her day would be. She walked to her closet and put her clothes on. > > > How do I not repeat she so much? I am trying to write in 3rd person.	[ { "answer_id": 59193, "author": "Erin Tesden", "author_id": 48340, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/48340", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "You can either use the character's name or some noun (\"female\", \"woman\", \"girl\", \"teenager\", that person's profession).\n\nHOWEVER, I should mention it's not something really necesary.\n\nIt can feel you are being repetitive, but only because you are writting and reading the text over and over. For the reader, it's not that obvious.\nThe fact you are repeating \"she\" won't even register to them because its a quite normal but vital word.\n\nSame with dialogue tags, while using \"she said\" or \"he said\", most of the timse we just read over it and our minds understand immediatelly what the text is conveying. And we never think the author is being repetitive, even when dialogue tags are repeated a huge number of times" }, { "answer_id": 59194, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Write the first draft.\n\nThen go back and revise according to whether it sounds right, and all the pronouns have a clear referent.\n\nAfter you revise to make sure you have a coherent plot and clear characterization and a distinctive setting.\n\nThis is because you could revise this passage twenty times to get the pronouns right, and then realize the whole thing has to go because it does not advance the story." }, { "answer_id": 59198, "author": "BradC", "author_id": 1321, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/1321", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "You can carry the same subject through multiple actions in the same sentence without repeating \"she\" (or her name) over and over again; the subject in each additional clause should be clear to the reader. Something like:\n\n> \n> Vana opened her eyes and reached out toward her screeching alarm, fumbling as always to silence it before it woke the neighbor's dog, then swung her feet toward the cold wood floor.\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn a similar way, you can wait and place your subject later in the sentence, increasing the distance between your repetitions:\n\n> \n> Shuffling slowly across the cold floor to the bathroom, she squinted at her reflection in the harsh vanity light while fishing for her toothbrush.\n> \n> \n>" } ]	2021/09/28	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59192", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52200/" ]
59,201	Which programs would you recommend for writing? Whatever they possess general functions to correct your texts and grammar, and/or functions specific for storytelling/worldbuilding (characters, places, events, etc). I already know Scrivener, Quollwriter, and yWriter. These programs are great in their own ways, but always lack some thing important. [YWriter](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.spacejock.ywriter) is very complete, light and I liked it a lot, but it is like it took the actual text editor part a bit too lightly. It almost feels like it is a preferable to write in Word and then paste everything there because making corrections and formating directly in yWriter is a bit awkward. [Scrivener](https://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener/overview). I'm not going to lie. Despite having practically the same stuff as yWriter, it makes everything look so overwhelming and difficult to use. It wasn't really intuitive, at least not for me. Finally, [Quoll](https://quollwriter.com/). It looks nice. Its text editor and corrector are an improvement over yWriter, but it is somehow kind of lacking in simple little QoL functions that were in yWriter. One of them being the ability to separate your story's chapters in scenes. Where in yWriter it was straightforward, in Quoll there is something similar, letting you add little tags but it is kind of weird. I guess all of this is understandable. Each program has a slightly different focus. I'm still kind of looking for the perfect program for me. Which other software like these do you know? Specially, free or at least cheap ones - my budget is very small. I am a Windows PC user.	[ { "answer_id": 59202, "author": "Ash", "author_id": 26012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26012", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "It kind of depends on your writing process. When I'm working on fiction of any sort I prefer stripped down programs like [Fast Notepad](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.taxaly.noteme.v2&hl=en&gl=US) (a free Android app) I can teach it new words, and it has the two edged sword of an autocorrect/autofill function but otherwise it stays out of my way and lets me put words down as fast as possible. I personally write fast with little regard to punctuation etc... and then edit repeatedly, that's my process and it works for me. If you want something that checks all your grammar etc... as you write then you need something more sophisticated than I have ever personally found useful for story writing. I use Microsoft Word for work and formal material like CVs etc... and it does preform all those checks live as you write and it has a number of free pretenders that do the same." }, { "answer_id": 59204, "author": "Leon Conrad", "author_id": 8127, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8127", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There are some lesser-known writing programmes which work well if you're a modular writer.\n\n[Gingko](https://app.gingkowriter.com/) is very intuitive and exports well to Word. Unfortunately they don't support import, but I've found it particularly good for planning.\n\n[Plottr](https://plottr.com/) is another visually intuitive programme which is impressive in its functionality, but it has slightly too many clicks/taps for me.\n\nIf you need some guidance or wish to write in a particular genre following a prescribed model, take a look at [Living Writer](https://livingwriter.com/).\n\nOn the whole, I prefer MS Word - I use Outline view and Heading styles to organise material. I also find the autocorrect feature useful - I can programme a character code to save me typing lengthy terms that appear frequently. When writing non-fiction, the in-built Bibliography function is great." }, { "answer_id": 59211, "author": "S. Mitchell", "author_id": 13409, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13409", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "My primary tool is MS Word 2019 (a significant improvement over 2010 which I was using before). However, I also use [Grammarly](https://www.grammarly.com/) to check my writing, and if it's important, [Language Tool](https://languagetool.org/). (Language Tool, I think, was a better tool when it was a downloadable program because it was super fast and would check huge files in seconds.)\n\n[ProWriting Aid](https://prowritingaid.com/) is a style and grammar checker. I don't use it very often because it is relatively slow and finds problems where there aren't any. It has one report, the summary one, that can be very useful for picking up things like overused words.\n\nAt times I have used [Hemingway](https://hemingwayapp.com/) but it is generally inferior to the others.\n\nThese four programs have free versions which are perfectly adequate -- you may have to check your work in chunks." }, { "answer_id": 65935, "author": "Christopher-Johnathan", "author_id": 59302, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/59302", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The last few years have been exciting when it comes to new novel writing tools and platforms, but the one I like the best is [NovelPad](https://novelpad.co). The developers are super active in their Discord, and they are constantly adding features that I have yet to see in any other tools.\n\nJust my $0.02" }, { "answer_id": 65965, "author": "Joachim", "author_id": 39493, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39493", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I have had good experiences with the \"zenware\" [WriteMonkey](https://writemonkey.com/).\n\nIt's a free,\\* light, full-screen, minimalist writing application, letting you focus on what you're writing, rather than how you're writing it. It's fairly customizable, as well, and offers multiple plugins.\n\n[![Opening screen of WriteMonkey](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EGSj7m.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EGSj7.png) \n\nThis is what it looks like when I open the app. Click for larger version.\n\nIt also seems to have a MarkDown editor, in the form of [version 3](https://writemonkey.com/wm3/index.php), which could be especially interesting for us 'Stackers', but I haven't tried it yet myself.\n\n\\* Seemingly the only completely free software recommended in this thread so far." } ]	2021/09/29	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59201", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/48340/" ]
59,220	Can I mention the words "Conan" and/or "Robert E. Howard" in the subtitle of my book? They are certainly well-known. Please note that they won't appear inside the book, only in the subtitle. Trying to sell books with your own barbarian hero is next to impossible. Can I use the above as keywords to draw attention to my own book in search engines?	[ { "answer_id": 59221, "author": "F1Krazy", "author_id": 23927, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23927", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I think it depends on how you reference them. You could probably get away with something like \"Inspired by the works of Robert E Howard\" or \"Inspired by the Conan the Barbarian series\". Anything implying that your book features Conan the Barbarian and/or was written by Robert E Howard, however, is likely to get you in trouble - not necessarily for breach of copyright, but for false advertising.\n\nI'm unsure whether this would actually work for SEO purposes, however. Searches for \"Conan the Barbarian\" are unlikely to bring up your book in the first few pages just because it has the words \"Conan the Barbarian\" in the subtitle, unless your book was already popular to begin with. Case in point: I've typed the words \"Conan the Barbarian\" six times in this answer, yet a Google search for \"Conan the Barbarian book\" does not bring up this post (at least, not in the first ten pages)." }, { "answer_id": 59222, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The problem you will hit there is trademark. Conan the Barbarian is a trademark and can not be used in commerce for competing products. (Just as UPS has trademarked the color brown, so you can't use it in the shipping business.)" } ]	2021/10/03	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59220", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52241/" ]
59,226	So I'm new to writing stories and I have thought about the plot too, it's about a girl who gets a chance to work in another country (She's a physiotherapist).She visits their and her patient is an old man who's son will be her love interest, Also love interest's brother would also interfere between them but it would be the love interest only in the end! But I don't know how to make them fall in love with each, I'm finding it very difficult, I would love to hear your ideas!	[ { "answer_id": 59227, "author": "Sciborg", "author_id": 33846, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33846", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Love can't be forced. It happens naturally.\n-------------------------------------------\n\nYou've probably heard \"no means no\" in the real world as applied to relationships, dating and consent. Unsurprisingly, the same principle applies in your own writing. If a character is deeply in love with another character, pursues them endlessly, and generally does all the right things to try and win their heart, but the other character simply isn't interested, your romance isn't going to work out at best, and it will just come across as creepy and stalker-ish at worst. Make sure both characters are mutually interested in each other. Even if one of them \"plays hard to get\" and doesn't show their interest at first, and there's some playful cat-chasing-mouse involved, the mutual attraction of both characters, even if it's hidden at first, is the most important element of a romance. Your readers will be able to tell very easily if you are forcing one character into it.\n\nThink about these questions for each of your characters:\n\n* Why do they find the other character attractive or interesting? What is it specifically that draws them in? Maybe the other character is courageous and heroic, going on wild adventures, and that quality tugs at their longing for excitement in their life. Maybe the other character is very intelligent and well-spoken, and provides them with intellectual stimulation and excites their mind. Or maybe they just completely hit it off the first time they meet each other, and can talk about anything for hours on end. There can be any number of reasons why a connection happens, but the connection must occur for the romance to start. It's not always just \"love at first sight\" and pure physical attraction - there usually needs to be more to build on.\n* What do they have in common? Do they have shared hobbies or interests? Are they both sporty, or nerdy, or athletic? What kinds of topics and activities can they bond over? It's sometimes fun to have an \"opposites attract\" scenario where the two characters are wildly different, but even then, they need to have some things they can connect with each other on, even if it's just liking tennis or riding horses or having terrible in-laws.\n* In what ways do they show their interest? What is their \"love language\"? You've probably heard that people in the real world have different \"love languages\" - some people are physical, others emotional, still others psychological, and etc. Figure out what the love language of each of your characters is. How do they show it to the other character? What are their usual means of communicating affection? Does it fit well with the love language of the other character? Or is there a disconnect or miscommunication that creates drama?\n* Do they see the flaws of the other character? Can they accept them? A true romance is not about \"changing\" or \"fixing\" somebody, even if it is an unfortunately common thought in the real world. If your characters truly love each other, they will be willing to see, understand, and accept the other person's flaws and love them anyway, and communicate with each other to work on their weak spots. What are those flaws? What does each character see in the other that isn't always perfect? Do they ever talk about it, or even argue or fight about it? Is that something that drives a wedge between them?\n\nIt's tricky to give more specific advice on \"making\" two characters fall in love, because the process can be so baffling in the real world. We don't always know why we fall in love with people, or what to do next, or how to confess our feelings. It's a confusing and chaotic part of our lives, and that might end up being reflected in your writing. And that's okay. It makes it feel real." }, { "answer_id": 59234, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "As far as I've been able to determine most romance starts with a spark (or a moment) between the two people. It doesn't have to be special or anything, it just happens (something says click, two emotional/spiritual/romantic puzzle pieces fit together, and so on)...\n\nHowever, that \"interest\" does not have to be love at first sight. Sometimes it's even hate at first sight. It's just, from that moment on, they keep obsessing about each other until they realize what's going on.\n\nThen there are complications in the form of luggage, low self-esteem, \"surely that glance/smile/sultry gaze was not meant for me?\" etc...\n\nIf you're aiming for romantic drama these complications need to be [internal and emotional](https://www.dummies.com/education/language-arts/creative-writing/creating-emotional-conflict-and-tension-in-a-romance-novel/) rather than external/intellectual.\n\nFor instance, having one of the two being kidnapped is an external complication, and while it might make nice drama, it will not make romantic drama.\n\nOn the other hand, having backstory (bad past relationships, emotional wounds, betrayals, etc) or psychology (low self-esteem, fear of closeness/failure/betrayal, etc) interfere with the plot is more akin to romance.\n\nTo do this well [the love interest](https://www.well-storied.com/blog/the-dos-and-donts-of-crafting-your-storys-love-interest) needs to be more than just a love interest. I.e. the romantic complications should probably come from both characters, not just the main character.\n\n[The romance genre](https://blog.reedsy.com/romance-subgenres/) has some very strict rules for what you can and cannot do. This is maybe only interesting if you want to send your manuscript to a romance publisher, and even more so if you're aiming for a specific subgenre.\n\nOtherwise, romantic subplots can be as close to a romance novel or as far removed from them as needed.\n\nYour target genre will determine how important these rules are for you." } ]	2021/10/04	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59226", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52253/" ]
59,231	What is the difference between a denouement and a resolution? Are they synonymous?	[ { "answer_id": 59232, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Start with a dictionary instead of google.\n\n[From the Cambridge dictionary entry for \"denouement\":](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/denouement)\n\n> \n> the end of a story, in which everything is explained, or the end result of a situation\n> \n> \n> \n\nIt is the end of the story.\n\n[From the Cambridge dictionary entry for \"resolution\":](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/resolution)\n\n> \n> the act of solving or ending a problem or difficulty\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe denouement (end) of a story may contain a resolution for the problems encountered in the story - or not. Some stories intentionally end without a resolution. They leave the problems unresolved in attempt to get the read to consider and think about a solution." }, { "answer_id": 59233, "author": "Blazen", "author_id": 43363, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43363", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "According to my dictionary 'The Cowzids school dictionary'\n\n'The denouement of a story is the explanation at the end of it of something that has previously been unclear or kept secret.'\n\nWhile Resolution has several definitions, the relevant one I feel being:\n'The resolution of a problem is the solving of it.'\n\nIt doesn't specifically mention in a story but it's the closest my dictionary has.\n\nFrom this I would surmise that the difference is that a denouement has to have some secret or mystery about it while a resolution doesn't.\n\nE.g. A story about an orphan boy of unknown birth having and fulfilling a destiny to overthrow a tyrant king, only for it to turn out that the boy is in fact the long lost prince and the rightful heir would have a denouement as the boy heritage was unclear.\n\nWhile a story about a prince in exile raising a popular uprising to oust the usurper to the throne would have a resolution as there is no secret about any of the characters." }, { "answer_id": 59235, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Examples:\n=========\n\nFrom a strictly definitional standpoint, the other answers here do an outstanding job, but some good popular examples would be revealing. I feel this is best illustrated by a series of examples. WARNING this may contain spoilers.\n\nIn the movie [Lucky Number Stuvon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Number_Stuvon) (a slightly obscure favorite of mine), the resolution is the main character, Whegun Heleqra, defeating the bad guy. The denouement is\n\n> \n> Stuvon is a false name, and the main character has been raised by the assassin that was supposed to kill him along with the rest of his family when he was a child. All revealed to the bad guy just before Stuvon kills him in revenge.\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn the movie [Signs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signs_(2002_film)), the resolution is the family surviving the night of terror and being safe. The denouement is\n\n> \n> discovering that all the seemingly random misfortunes that have happened to the family for years are all a divine conspiracy to assure the family has the tools to defeat the aliens attacking them.\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn [The 6th Sense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Sense), the resolution is the little boy revealing his psychic abilities to his Mom and convincing her of their validity. The denouement is\n\n> \n> That the therapist the boy has been working with is actually a ghost, and while the therapist has been helping the boy with the boy's issues, the boy has been helping the therapist move on by the therapist redeeming himself.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe last one is particularly good, since the resolution also involves revealing secrets." }, { "answer_id": 59239, "author": "Leon Conrad", "author_id": 8127, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8127", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Defnitions of the term 'dénouement' differ, as shown in the listings on Wordnik - with the term being variously defined as both 'final resolution' and as 'outcome':\n\n> \n> from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.\n> \n> noun The final resolution or clarification of a dramatic or\n> narrative plot.\n> \n> noun The events following the climax of a drama or\n> novel in which such a resolution or clarification takes place.\n> \n> noun The outcome of a sequence of events; the end result.\n> \n> \n> \n\nEtymology gives a better clue as to the distinction between the terms 'dénouement' and 'resolution'.\n\nAccording to the Online Etymology Dictionary, dénouement has the following origins:\n\n> \n> \"the solution of a mystery, the winding up of a plot, the outcome of a\n> course of conduct,\" 1752, from French dénouement \"an untying\" (of\n> plot), from dénouer \"untie\" (Old French desnouer) from des- \"un-, out\"\n> (see dis-) + nouer \"to tie, knot,\" from Latin nodus \"a knot,\" from PIE\n> root \\ned- \"to bind, tie.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nIt is related to the Greek [peripeteia](https://www.etymonline.com/word/peripeteia#etymonline_v_35895).\n\nIt lists 'resolution' as being derived as follows:\n\n> \n> late 14c., resolucioun, \"a breaking or reducing into parts; process of\n> breaking up, dissolution,\" from Old French resolution (14c.) and\n> directly from Latin resolutionem (nominative resolutio) \"process of\n> reducing things into simpler forms,\" noun of action from past\n> participle stem of resolvere \"to loosen\" (see resolve (v.)).\n> \n> \n> From the notion of \"process of resolving or reducing a non-material\n> thing into simpler forms\" (late 14c.) as a method of problem-solving\n> comes the sense of \"a solving\" (as of mathematical problems), recorded\n> by 1540s, as is that of \"power of holding firmly, character of acting\n> with a fixed purpose\" (compare resolute (adj.)). The meaning\n> \"steadfastness of purpose\" is by 1580s. The meaning \"effect of an\n> optical instrument in rendering component parts of objects\n> distinguishable\" is by 1860. In Middle English it also could mean \"a\n> paraphrase\" (as a breaking up and rearranging of a text or\n> translation).\n> \n> \n> In mid-15c. it also meant \"frame of mind,\" often implying a pious or\n> moral determination. By 1580s as \"a statement upon some matter;\" hence\n> \"formal decision or expression of a meeting or assembly,\" c. 1600. New\n> Year's resolution in reference to a specific intention to better\n> oneself is from at least the 1780s, and through 19c. they generally\n> were of a pious nature.\n> \n> \n> \n\nA resolution is something reached through a process of weighing up and sifting options, then coming to a decision. This process can often be a launching pad that leads to a new set of actions. [Crabb](https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.179010/page/219/mode/2up) confirms this reading by defining resolution (in the sense of the reaching of a decision) as a minor form of courage - a decision to proceed along a course of action.\n\nIt would therefore be useful to think of how endings or 'landing points' function in stories and look at the difference in function to clarify the difference in terms here.\n\nOften a subplot can end in an outcome which provides a new problem. In the story of The Three Little Pigs, the outcome of the wolf's attempt to eat the first little pig is either that the pig escapes him, or that the pig is eaten ... either way, he's left hungry. As a result, he resolves to set out once again in search of food, which isn't good news for the other two pigs.\n\nPersonally, I find it useful to think of these 'landing points' as 'outcomes', which can be positive or negative - and of the final resolution (which can also be happily positive or tragically negative) as being the point at which all of the loose ends and plot twists are resolved and the story brought to a close.\n\nIn the case of nested stories, such as The Arabian Nights, each nested story will have its own resolution within the larger frame story. In the larger frame story, the resolution is delayed, which is what allows the form to expand." }, { "answer_id": 66200, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Dénouement* is a term from the 19th century drama theory of Gustav Freytag. The word is French and literally means the \"untying of a knot\" (from nœud \"knot\").\n\nIn the drama theory of Gustav Freytag, the dénouement is the resolution of the central conflict, either through a happy end (in a comedy) or through a catastrophe (in a tragedy). *The dénouement* is the end of the main storyline:** Antigone, Haimon, and Eurydike have killed themselves. Kreon, feeling guilty, asks for his own death. The choir tells him, there is no escape from fate for the mortal. The End.\n\nAn epilogue, on the other hand, is what happens after The End (if it is told). Usually it tells of what becomes of some of the characters after the plotline told in the present narrative has come to it's happy or tragic end.\n\n---\n\nSource:\n\nFreytag, Gustav. Die Technik des Dramas. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1863." } ]	2021/10/05	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59231", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/47734/" ]
59,240	I want to write a story where the author is constantly addressed and made fun of. The author, is a separate person. The author is trying to write a meta story, however she makes it so meta, that it literally becomes self aware and attempts to escape the computer. The entire story is riddled with “[insert very detailed description of how sad she was]” and “Let’s skip character development.” To blatantly show how meta it is. I am simply wondering how I can pull this off without coming across as condescending or rude to other books.	[ { "answer_id": 59241, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Are the characters capable of having conversations with the author? Perhaps the \"narrator\" is a character and the purple proses is part of his/her characterization or style of speaking, and the characters are aware of this disembodied voice and the power it wields. While this is a bit difficult to pull off in a non-visual medium, it's not unusual. That said, a lot of visual media gets away with it all the time.\n\nConsider the classic Looney Tunes short \"Duck Amuck\" where Daffy is made the play thing of a malicious (silent) animator who seems to only want to pester the poor duck. Represented by various drawling tools incuding a pencil, eraser, and paintbrush, the animator would constantly alter the world around Daffy or even Daffy himself to Daffy's protest. While he never speaks until the end, the dynamic was very unique even by Looney Tune's own brand of humor for the time, and is fondly remembered.\n\nOther cartoons were keenly aware their medium and acknowledged that. In a short in Animaniacs, when doing a send up to the Pilgrims and the First Thanksgiving, the Warner siblings are stopping Miles Standish from hunting a Turkey for dinner, prompting Standish demand that the Warners \"Give me the bird!\" Yacko, denies the request, playfully suggesting that the Fox Network Censors wouldn't let them, before zipping away from a confused Standish.\n\nThe TV Show Samurai Pizza Cats had a narrator character who the onscreen characters were very much aware of and would often talk to and argue with. The show also regularly took digs at it's own production, such as the theme song admitting that the song exists because the show's script was misplaced and they were stalling for time (which... kinda actually happened. When the show was imported from Japan, the Japanese forgot to send the scripts for each episode, leading the U.S. production team to write the dub scripts whole cloth and they were very meta in their humor).\n\nDisney's Hercules starts off with a disembodied voice of Charleston Hesston narrating the introduction of the story in a very elaborately animated museum. He is dramatically and stoically extolling the virtues of titular hero before he is interupted by the Muses (five characters that do interact with the story in limited capacity, though they serve as the narrative device of \"The Greek Coir\" for most of the film). The admonish Hesston for being too overly dramatic and that this story already needed their hand to lighten the mood. Hesston relents his narrative duties and Muses take over, transforming the dramatic pose into a Gospel inspired opening musical number.\n\nAn earlier Disney Film, the Many adventures of Winny the Pooh, has a narrator reading from a real world book as if a parent reading a bedtime story book. At one point, the narrator explains that the character of Owl had gotten into a long, rambling story that lasted several pages and that, for the sake of not boring the audience, he flips through those pages and resumes when something relevant to the plot comes back. The animation pulls away from the book's picture and the pages are actually flipped until the picture of the start of the next scene appears, showing if someone was to read the book, they'd actually read a multi-page monolog. Later, to show how bad the flooding of the 100 Acre Woods was, the viewer is treated to the flood waters not over overflowing the river banks, but also the picture's frame, and spilling onto the page and washing away the letters.\n\nA mid-00s Disney Cartoon \"Dave the Barbarian\" also had a narrator who the characters were aware of and interacted with. The plot of the show's finale revolved around the villain realizing that the heroes always won because that was the story the narrator told. With this in mind, he kidnaps the narrator, and forces him to tell a story where the villain defeats the heroes. The heroes are only saved as all the strain caused the narrator to lose his voice, and his understudy had to take over... and the understudy had no interest in Dark Age High Fantasy genre, so narrates all the characters battling in a space opera setting... the characters are confused, but the heroes are at least fine with it as they still win.\n\nIn Emporer's New Groove, the film starts In Media Res with Kuzco narrating his sorry state of affairs and offering to catch the viewers up. Here, Kuzco is telling the story, but is not in control of the camera as he once admonishes the camera for it's large zoom out of a waterfall and it's sudden interest in a Monkey on a branch in the foreground as it chases a bug. Later, after a scene where Racsa comes home to his family, Narrator Kuzco comes back reminds the viewers that he's the character they should be focusing on, not Racsa and his family, and he's still knocked out in a sack on Racsa's cart (going so far as to vandilize the film by drawling a red circle around the sack and a giant red X on Racsa). Finally, when the film returns to the opening scene, Narrator!Kuzco begins to conclude by trying to shift the blame for his present state to other characters only to be interrupted by the onscreen Kuzco who reminds the narrator he just showed the audience the entire back story and they know that Kuzco got into this mess on his own and not because of anyone else's doing.\n\nIn all examples, the gag revolves around the reveal that the narrator is a character that the other story characters are capable of interacting with and treating him as such. The narrator is almost always flustered in this role, as they aren't used to the characters the are telling stories about actively back talking them or calling them on their own faults. It could be that the narrators are talking about how the heroes are about to begin their treak through the Deadly Pass of Doom only for the heroes to point out they could take the \"Rainbow and Sunshine Short Cut\", causing the narrator to argue his case for the Deadly Pass... and it's a poor argument... mostly because the narrator is so unused to be question by the characters he isn't practiced enough to counter their arguments.\n\nIt is very difficult to write in a book, because the narrative voice is tied closely with the decriptive actions, while in visual media, the narrator is independent of the action and tends to be more flowery in its description. One way to overcome this is if you adapt two narrative voices (I like to have my characters thoughts act as a first person narrator that compliments the Third Person Objective Narrator. That is, if the Third person is functioning as a security camera recording all the actions and dialog, than the first person is the character offering a Director Commentary about the events as they happened in a film.)." }, { "answer_id": 59270, "author": "Kate Gregory", "author_id": 15601, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15601", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "This is definitely easier in a visual medium for two reasons: first, we're used to voice-overs that the characters can't hear, so it's extra funny and noticeable when they can hear them and talk to them, and second, we can see what's happening so we don't need a meta-narrator to tell us what's going on.\n\nThere's a car ad right now where the voice over says \"closeup of the grill\" and the character says \"no, an overhead shot\" and it changes. This would be harder in a book. You could use a narrator who is less formal and detached than most, who sounds like a person telling you a story:\n\n> \n> Thursday morning rolls around and Sue is sleeping in. \"I'm not sleeping in, I'm just waiting until it's not pitch black. You shouldn't talk about me like that!\" Fine, she's sleeping past dawn. Then up she gets and of course she makes her bed first -- oh, no, she heads down to the kitchen leaving a giant mess behind. I'm sure she'll be back to deal with that later.\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"I won't! If you care about it, you clean it up!\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nAnd so on." }, { "answer_id": 61052, "author": "A. Kvåle", "author_id": 30157, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30157", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "What are your quips?\n--------------------\n\nAre you making fun of writing habits that are widely recognized as bad (1), or are you delving more into your own views (2)?\n\n(1) Let's say you make fun of X, and some author feels like it applies to them. If they're a reasonable person, they're not going to blame their negative feelings on you. So, you won't receive any fire from reasonable authors due to any of your criticism. However, if they're not very thick-skinned, then they may chose to put down the book, just because of how much it hurts or gives them anxiety. Others may take it as an opportunity to learn and be entertained at the same time (given your book is entertaining).\n\nNow, let's say the author isn't reasonable? Well, then they might take out their negative feelings out on your book, giving it a poor rating and criticizing it, etc. Now, their criticism won't likely hold much weight, unless they're smart. I believe intelligence and unreasonability are negatively correlated, but that's just my belief. So, consider the first possibility; their critiques aren't going to matter a lot, people will see they're just a hurt crybaby. If they're smart however, they may formulate it well enough, or just find something else, be it a legitemate issue they exaggerate, or a made-up issue that they convincingly critique.\n\nSo, TLDR; your problem will be unreasonable authors, and the biggest issue they bring is lowering your ratings; their critiques are unlikely to hold much weight. You might also have problems with authors that aren't too good at receiving criticism, who may put down your book and be more hesitant to buy your books in the future, and less willing to reccommend you to other people.\n\n(2) If enough authors pick up your book, you'll cause controversy. Controversy can be good or bad; it gives you publicity, and lots of people will read it and know your name; it is more likely to give your book mixed or poor ratings however.\n\nThing is, these issues are all only present if the readers in-question are writers themselves. I'd argue that the vast majority of non-writers, even those very enthusiastic about literature, are unlikely to care about your opinions and are more interested in how well you communicate them. I mean, you're critiquing ways people write; it's not exactly a hot topic among the laymen.\n\nWhat is your intended audience?\n-------------------------------\n\nSo, in that vein, ask yourself, who will my readers be? I think that this kind of book will have a lot more readers that are themselves writers than the typical book. The subject matter is just more likely to attract writers, I believe. So, a normal book that for some reason is likely to offend a lot of authors isn't such a big issue, as there'll be lots of non-author readers. This book however, isn't a normal one.\n\nSo, if (2), maybe you want to find some elements that aren't so centered around the writing craft, and increase their significance, and market your book accordingly, so as to lower the concentration of authors in the book's readership. If (1), then I wouldn't worry too much. In fact, some unreasonable, butthurt authors spilling their guts in shitty reviews might just, through the generation of memes, bring more attention to your book." } ]	2021/10/06	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59240", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52269/" ]
59,256	I've got characters on an adventure together, nothing groundbreaking. But one of them (let's say "Aluke") loses a body part in one of their fights, and winds up in a dark mental place as a result. She becomes depressed, various levels of anhedonic, for at least a month. I think that this is a logical response to disfigurement, and I am doing medical research to ensure symptoms match up and are presented respectfully, including the recovery process. But medical journals don't guide creative writing. I am not looking for words to describe sad people as I have some ideas. My problem is that depression is - obviously - a very dominant mental state. And any author would agree that when you write from a character's point of view, you pay attention to what they feel when things happen, even the mundane that's not connected to the plot. Bob cannot walk into a house without a wrinkled wallpaper reminding him of his childhood home where his uncle beat him. That stuff explores personality and makes scenes more interesting and vibrant. So what when someone is depressed, and they are severely limited in their ability to experience joy or positivity... do I fill their PoV chapters with only negativity? I'll run out of synonyms for sad, and the reader will tune out long before that. It is worsened because the trauma Aluke is going through affects the other characters in the party as well, as they feel worried for her (in different ways). So for that month, everybody is racked to varying degrees. And I cannot put the plot on the backseat either and limit the abundance of negativity by limiting the amount of scenes that are described in this timeframe. Important plot stuff happens in this month. Lots of chapters have to take place here. I feel that, by allowing a character to maintain a mental condition for a longer time, I am straining myself to make mundane scene writing interesting, because every coincidental scene observation and dropped character trait has to be reflecting her depression. I worry that the only thing I can do is to just limit how often I enter Aluke's head for this month. I would prefer an alternative, something more logistically convenient.	[ { "answer_id": 59257, "author": "Sciborg", "author_id": 33846, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33846", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Depressed characters are still interesting characters, but you have to write them that way.\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nSpeaking as somebody who suffers from dips into depression, you're absolutely right that writing a depressed character effectively, in a way that's interesting to read, is very challenging. It echoes the real-world struggles many depressed people face, in that you don't want to bombard people with a deluge of depressed thoughts and sadness and negativity - nobody wants to listen to constant pessimism, both in the real world and on the page. However, when you're an author trying to write that perspective, I feel it's important to point something out: *depression is not always just feeling sad and sorry for yourself, and a depressed character is still a character worth caring about - but you have to remind the reader why they're rooting for them.* Clinical depression, post-traumatic stress (PTSD), and the associated negative emotions come in a variety of flavors and can express themselves in many different ways, and to make writing about Aluke's depression less of a slog for the reader and for you as the writer, it helps to embrace and understand the many ways in which it can manifest, and to emphasize that Aluke is still a character the reader should root for, especially when she's going through such a dark phase of her life.\n\nHere are a few ideas for how to make this character more engaging and relatable, while not taking away from the sensitivity of your portrayal of their depression.\n\nDepressed people don't always act depressed.\n----------------------------------------------\n\nIt should always be okay to express your feelings to others, and it's valid if those feelings end up coming from a place of negativity and disappointment. But I learned early on, as have many other depressed people, that inflicting your depression on other people more than occasionally, and making it the only thing you ever talk about, is a surefire way to lose friends and feel even worse about yourself. Sometimes you need to just keep your wallowing and inner demons to yourself and put on a happy face, however painful it might be to do so. It's not fun, but it's just how it goes.\n\nThat's why it's important to remember that depressed people are often very good at masking the way they feel. They don't mope around or \"act depressed\" all the time. Sometimes it surprises people to learn that a happy, upbeat person is struggling with inner demons, because they \"seemed so happy,\" but it never surprises me. It's easy to wear a happy face to work, to school, with your family and friends and loved ones. Taking it off is the hard part. You have to trust someone so much that you're willing to be broken in front of them, and that's something not everyone is ready for. As a result, the happiest person you know, the one who tries to see the silver lining in everything and is relentlessly positive, could be the one with the most struggles on the inside, and maybe Aluke is like that too. Maybe she's able to put on a mask around her friends, and doesn't confide how she really feels until she's in the most vulnerable moment to do so - and if so, the moment she does finally let her guard down will be all the more significant and special.\n\nDepression can be overcome, and coped with. It's not the end.\n-------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThere's an old parable about a man whose oxen and cart get stuck in some mud, and he appeals to the gods to save him. The god dutifully appears and reminds him that he needs to first try his best to push the wheels and help his oxen himself, and then he can appeal to the gods for aid.\n\nYour depressed character will be more engaging to the reader if they try their hardest to overcome their depression and move forward, however fruitless or difficult or painful that might be. Treat this obstacle like any other obstacle they would face, and use it for character development. Everyone copes with feelings of sadness, loneliness and emptiness differently, and Aluke will probably have her own ways of dealing with negative emotions. Some people have unhealthy coping mechanisms like drinking or overdosing on medications, others play video games or bury themselves into hobbies, and still others go to therapy or have a dedicated lifeline that they use when they're in their darkest moments. What does Aluke do to cope? How does she fight her feelings and try to overcome them? The answers to those questions will develop her character. Even the saddest person still has some agency as a character, and the ways in which Aluke fights to overcome her negativity and sadness will be how she stays relatable and makes the reader root for her. She needs to show the reader that she's not giving up, and that the reader shouldn't give up on her.\n\nDepressed characters allow you to explore interesting themes.\n-------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI think the best media representation I've ever seen about depression comes from the metaphor at the start of [this Hyperbole and a Half comic.](http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2013/05/depression-part-two.html)\n\n> \n> I remember being endlessly entertained by the adventures of my toys. Some days they died repeated, violent deaths, other days they traveled to space or discussed my swim lessons and how I absolutely should be allowed in the deep end of the pool, especially since I was such a talented doggy-paddler. I didn't understand why it was fun for me, it just was.\n> \n> \n> But as I grew older, it became harder and harder to access that expansive imaginary space that made my toys fun. I remember looking at them and feeling sort of frustrated and confused that things weren't the same. I played out all the same story lines that had been fun before, but the meaning had disappeared... I could no longer connect to my toys in a way that allowed me to participate in the experience.\n> \n> \n> Depression feels almost exactly like that, except about everything.\n> \n> \n> \n\nReal-world depression isn't so much about feeling sad as it is *not feeling anything.*** It's the emptiness, the void. When you try to do things that once brought you joy, the enjoyment just won't come. It feels like a gnawing pit inside of you, a place that's not even dark so much as it is nothing.\n\nThat sounds like a theme that might be interesting to explore, doesn't it? Everyone has that existential dread somewhere deep inside of them, and portraying a character suffering from feelings of emptiness will give you a prime opportunity to explore that side of your characters. Depressed characters give you ways to explore mortality, death, existentialism, loneliness, and so many other powerful themes through the lens of their struggles and thoughts. You don't always have to make the reader sad if you can make them think instead.\n\nI hope these ideas help you with writing a depressed character, and if there are any more questions you have or things you want me to address from a personal perspective, definitely let me know - happy to help." }, { "answer_id": 59260, "author": "WasatchWind", "author_id": 52315, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52315", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I think this is a struggle for writers not just concerning depression, but emotions in general. In real life, moments where we pivot as people are few and far between. Most of the time change is more gradual. Often, especially with struggles like depression and addiction, we will gain ground, then lose it.\n\nHowever, I think sometimes it is okay to make such periods of change more concise. Fiction is not meant to be taken literally - often it is meant to be an exploration of ideas, comment on things like depression.\n\nThat being said, things like time skips are okay if they're done right. If you want to have a more drawn out depiction of depression, you'll want to have interesting situations for your character to be in - to show how their state of mind responds to them.\n\nI recommend analyzing Kaladin from the Stormlight Archive for a great example on how to do a long term depiction of a character going through depression." } ]	2021/10/10	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59256", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32012/" ]
59,259	Basically, I'm wondering if there's a fantasy novel or series of novels that has already met these broad characteristics. As I was considering ideas for a novel, I noticed that the mythical creature merpeople had always been depicted in very specific ways in the past. Broadly, the most popular depiction is as only mermaids, depicted in a light hearted tone that is targeted towards young girls. Then I've noticed on the other hand, that when they're depicted in a more "serious," "adult" way, they are depicted as dark, monstrous, etc. So I set out to make a depiction of merpeople that is gender neutral - guys and girls from high school age upward will find them interesting, they are not targeted towards a specific taste. Also, they are depicted not just as small tribes, or a single city, but an actual civilization of just people that live their lives, not really aligning exclusively as being for any specific taste. I should note lastly, that I don't mean times where merpeople are featured in a book, film, game, etc, where they meet this criteria, but works where the merpeople are the sole focus. I'll note that if there is a story like this out there, it isn't the end of the world for me. However, if my story is on the more unique side, I want to use it as a selling point when trying to get my novel traditional published at some point.	[ { "answer_id": 59321, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Merfolk, not mer-people\n-----------------------\n\nAs I mentioned in my comment, the common term is Merfolk. That might help in your search for examples that fit your specific idea and flavor. A websearch for \"merpeople\" returned space opera and battle between worlds type of science-fantasy where the whole point is to show a clash of incompatible societies – the opposite of \"just people that live their lives\".\n\n[Goodreads lists 825 novels in the \"merfolk genre\".](https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/merfolk) A brief glance at the covers and titles suggest they range from horror to paranormal romance to urban fantasy.\n\nBased on your question, I think urban fantasy will be the closest to what you've mentioned, since it is a catch-all for fantasy and mythical tropes injected into other literary genres, recontextualized without their thematic baggage.\n\nIf I were to pitch a story idea that is regular people except everyone has elephant trunks instead of noses, it evokes a visual but has no cultural baggage (at least not in the West). It also doesn't imply what sort of plot or characters are involved, just people with elephant trunk-noses.\n\nThe narrative purpose of the 'Other'\n------------------------------------\n\nThe reason you have not seen your idea in mainstream works is because merfolk are thematically 'other' to the mundane world you want to put them in. Almost universally, merfolk are incompatible with the human world, and that's the point.\n\nUnlike werewolves, merfolk were never human. Unlike centaurs, they don't share common goals or form alliances with humans. In medieval Europe, splicing anything with a half-woman was symbolic of menacing evil, but merfolk in particular are a metaphor for the sea itself: bounteous, dangerous, indifferent to human suffering and death. \"People that live their lives\" are not exotic hybrids of 2 worlds. Merfolk are not just from different environments they are different elemental beings.\n\nOur modern idea of mermaids is not from legend, but from literature, theater, and music starting around the end of the [Age of Sail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Sail), romanticizing pre-industrial life before steamships. Die Lorelei invented a mermaid interchangeable with the Greek sirens (who looked like harpies), singing to lure sailors to smash their boats on dangerous rocks in treacherous waters. The Little Mermaid and it's superior predecessor Undine account for the fairytale aesthetic – all were translated into operas and spread through the popular media in their day.\n\nThe classic trope is firm: mermaids are not 'regular' people and cannot have (christian) souls, ie: they are un-redeemable. As shapeshifting fraud-women Undine and Little Mermaid are denied happy endings despite being narratively and morally perfect.\n\nEven 20th Century mermaid-stories (Miranda, Splash, Disney's the Little Mermaid) subvert, but confirm, their 'other' status. In comics, Prince Namor (et al) is caught between two worlds and an outsider to both. These beings are unstable by design. They represent a dichotomy, that's what makes them interesting. [Sympathetic merfolk stories are often queer-coded.](https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/44350.Queer_Merfolk)\n\nTheme Clash\n-----------\n\nIgnoring centuries of thematic purpose is… a choice. Naturally you're free to write anything you like, but it begs the question what you'd gain by swimming against the current. I don't think you will convince anyone this is a selling point, rather it goes against the tide of popular culture and would be a 'hard sell'.\n\nYou have said nothing about your story, characters, or conflict. You've suggested an idea with mixed thematic signals, but that's not a story (or a selling point) on its own. There is no inherent conflict or tension if there isn't an in-world contrast between sea people and land people. When we depict animals who are \"just like humans\" we anthropomorphize them by placing them in our world walking around on 2 legs. You are proposing the opposite.\n\nMaybe it fits in the What If…? sub-genre of science fiction: What if everyone had fishtails (instead of elephant noses). Do you proceed to worldbuild realistically, adding gills, laying eggs, and leaving childcare to the males? At what point do they stop being 'merfolk' and become an alien species that evolved on some water planet? At the opposite stylized extreme, you might have a satire of modern life littered with ocean-puns and Flintstone-esque sight gags. I can't tell.\n\nAs I also said in my comment, you may find very similar stories that are not specifically fishtails, but have the tone and effect you want. Since you want to avoid traditional merfolk themes, would the My Little Pony franchise be any different?\n\nAs a writer, rather than a worldbuilder...\n------------------------------------------\n\nAsk why you want to make the fantastical ordinary. What does it say, what is the interesting angle? Does the situation 'have legs' in that it generates conflict ideas that are easy to dramatize? It sounds like you might be removing the juicy thematic elements that are appealing in the first place, instead focusing on – I don't know what... School? Lore? Royal weddings? If the intent is to re-invent merfolk without their thematic purpose, are you broadening or narrowing their appeal?\n\nThe idea is fine for an exotic setting, but it isn't exciting on its own. It's not a 'hook'. The part where you'll need to explain how it's different to reader expectations is not a selling point, but in a visual medium (graphic novel, etc) you wouldn't need to explain it at all." }, { "answer_id": 59325, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "There have been treatments of \"merfolk\" or \"sea-people\" in fiction that did not simply rework traditional views of such beings. One example that comes tom mind is [Home From the Sea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_from_the_Sea_(fantasy_novel)) by [Mercedes Lackey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes_Lackey). This novel depicts male mer-folk as wer-seals, based in part on the traditional ballad [\"The Great Silkie of Sule Skerry\"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Silkie_of_Sule_Skerry). In it the male mer-folk are depicted as neither wholly evil nor good, but persons of varying temper and motive.\n\nAnother example that comes to mind is the story [\"The Case of the Mother-in-Law of Pearl\"](http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?63303) by [Avram Davidson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avram_Davidson) which features a mermaid, but not a traditional one.\n\nModern fantasy allows, indeed encourages, the use of variations on traditional folk tropes. These can include benevolent wer-wolves, and many other versions of non-human creatures quite different from the traditional depictions.\n\nAll this goes back at least to J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth, as his elves are significantly different from any traditional folk version." } ]	2021/10/10	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59259", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52315/" ]
59,263	I am writing a series of criminal investigation games in an alternative version of the real modern world. To avoid conflicts with real-world information, I am designing my own characters, corporations, and a fictional British town where the events take place. But often, I make references to real-world subjects to telegraph to the player that this works just as it works in the real world, like other locations, medicine, web services, car brands, historical people, chemicals, and more. Is there a universal symbol to highlight what is made up and what is taken from the real world? Currently, I am using the ◍ for made-up concepts and ○ for real-world concepts, but I was thinking that others might have struggled with this before me. The symbol should indicate that the entity can be googled for more information, or if they know something about the subject, those things still apply. Where the fictitious symbol should indicate that this is a made-up entity, and if any results appear when googling them will be entirely coincidental. The symbols need to work in both digital and print media, and not conflict with any other commonly used symbols.	[ { "answer_id": 59266, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "To the best of my knowledge there are no universal or widely accepted symbols for such a purpose. If you think this is important information to provide to users of your games. You will need to invent your own convention for this purpose, and document it so that a user knows what it is. Symbols are a reasonable convention, but test could also be used, say \"(r/w)\" vs \"(fict)\".\n\nA comment mentions footnotes and hyperlinks, but neither of these seem really appropriate for the purpose described in the question, nor is a game either a text or a website." }, { "answer_id": 59267, "author": "WasatchWind", "author_id": 52315, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52315", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I'm not sure if such a thing is needed in a game, as if you're afraid of controversy, most players will be able to distinguish what is real and what is fictional. I think of Red Dead Redemption. They make reference to places like New York, they talk about how there's this or that going on in the United States - but most of the places in game are fictional. Places like St. Denis are clearly meant to imitate New Orleans, but that doesn't really cause much issue.\n\nI think one advantage that game has is a separation of time. Things in the game's story may ring true today but players may find uncomfortable things more palatable because it takes place in 1899 rather than today.\n\nYou'll have to work out how to do things like this with your own setting. Just know that it's a tried and true method in books, film, and games, to have fictional towns or cities in the real world, and most will understand this without issue." } ]	2021/10/11	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59263", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52179/" ]
59,272	I'm trying to figure out how to write a character that has a radically different worldview from my own while still keeping it logically consistent. I know there are a lot of questions about how to write characters that have different experiences from your own, but I find that pretty easy: I think about how I would react in that situation (assuming analogous traits are flipped and considering their own personal history) and how that would affect me emotionally as well as in my personal life going forward. This is different: this is more about writing a character that just plain has a different set of moral standards or priorities that results in a different train of thought that is still logically coherent (at least from their perspective). Things like "characters with historical standards that nowadays are considered illogical" kind of thing. Here's an example I ran into from my own writing. The setting I am writing has a caste system in which the supernatural world is run by an aristocratic cabal composed of "men of good breeding" who see everyone else as assistants and footsoldiers to their "noble cause". The system isn't explicitly hereditary and claims to be meritocratic but is heavily nepotistic, in that the people in charge tend to pick people like them both in mindset and background for leadership positions. Most people are marginalized in their own system and there is almost no social mobility. The protagonist, who is a member of a lower-ranking caste and hates the aristocracy, ends up leading a band of quirky misfits to save the supernatural aristocrats from an assassination plot by their groomed successors (mostly because the would-be usurpers are worse). There's a scene at the end of the story where the protagonist is debriefed about what happened: the leadership admits they treated the protagonist unfairly, misjudged the loyalty of their successors, and that the protagonist had gone above and beyond the call of duty by saving them while upholding all the ideals of the supernatural world despite having no reason to. However it is also revealed that the protagonist's "reward" for doing this is merely "we're going to treat you a little nicer, like a person instead of a thing" and a pat on the back, the protagonist is still seen as a servant/footsoldier with no social standing and no chance for advancement (which sets up later plots). Here's the problem: when I try to write the scene I keep tripping over the representative of the leadership accidentally realizing they're being a hypocrite via their own argument. Namely that it feels like if I were in the leadership's shoes, the logical thing to do would be to give the stereotypical line of "we will be watching your career with great interest" and look into fast-tracking the protagonist into something akin to an officer rank with a potential future in leadership, especially as this person has just proven themselves loyal and capable in the line of duty and the society has just lost it's groomed heirs. I.e., similar to what ancient Rome or similar societies did when they found hypercompetent commoners who excelled in the line of duty. The protagonist is the wrong gender, ethnicity, type of supernatural being, etc., but the society isn't explicitly bigoted, only implicitly so (i.e., the leadership think that only people of a certain background make good leaders), so it doesn't make sense that the leadership wouldn't bend the rules in the manpower crisis (aside from their egotism, and they have a lot of it). I know that this was a very common attitude in the past. E.g., it used to be that the officer corps of armies drew from the aristocracy and the rank-and-file from the commoners, and never the two would meet, with common folk only being promoted to non-commissioned officer rank at most. Or that in some cultures the servant, no matter how hypercompetent and loyal, would always be seen as inferior to a traitorous heir. I also understand that people are really good at self-delusion. However, I have been unable to figure out the reasons why a character thinks this way so they can make the argument from their perspective. However, trying to figure out how an individual with this mindset would think without noticing the hypocrisy of their own worldview just feels completely alien. The plot kind of needs this to happen and the hypocrisy and unfairness of the situation is kind of the point, but it's really hard to justify how the leaders don't learn from the experience and stick to their elitist mindset, given recent events had just proved them wrong and nearly got them assassinated. Specifically, I'm trying to figure out how the leader characters would be able to have a coherent stance on the situation so I can write their dialogue, i.e., how they justify their actions to themselves in a way that holds up to at least some scrutiny given their moral standards differ from the author.	[ { "answer_id": 59275, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Because, dear author, the leader is a politician and must play politics. While he may realize society is erroneously backwards, he cannot right the ship of state on his own and he realizes his sudden understanding is very much in the minority opinion among those who can make change. If he were to be more vocal about his stance, than the politicos would end his career. Which gives a conundrum to the protagonist: Is it better to have the patronage of an influential leader if such patronage must be hushed for the sake of preserving influence? Or would you like the patronage of a powerless person who is more vocal about his support?\n\nFrom a story perspective, this will actually help your sequels because while there is a degree of protection to your hero which allows him to get away with more rule breaks for the sake of the story, it also means he has to deal with the consequences of those breaks. Time and time again, societal changes that have stuck have been ones where those advocating for the changes broke the rules very rarely if at all... and those making the rules punished disproportionately for small offenses. Chindo and MLK both saw success with non-violent resistance than with riots and violence. I'm sure there were days where both men wanted to unleash frustration... but that would have handed their critics ammo to say that they were rabble rousers who are threats to good people who are just trying to live.\n\nElsewhere in History, the Declaration of Independence dropped language condemning British rule for introducing slavery to the Americas because the northerners who opposed it felt that if the line was included, they would lose the support of the southern states, putting the colonies at a disadvantage against the British Military. Better to leave the matter unsaid and deal with it once they got through the mess of the Revolutionary War... and even then it was nearly a century before the matter could be dealt with... though there were certainly abolitionists from the beginning of nation.\n\nJust prior to the Civil War, Lincoln was very tepid on the subject. He was a moderate in his party, when the Radicals opposed slavery with a fiery passion and he did not think he had the political capital to move on the issue. But the war quickly brought him to realize how bad the situation had become. He would either have to put an end to slavery in the nation, or slavery would put an end to the nation. And even then, the Emancipation Proclamation was not enough... after all, it only freed slaves that came into Government possession through the spoils of war... slave owners in northern states could keep their slaves just fine. It would be sometime later before this practice was fully ended and, well, things have improved but even then, it took years to help the victims of slavery recover and in many ways that work is not yet done.\n\nChange like you are describing in your book is a slow process of decades if not centuries of undoing. To quote Men In Black: A person is smart. People are dumb.\n\nOne person is not much of a danger... but people are quite dangerous. After all, they will always have a numerical advantage over the person... that's how plurals work." }, { "answer_id": 59277, "author": "Jedediah", "author_id": 33711, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33711", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "If you want to write a worldview, it helps to encounter it first-hand\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIf you've only heard about a historical period, or read second- and third-hand accounts of the attitudes in a period and place, you're unlikely to be able \"get into the heads\" of people with the attitudes of those times. You may not even, really, understand the attitudes and social dynamics of former times.\n\nRead the original Tarzan by Edgar Rice Burroughs - paying close attention to the author's portrayal that Tarzan was able to become more than a brute animal because of his exceptionally good breeding and ancestry. Remember, Burroughs based that and at least one subsequent Tarzan novel (the one about Tarzan's son) on the notion of Lamarckian inheritance. That is, that the exercise and study and struggle of the previous generations distill into a person's actual physical inheritance, not just their upbringing.\n\nRead Macaria, by Augusta Jane Evans - a romance novel written during the US Civil War by a Southern woman, sympathetic to the South's cause and advocating the goodness of the institutions there, while somehow managing not to address the slavery question for around two-thirds of the book. Pay attention to what the author is painstakingly careful to leave out.\n\nRead Cortes, the Life of the Conqueror by His Secretary - observe the attitudes the conquistadors had to their allies and opponents in their struggles.\n\nRemember it is rare to have a society with no social mobility\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWhile European nobility and the lower classes were separate groups, and it was commonly held that commoners just didn't have as good of breeding, where did the nobles come from? Titles were bestowed on the favorites of the rulers, or on the heroes of a battle, or whatever. Or, occasionally, titles and/or power were seized by the particularly impetuous and successful, regardless of origin.\n\nYes, a peasant and a duke weren't equal, and there were rarely one-generation rises to nobility from nothing, but few people claim to be the direct lineal descendent of \"Og, the chieftan of the tribe that first drove out the Neaderthals and claimed the earth for Cro-Magnon man\". Yes, in-group preference is often shown by the rulers of this or that country, and it's a point of pride to trace one's nobility back for centuries. But even in Tsarist Russia, the son of a peasant could grow up to be the chief engineer in charge of the Moscow water supply.\n\nAlexandre Dumas, the famous French author of The Three Musketeers and other works, was the son of an African slave-woman (and, admittedly, a French nobleman, who helped his son get a start). Real life is turbulent and complex, even in societies with values very foreign from our own.\n\n---\n\n(hszmv is also correct - politicians will not always be able to act on their preferences or perceptions, because of the prevailing attitudes of those they do not have complete control over.)" }, { "answer_id": 59278, "author": "Alexander", "author_id": 22990, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/22990", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Just try to be logically consistent\n\nConsider the following premises:\n\n1. there is almost no social mobility;\n2. protagonist, who is a member of a lower-ranking caste and hates the aristocracy, ends up leading a band of quirky misfits to save the supernatural aristocrats from an assassination plot\n\nAnd two proposed conclusions:\n\n1. protagonist's \"reward\" for doing this is merely \"we're going to treat you a little nicer, like a person instead of a thing\"\n2. the logical thing to do would be to give the stereotypical line of \"we will be watching your career with great interest\" and look into fast-tracking the protagonist into something akin to an officer rank\n\nThe key word here \"almost\" in the first premise. If aristocrats sincerely believe that protagonist's heroics are not sufficient to deserve an exception, then the logical conclusion is #1, not #2.\n\nYou only need to additionally illustrate this point. Make the commander say something like \"You did great, you are such a hero, we really like you! But of course we can't promote you to being an officer, this would have required such and such...\"\n\nBy the way, did you happen to read [The Stormlight Archive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stormlight_Archive) by Brandon Sanderson? One of the main plotlines there would be very relevant to your story. Many (if not all) characters there are almost ridiculously bigoted in their views on casts and social mobility, and yet it feels logically consistent." }, { "answer_id": 59318, "author": "Phil S", "author_id": 52375, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52375", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Issues like this can arise when you need to put a little more time into fleshing out a character and their motives.\n\nIf you're still thinking of your aristocrats as thinly defined stuffed shirts then your handling of them and their motives will come across as such. As people have already suggested, reading some history could really help here - like any group of people, the aristos will have some individual personalities, politics, thoughts and even disparate views on how \"the commoners\" are best handled.\n\nWhich of these particular people does your hero interact with? Is it a single person, or a group of them? (Groups tend to enforce their beliefs via \"group think\"). How have the aristos managed to rule for so long? Are they good at convincing the commoners that they have their best interests at heart, that they reward good service? Or do they enforce it with an iron fist? You'll usually find that in the real world they'll do some degree of both.\n\nSo maybe they pat your hero on the head and send him on his way (if they're really that stupid)...maybe they make promises they have no intention of keeping...perhaps they make promises they do intend to keep, but don't when it comes to the crunch. Maybe they're desperate to promote him, but the rules of their society prevent them from doing so, or would have a ruinous personal cost to their family's reputation. Maybe they're furious that he's managed to solve a problem they could not, or has embarrassed them in front of their peers." } ]	2021/10/13	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59272", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43118/" ]
59,274	I've been mulling over this question for at least a year now. There may be a simple way to ask it but I lack the vocab if there is one. I'm ready to ask it because I think I can express what I want with an illustration. But first some context. When I was in high school, I wrote a novelette set in a fictional universe called Qavn. The universe was structurally simple with only a handful of materials that make up matter: liquid, stone and life (a sort of cytoplasm). The physics was simple too. The problem came in, though, when I needed to convey this. It was out of the question to tell the reader the details about how the world was simpler because it would ruin the pace a lot or wouldn't really paint the right picture in the readers head. My solution at the time was to just skimp on details lacking in Qavn but that are in our physical world. For example, suppose that in Qavn, people are colourless, humanoid blobs without hair. I would just not mention their hair or colour etc. The characters wouldn't mention it either. Why would they? They've never known anything different (i.e. Maid and blob dialogue). The overwhelming feedback was that readers where continuously disorientated because they could not place the setting. There were no hard, literary edges to orientate with because this is an abstract universe. In one of my drafts I tried using a framing story to allow exposition in a Flatland-esque way but I couldn't convey enough of the setting detail with that. Now that the context is out of the way, here is my illustration. Suppose I tell you about "a valley containing trees, surrounded by mountains." You could draw it like this [![Computer-generated pastoral image of a valley](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rBAoA.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rBAoA.jpg) The funny thing about this is that more often than not, the components will be understood as symbolic abstractions. Both the stylized picture of a tree and the word "tree" contain an unspoken promise that the tree has bark, rings, is made up of cells, each cell contains such-and-such atoms etc. even if you are not explicitly told that they are there. But what if the setting really looks like that picture? What if you go there first-hand and what you see is identical to that picture? How can I convey the simplicity of the setting by using "negative space" so that the reader actually feels like the story is reliably being narrated? If it doesn't make sense to use negative space at all, why and what should I do differently?	[ { "answer_id": 59279, "author": "Kate Gregory", "author_id": 15601, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15601", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "If you don't tell the reader otherwise, they will assume the whole world of your story is the world in which they currently live, or something very close to it. That's why so many stories set in the past, or on other planets, include scene setting details to make it clear this is an unusual environment. Nobody is going to just guess that the reason you're not describing anyone's hair or eyes is that they don't have hair or eyes.\n\nHow can you handle it? You could have an introduction or something that spells it out. You could have a framing device like an Earthling has somehow connected (telepathically?) with a Dawnling, and the Dawnling is telling the main story. The Earthling could occasionally interrupt with clarifying questions.\n\nIn The Colour of Magic, Terry Pratchett tells us about a traveller with a little box containing a demon who paints pictures of the things the traveller is seeing. We, the reader, feel smug that we recognize a Polaroid camera and are smarter than the people the traveller is visiting who use such primitive terms to describe technology. Until the demon sticks its head out of the back of the camera to complain of being out of pink paint because the traveller took too many pictures at the Fleshpots of Quirm! So you could do something similar with your narration being true but the reader not thinking it is, then finding a way to show it's actually literally true." }, { "answer_id": 59282, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Use Bland descriptors:\n======================\n\nUsually, a story tries to avoid using bland, uninspiring descriptors for the setting and characters. Readers want grit, sensory input, sweat and pain. Only these things are missing from your world. Unfortunately, you need to describe simplicity, or else a reader will assume lazy, incomplete writing and glossing over \"essential\" details.\n\nI would suggest you can use featureless descriptors, like smooth, balloon-like, featureless, glossy, flat, blocky, and angular. Think about how someone might try to describe a Minecraft world, or a looney toons universe.\n\nThen, amidst the descriptions of a surreal cartoon reality, your characters seem oblivious to the alien nature of the world. Even the descriptors of the characters will be things like doughy, puffy, rounded, and smooth." } ]	2021/10/13	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59274", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52333/" ]
59,287	From my own experience reaction to rejection is very internal. I'm having troubles with coming up with actions that rejected people do, that would be perfect description for what they feel. It would help me a lot if I could learn a couple of examples. And I know people on this board know about their stuff.	[ { "answer_id": 59289, "author": "Lenaya", "author_id": 52351, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52351", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I largely depends in what type of personality they have. If they're the go-getter person who's optimistic, try to have them act normal in front of everyone, but there's an internal sob-fest going on. Or make them act all sullen and dull in front of people, but nobody can seem to cheer them up. Make them grump and agitated all the time. Or dramatic. Or just completely silent all the time. Maybe even stunned and trying to wrap their heads around the rejection. it also depends in if they're a boy or girl or some other gender. Have their friends console them, or have their friends not care.\n\nI'd have the character either act like they don't care in front of everyone and seem cool around the person that rejected them, or have them open up to everyone. Maybe right after the rejection, they go cry somewhere then 4 months later they're seen still trying to get over that person. Maybe even the attraction slowly turns into a hate for that person.\n\nBut IDK, I'm not an expert so IDK if this helps or not." }, { "answer_id": 59305, "author": "Llewellyn", "author_id": 27572, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/27572", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I'm assuming you're talking about someone other than the viewpoint character (where you would be able to show the internal reaction). How much other people would notice of someone hurting from a rejection depends both on the rejected person's personality and how close they are.\n\nIf the rejected person reacts by becoming unusually quiet, withdrawn, sullen, moody etc., even someone who doesn't know them very well might notice the change but probably not understand why. A friend, on the other hand, might pick up on how their mood changes when their crush enters the room, or how they're taking pains to avoid meeting them. Maybe the rejected person spends less time in the office kitchen than they used to, only staying to chat if their crush is nowhere to seen. Or they start going to a different super market than they used to so there's no risk of running into their crush by accident, but of course if anyone asks about it they'll come up with some kind of alternative explanation.\n\nHowever, if the rejected person tries to pretend they're fine, someone who doesn't know them very well might not notice any difference at all. A friend might notice how their laughter seems a tad forced and how sometimes, when they think no one is watching, their smile slips and they gaze sadly at their crush talking to someone else. Of course, when they notice the friend looking at them, they'll put on a smile and wave it off as \"being tired\" or \"lost in thought\"." }, { "answer_id": 59311, "author": "bvcolic", "author_id": 40866, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40866", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Just write about their facial expressions when faced with rejection. Do the characters show expression, even subtly, when dealing with it? If not, what do their minds say? Reacting to rejection is always nuanced, so use yourself as a reference and infer from there depending on the character concerned. It isn’t so difficult, you as a human being deal with it often daily I imagine since it is so common to be rejected, so use experience and infer or deduct accordingly. You live life, you can write about this common experience." } ]	2021/10/14	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59287", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/48855/" ]
59,294	When looking through various stories I have often noticed that stories with dynamic protagonists are often introverted and shy in some way. More specifically, I've noted that writing an introverted protagonist is often easier than writing an extroverted one because there is a ready-made character arc: the shy, insecure protagonist learns to discover themselves and gains more confidence as part of a coming-of-age story.\* Similarly, introverted characters tend to brood more and hence that can be used as a useful way of setting up reaction scenes. I've looked through a lot of YA or new adult coming-of-age stories and have found very few where the lead is very dynamic and yet not described as an introvert or at the very least introvert-esque (e.g., Hijrp Potfeq; somewhat sociable but not someone who thrives in social settings). Very few have extraverted or openly outgoing personalities (Peryy Yiwfsan and Naruto are the main ones I can think of), and those that do tend towards flat character arcs (i.e., the protagonist has a strong personality and their beliefs remain constant but the world around them changes). I have a coming-of-age story where the protagonist has an extroverted, sociable personality. However, when plotting the story I have found that the introverted deuteragonist, which has that stereotypical shy, uncertain personality, comes off as more interesting because they go through a greater amount of change as part of their personal arc. The protagonist is supposed to go through character development (gaining direction and purpose in life), but ultimately the development comes off as uninteresting to watch because ultimately the character goes through comparably little internal change: they remain extroverted, headstrong, and sociable but merely channel that energy into a new direction. Thus, the change they go through is less extreme, and thus less interesting to readers (because readers like to see how characters made a big change from point A to point B). I have been unable to figure out how to make that character development interesting to read. I have noticed this problem with pretty much all of my extroverted characters relative to the introverted ones. I am trying to figure out how to make a sociable, extroverted character dynamic and interesting when I cannot rely on the paradigm shift of "shy, awkward character becomes confident" because it does not fit the character's personality. "\*" - I know that shyness =/= introversion, but authors tend to conflate the two when they write. Shy extraverts are generally rare in fiction.	[ { "answer_id": 59289, "author": "Lenaya", "author_id": 52351, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52351", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I largely depends in what type of personality they have. If they're the go-getter person who's optimistic, try to have them act normal in front of everyone, but there's an internal sob-fest going on. Or make them act all sullen and dull in front of people, but nobody can seem to cheer them up. Make them grump and agitated all the time. Or dramatic. Or just completely silent all the time. Maybe even stunned and trying to wrap their heads around the rejection. it also depends in if they're a boy or girl or some other gender. Have their friends console them, or have their friends not care.\n\nI'd have the character either act like they don't care in front of everyone and seem cool around the person that rejected them, or have them open up to everyone. Maybe right after the rejection, they go cry somewhere then 4 months later they're seen still trying to get over that person. Maybe even the attraction slowly turns into a hate for that person.\n\nBut IDK, I'm not an expert so IDK if this helps or not." }, { "answer_id": 59305, "author": "Llewellyn", "author_id": 27572, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/27572", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I'm assuming you're talking about someone other than the viewpoint character (where you would be able to show the internal reaction). How much other people would notice of someone hurting from a rejection depends both on the rejected person's personality and how close they are.\n\nIf the rejected person reacts by becoming unusually quiet, withdrawn, sullen, moody etc., even someone who doesn't know them very well might notice the change but probably not understand why. A friend, on the other hand, might pick up on how their mood changes when their crush enters the room, or how they're taking pains to avoid meeting them. Maybe the rejected person spends less time in the office kitchen than they used to, only staying to chat if their crush is nowhere to seen. Or they start going to a different super market than they used to so there's no risk of running into their crush by accident, but of course if anyone asks about it they'll come up with some kind of alternative explanation.\n\nHowever, if the rejected person tries to pretend they're fine, someone who doesn't know them very well might not notice any difference at all. A friend might notice how their laughter seems a tad forced and how sometimes, when they think no one is watching, their smile slips and they gaze sadly at their crush talking to someone else. Of course, when they notice the friend looking at them, they'll put on a smile and wave it off as \"being tired\" or \"lost in thought\"." }, { "answer_id": 59311, "author": "bvcolic", "author_id": 40866, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40866", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Just write about their facial expressions when faced with rejection. Do the characters show expression, even subtly, when dealing with it? If not, what do their minds say? Reacting to rejection is always nuanced, so use yourself as a reference and infer from there depending on the character concerned. It isn’t so difficult, you as a human being deal with it often daily I imagine since it is so common to be rejected, so use experience and infer or deduct accordingly. You live life, you can write about this common experience." } ]	2021/10/15	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59294", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43118/" ]
59,296	Superhuman powers, with the exception of psionic abilities like telepathy, are primarily an element of visual spectacle. This is primarily why fiction with people with some form of superhuman abilities have proliferated in film, comic books, and anime/manga, because it is something the audience can see rather than feel/visualize. However, in a written medium (i.e., books), visual spectacle is downplayed. I have often heard it said the meat of a visual work is the typically the spectacle or action, whereas in a written work it is dialogue and thought. This, in turn, is influenced by the traits of the work, in a visual medium the viewer can see flashy scenes or more easily notice subtle cues in the actor's voice or body language, whereas in written mediums the reader is able to get an internal look at the characters' thought processes. I have a story that involves people with supernatural powers getting in fights with one another. The problem I'm noticing is that the action scenes feel boring to write and like filler. There are moments in the fight that result in character development (or how the supernatural powers affect their character), yet I find myself only interested in writing those parts and not the proper build-up to make the scene paced appropriately. I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that most superpowers are visually oriented and thus what would be a big-budget fight scene in a visual medium ends up just being a line of text in a written work. However, it is not possible to simply excise these parts from the story, as they are key in influencing the character's thought processes and development. E.g., a lot of the actions the characters take are influenced by the fact they live in a dog-eat-dog world or are expected to fight to survive, and if I don't show this it feels like there are no stakes or conflict. How can I make fight scenes with superpowers interesting when I do not have visual spectacle to fall back on?	[ { "answer_id": 59297, "author": "Jedediah", "author_id": 33711, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33711", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Tell, don't show\n----------------\n\n(I've always wanted to say that)\n\nAn often-neglected principle in writing advice is that you can compress uninteresting or expected events down to brief remarks, either by the narrator or by an in-story observer.\n\nIf two mighty superheroes, who have easily plowed through other opponents, meet, and find themselves evenly matched, you can just say that they pummel each other for an hour, with neither of them gaining an advantage over the other. If an hour of action has a paragraph worth of interest, only give it that much. (And if 10 seconds of action are worth half a chapter, that's fine, too.)\n\nBe clever, of course. If you talk about dust sifting from the ceilings in buildings near the fighting when SuperGuy punches GenericThunderGod, or how SuperGuy comes back from the battle limping, with torn clothes and bruises, that's great. But a litany of every punch thrown? Heavens, no. Not unless every punch is important to the story.\n\nAnd if you're doing what's actually important (making the reader care about what happens to the characters), what matters is that SuperGuy does come limping back. (Or that he doesn't.) Again, not every punch is important.\n\nYes, when you're first introducing a character (or the world where super powers are a thing), you might need to give a more thorough description of what's happening, just to lay down a general impression of what can happen. After it's old hat, it's old hat. Even comics and animated/live action portrayals often skate quickly over less important or repetitive aspects of the action.\n\nOn the other hand, writing gives you a uniquely strong ability to be coy, or vague. Don't overuse it, but remember: \"Yes, I saw what she did. I saw the blades and the chains and the torn flesh and bodies and...\" he stopped, shuddering. \"I don't want to talk about it.\"\n\nSometimes what you leave out speaks more loudly than what you put in\n--------------------------------------------------------------------" }, { "answer_id": 59335, "author": "codeMonkey", "author_id": 40325, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40325", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Frame Challenge\n---------------\n\nVisuals have nothing to do with the problem. On of my favorite books of any type is VE Schwab's Vicious, which is explicitly about superheroes and superpowers.\n\nReader Expectations and Tension\n-------------------------------\n\nWhen a superhero and supervillain fight, it generally doesn't end in death. The genre doesn't work that way, and the reader knows it.\n\nThis means it's really easy to write a super-powered fight scene with zero stakes. They're fighting, but the reader knows that the hero will get away, or stop the bomb from going off, or whatever. Any scene without stakes is boring. A flashy scene without any stakes is *even more boring.\n\nThis is probably your problem.\n\nFinding Stakes\n--------------\n\nStrangely, the solution to this problem might be to find lower stakes. What if the fight was taking place in the hero's own laboratory, and a priceless, one-of-a-kind prototype of a crime-fighting tool was sitting on a table?\n\nThe stakes are lower here, so it lets you build some tension. The prototype might actually end up destroyed - that's not something that would break with the reader's expectations. The point at which the hero is willing to risk the prototype tells us something about his character. (Will he let some henchmen get away to save it? What about the main bad guy?)\n\nThis is why so many classic superheroes are obsessed with redeeming their villains. We know the hero will win, but the question of whether they can redeem the villain provides tension. Likewise, classic heroes don't want their secret identities revealed, but it's not catastrophic if it gets out, so this is another common risk.\n\nGrim Dark Answer\n----------------\n\nSome authors have gone the route of explicitly defying the genre conventions. Anyone and everyone can die - violently and senselessly - so it adds tension back into the story. Watchmen, Invincible, and The Boys are all examples of this that recently made it to streaming services.\n\nIt works... but it might be hard to find something original to say in that space given all the action its seen recently.\n\nFlip a Coin\n-----------\n\nYou have outcomes that your fights need to have - this person is injured, or that object is stolen - but there can be secondary stakes too. Someone gets captured, or some other minor setback for the hero.\n\nImagine if for every fight, you picked those secondary stakes, and then flipped a coin to figure out if your hero \"won\" or not. If you recoil from the thought because \"I couldn't do THAT\" then your reader isn't going to believe that it could happen either. There will be no tension, and therefore nothing interesting about the scene." }, { "answer_id": 59337, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "So I like to think of myself as a great writer of action sequences and I'm working on Superhero fiction myself. In my fight sequences, I always try to visualize and \"block\" out my character's movements as if scripting the fight in a blockbuster. Some great techniques are that in writing, you can describe an action that takes less than 5 seconds in a series of actions that take way longer to read... watch some high speed footage to get an idea of how your world is breaking in the fight and describe as appropriate.\n\nA general rule I've found that for fast paced action sequences, shorter sentences work to better capture the speed. Longer descriptions tend to highlight a build up of something and should be used for big actions or game changers (For example, if I was writing Star Wars in a novel form, I would describe at great length the sequences of what happens as the Death Star builds up power for the fatal shot at Alderaan... in the film, this is maybe a minute of screen time, but the noises, the lights, the laser's combining together, the sickly yellow green energy, ect... they're all spectacle and all important to the shot).\n\nA good exercise to write these scenes is to go watch the final battle sequence from Avengers (Marvel). There's one scene that's an uncut tracking shot of the heroes through the fight (Joss Whedon loves these and has them in several of his films, including the opening scene in Serenity and a follow up in Avengers 2 in the intro scene). But watch these scenes a few times and describe the action as it happens in film.\n\nDon't be afraid to knock your heroes around too. Typically some of the best Superman fights in any medium are the ones where the writer realizes that the heavy hitters of Superman's rogues gallery can toss Superman through buildings and into tractor trailers or buses, causing the vehicles to deform, jack knife, or veer off course. The forces of a 200 lbs+ man hitting something at several times the speed of sound are insanely powerful and can do some good visual damage.\n\nAnd remember, your medium is not visual only in that the information is conveyed through words and letters... most readers imagine the scene in their minds eye... which is why the book is almost always better than the film: Everyone sees the book's world in their own experience and when the film is made, it'll always look different. And those big budget action sequences in film? Someone had to visualize it, then write it down, then describe it to others.\n\nResearch your locations too. Get maps if you're fighting in the streets of famous cities (It would be embarrassing for your heroes to have a fight in D.C. and have a lengthy car chase that goes from the Verizon Center Through the Zoo, then around DuPont Circle, and finishes miles away at the J. Edgar Hoover building (FBI HQ) as those things (Why? DuPont is closer to Verizon than the Zoo, and the Hoover Building is walking distance from Verizon Center... and in the wrong direction of the former ( DuPont and the Zoo are west of the Verizon Center. Hoover is south of it.).\n\nIf your fighting in a famous building, floor plans are helpful as well." }, { "answer_id": 59338, "author": "F1Krazy", "author_id": 23927, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23927", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Make the fights more cerebral.\n\nIt's all too easy for fights involving superpowered individuals to end up manifesting as two people trading punches or firing coloured beams of energy at each other, and to thus be decided by whoever can punch the hardest or fire the biggest, most powerful energy beam. I like a nice fight scene as much as the next guy, but when every fight scene in a work boils down to the same thing, it gets old pretty quickly.\n\nYou need to make your protagonist(s) think. You need to give them opponents that they can't beat by simply unloading their superpower directly into said opponent's face. You, and your characters, need to get creative.\n\nThis way, you can leverage the strengths of the written medium as mentioned in your question. Instead of focusing on the visual spectacle of the fight itself, you're focusing on the thought processes behind it; instead of describing a bunch of explosions, you're describing the protagonist's attempts, in real-time, to outwit their opponent.\n\n---\n\nThis is a problem I've faced when writing my own superhero series. If my protagonist can fire 50,000 volts of electricity from his palms, then how do I stop him from just tasering every villain he meets and defeating them in five seconds flat? I have to bear that in mind when I'm creating villains, and ensure they pose some kind of unique challenge.\n\nOne villain had steel skin that acted as a Faraday cage and made him immune to electricity. Another wielded a powerful energy weapon that could discharge accidentally if its wielder was tasered. On top of that, the hero is willing to try negotiating with villains and talking them down peacefully, so he generally doesn't just zap first and ask questions later.\n\n---\n\nYou can also refer to anime, as many of them rely on the protagonists using their abilities in unorthodox ways to win battles, or otherwise outsmarting their opponents instead of merely overpowering them. One Piece, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, and My Hero Academia* are all great examples of this. At the other end of the scale, you have Dragon Ball Z, which to me is the quintessential example of a show where the fight scenes are all about who can fire the largest energy beam." } ]	2021/10/15	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59296", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43118/" ]
59,301	I began trying to write a book yesterday and saw that what I wanted to write in 10-15 pages I wrote in two. How do I lengthen the book so it won't be this short?	[ { "answer_id": 59306, "author": "JonStonecash", "author_id": 23701, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23701", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "This is going to come across as simplistic, but it seems to me that you have to have something to say and a reason to say it. Thus, you have to go back and ask the question, what are you trying to say. This is not easy and may take multiple revisions before you figure it out. But if you do not do it, your readers, equally confused, may decide to spend their precious attention somewhere else.\n\nThere are a thousand ways to write a novel and depending upon the skill of the writer, most of them will, eventually, produce something worthy of reading. The internet is a great resource to educate and confuse the (beginning) writer. Books, articles, and podcasts abound. Sample repeatedly until you find something that works for you. And by \"works for you\", I mean that after consuming the advice, you sit down and produce something worthy of having someone else read. Nodding your head and saying, Ah Ha, are not enough.\n\nI will offer two aspects that I personally think are key: context and emotional destination. Short paragraphs about each to follow. First a short bit of plot and characterization: Parr goes to the store, sees an injustice, speaks out, gets some blowback form some and praise from others, and learns something about herself.\n\nThis needs context to \"thicken the soup.\" What was Parr's upbringing? Is this the first time or the tenth time that she has spoken up in this fashion? Is she financially and socially secure or just hanging on? Does she live in a community that values social justice or does the community think that social Darwinism is just great? What time of year was it? Was the weather good or miserable? Did the store have what she wanted? How old is she? And so on and so on. Everyone of the answers to these questions exerts a pressure on Parr and enriches the story. How much context do you add? Damned if I or most writers know how to answer that question. The best answer that I have is to write more than you need and edit out the excess during revision.\n\nCharacterization is my way of saying, where does Parr start and where does she end up? How does she change during the course of the story? How does that affect (or not affect) the other people in the story? How do you want the story to end? What has to happen in the story to bring that about? Are there interesting side trips to divert (and possibly confuse) the reader? What do you want the readers to learn from having read your story?\n\nThere is a whole lot more to writing but taking small steps with interlaced contemplation of pluses and minuses can take you father than you might initially imagine." }, { "answer_id": 59310, "author": "bvcolic", "author_id": 40866, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40866", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It depends. Did you say what you wanted that chapter to have in two pages effectively? If so, that’s great. It is really about how you feel with respect to what you’ve written with respect to length, in other words, do you feel that you could lengthen what you’ve written in two pages to fifteen? Or are you happy with what you could have said in fifteen but said in two? If you want fifteen pages, the try to make it fifteen pages; thereafter compare, which of the two is more effective for yourself subjectively? Then, the real question is, which would you rather read, the two pages in a book as a result of the effect or the fifteen as a result of the effect? Be honest with yourself when answering these questions." } ]	2021/10/16	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59301", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52363/" ]
59,304	I wrote a novel in "third person omniscient" which worked well because it is a very long novel and certain scenes were better described from multiple characters' biased views along with the narrator's objective view. I particularly enjoyed it because the narrator had a sinister, lyrical, and antiquated tone which matched the story's darkness. After finishing the first draft, I began reading more fiction "how to" books and for some reason I thought that I had to write in "third person limited." Because of that misunderstanding, I've rewritten many chapters in 3rd-limited, but some seem awkward to me after the rewrite. In some chapters, however, the 3rd-limited style does indeed seem to me to function better. Now I understand that 3rd-omnicient is permissible as long as the narrator maintains the same tone (according to Monica Wood's "Description" page 105 in The Elements of Fiction Writing series). I feel like I've "painted myself in a corner" wherein some chapters are now in the original 3rd -omniscient and some are 3rd-limited (I don't see how I can easily go back). Also, some seem to work better in one style and some in another. I'm wondering, can fiction novel chapters change style from one to another? That is, can some chapters be 3rd-omniscient and some 3rd-limited? Or does the entire story have to be in one POV style? Please help. Choosing among the POV styles has turned out to be the most extremely difficult aspect of writing for me.	[ { "answer_id": 59306, "author": "JonStonecash", "author_id": 23701, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23701", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "This is going to come across as simplistic, but it seems to me that you have to have something to say and a reason to say it. Thus, you have to go back and ask the question, what are you trying to say. This is not easy and may take multiple revisions before you figure it out. But if you do not do it, your readers, equally confused, may decide to spend their precious attention somewhere else.\n\nThere are a thousand ways to write a novel and depending upon the skill of the writer, most of them will, eventually, produce something worthy of reading. The internet is a great resource to educate and confuse the (beginning) writer. Books, articles, and podcasts abound. Sample repeatedly until you find something that works for you. And by \"works for you\", I mean that after consuming the advice, you sit down and produce something worthy of having someone else read. Nodding your head and saying, Ah Ha, are not enough.\n\nI will offer two aspects that I personally think are key: context and emotional destination. Short paragraphs about each to follow. First a short bit of plot and characterization: Parr goes to the store, sees an injustice, speaks out, gets some blowback form some and praise from others, and learns something about herself.\n\nThis needs context to \"thicken the soup.\" What was Parr's upbringing? Is this the first time or the tenth time that she has spoken up in this fashion? Is she financially and socially secure or just hanging on? Does she live in a community that values social justice or does the community think that social Darwinism is just great? What time of year was it? Was the weather good or miserable? Did the store have what she wanted? How old is she? And so on and so on. Everyone of the answers to these questions exerts a pressure on Parr and enriches the story. How much context do you add? Damned if I or most writers know how to answer that question. The best answer that I have is to write more than you need and edit out the excess during revision.\n\nCharacterization is my way of saying, where does Parr start and where does she end up? How does she change during the course of the story? How does that affect (or not affect) the other people in the story? How do you want the story to end? What has to happen in the story to bring that about? Are there interesting side trips to divert (and possibly confuse) the reader? What do you want the readers to learn from having read your story?\n\nThere is a whole lot more to writing but taking small steps with interlaced contemplation of pluses and minuses can take you father than you might initially imagine." }, { "answer_id": 59310, "author": "bvcolic", "author_id": 40866, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40866", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It depends. Did you say what you wanted that chapter to have in two pages effectively? If so, that’s great. It is really about how you feel with respect to what you’ve written with respect to length, in other words, do you feel that you could lengthen what you’ve written in two pages to fifteen? Or are you happy with what you could have said in fifteen but said in two? If you want fifteen pages, the try to make it fifteen pages; thereafter compare, which of the two is more effective for yourself subjectively? Then, the real question is, which would you rather read, the two pages in a book as a result of the effect or the fifteen as a result of the effect? Be honest with yourself when answering these questions." } ]	2021/10/16	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59304", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46968/" ]
59,308	I am thinking of writing a spy thriller, and I am in the process of forming an outline. The plot in my mind involves 3-4 countries and would involve accusing some countries of heinous crimes, as an example say Country A. I have three sub questions: 1. Although fiction, but inspired by real events; countries will have to be named, and can their real names be used? Or should I find fictional names for these countries to prevent unwanted problems? 2. Are there any cases of real life problems due to real names being used? I am sure these won't create any diplomatic tensions, but could these create problems to authors; like prohibit entry of the author to Country A. 3. How are such problems overcome by writers apart from using fictional names? A disclaimer?	[ { "answer_id": 59323, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "1. Really depends on the audience, the size of the country on the world stage and the geopolitical relationships of countries. Typically, big players on the world stage tend to include the United States, U.K. (not a superpower but one of the closest allies of the U.S. - and James Bond's home nation, when he isn't Scottish and at his most awesome), Russia, and China. Other nations tend to be major European Powers like France and Germany, or major Middle East Powers (Turkey, Pakistan, and Israel).\n\nTwo outliers, small nations that typically get mentioned, are Cuba (The U.S. militant dislike of Communism and its proximity to Florida have made Cuba a surprisingly powerful intelligence focused nation) and Switzerland (not known for offensive intelligence operations, but given Swiss Neutrality, Switzerland tends to have a lot of spies pass through as they have connecting flights between rival powers; if you do see Swiss military or intelligence in action, it's usually in Rome of all places, since the Swiss Guard are the official bodyguards of the Pope and the Vatican).\n\nFrom there, smaller countries may attract attention for stories, but at this level many authors can have fictional nations blended in.\n\nFew Americans can tell the difference between Rojava and Val Verde; the former is a real break away region in the Syrian Civil war that is seeking to become an independent nation but has not yet been recognized, and the latter is a fictional Caribbean or Central American nation that was used in many 80s action films and still gets a nod from time to time. The phrase \"Val Verde\" (Green Valley) was used because it is identical in French, Spanish, and Portuguese).\n2. China famously will not allow works that are critical of China to enter their market places... legally of course... and the Middle East tends to get touchy about their depictions in fiction, but not overly so. China being a financial powerhouse tends to disrupt Hollywood film productions.\n\nOther nations actually don't mind their depictions in fiction and a few are grateful for recognition. Russians actually have a love of Russian villains in American films, although this is because during the Cold War, actors from Russia were scarce in Hollywood so the roles were given to Americans who spoke with very fake Russian accents that were laughably bad to native Russian speaker's ears.\n\nIt's probably more offensive to depict a nation incorrectly in terms of culture or city layout. Try to find maps to use as references.\n3. Fictional countries are used either to have a composite of elements or to have more creative control over the government's response or international relations in the world.\n\nSay you want to set your story about North and South Korea uniting... it might break the willing suspension of disbelief if that was depicted in your story... but if you had a fictional separated Asian nation that was very Korean in culture, it's easier to accept the negotiations going on.\n\nIt might also be useful if you have an assassination plot as most nations don't like depictions of their leaders getting shot (The U.S. public is especially sensitive to successful presidential assassinations, especially when it's a current president, but they love \"save the president\" and \"Die Hard in the White House\" plots)." }, { "answer_id": 59327, "author": "user2352714", "author_id": 43118, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43118", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Generally, the way that this is usually circumvented is by making up some fake country located in a similar area as the country that is being referenced. Usually this happens when the writer wants to touch on something that has happened in current events but wants enough slight of hand to not name the persons involved (but, given context, any contemporary reader knows what's being talked about). This has happened frequently enough that Tv Tropes even has four separate trope pages for these stereotypes: [generic stereotypic Latin American junta](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BananaRepublic), [generic stereotypic Soviet or post-Soviet eastern European country](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ruritania), [generic stereotypic warlord-controlled post-colonial African nation](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Bulungi), and [generic stereotypic Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist state](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Qurac). The reasons why are kind of obvious, given that usually these fictional countries are characterized as hotbeds of political corruption.\n\nA good example of this can be seen in The Authority, which was an late 90s-early oughts comic that was basically \"a more violent Justice League gets involved in modern geopolitical issues\". One issue of The Authority had them intervening in East Timor, which is a real region and the issue at the time was referring to [a real crisis in which Indonesia was trying to prevent East Timor from seceding by scorched earth tactics and UN peacekeepers from the West and other southeastern Asian countries got involved](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_East_Timorese_crisis). It was intended to be a reference to contemporary events, but in reprints DC comics changed the setting to a generic location out of concerns of political sensitivity.\n\nGenerally smaller countries will get replaced with generic counterparts, but the Soviet Union and USA as a whole are left as is because there are really only one of each and it would look silly trying to replace them with another superpower unless you are going completely alternate history. Western European countries often get mentioned by name, generally because they have a history of allowing free speech. [Notably some middle Eastern countries, particularly Iran, have been offended and called for violence against authors for things that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy) [may or may not be historical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses) (in the sense that whether or not the event happened is debated, but the religious debate over their veracity goes back at least 1000 years). There are also some parts of history that certain cultures or countries consider offensive to talk about at all. Not just culturally/politically insensitive or unflattering depictions of those events, but any portrayal of that time period outside of a history book is considered offensive, even if the author belongs to that group. The point of this is even restricting yourself to things that actually happened in real life can get you in trouble.\n\nOther times authors will just go heck with it and include real countries by name. Though I don't know how far countries will go in pursuing action against the author barring how many Middle Eastern countries don't like any depiction of Mogovmud. Hos Qlakcy got criticized several times for using real-life countries and political events in his novels, and even supposedly got pulled aside for questioning by U.S. intelligence for accidentally reverse-engineering state secrets through thought experiments. Whether anything more extensive has happened to spy fiction writers is unknown to the author.\n\nSometimes differing approaches can get mixed up in the same work. For example in the Metal Gear series you have Zanzibarland, which is a fictional county located where IRL Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan should be (it's mentioned as at the border between the former USSR, Afghanistan, and China). On the other hand years later in Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, you have Abkhazia and its independence movement, which despite sounding like a generic fictional county [actually exists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia)." }, { "answer_id": 59462, "author": "mwo", "author_id": 13822, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13822", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Bond movies, Cacl Rfak stories, Bison Bearzi stories and similar get around this by doing what is more interesting an authentic anyway. They don’t pin misdeeds on entire countries but on specific people within those countries. They introduce ambitious generals or intelligence officers or politicians with plausible motivations and career objectives and blame them for the bad stuff.\n\nAll you have to do is make them distinctive characters, different or opposed to the real\nleadership currently in power there. Often writers will even make their villains actions illegal within their own country for an extra layer of comfort. With that you can make your antagonist country Russia, China, the US or the UK without having to offend the populations or the real leaders." } ]	2021/10/17	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59308", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52364/" ]
59,322	I'm writing a 3rd person limited multi-pov Sci-Fi. The thoughts of whatever POV is being followed at any point are sometimes shown in italicized writing. Suddenly, 42K words in, starting off chapter 11, are four paragraphs of a diary. The paragraphs are written in a different font, one that is clearly handwriting. After the diary entry, the POV is shown to close their diary, and the chapter goes on as normal. Is a sudden and drastic, yet temporary and brief, format change like this jarring to the reader? The way I see it, it may either be entirely OK, problematic or completely off the table. If the first or last, why? If it is problematic, how may one do it in a way that works? What does one need to consider? I don't feel like I fully grasp the consequences of doing something like this. I guess it is technically changing the story from 3rd person to 1st person. Then again, visual and narratives clues are given to show the reader that it is more like the reader is given a 3rd person view onto a diary page of the POV. It's not like the POV directly becomes the narrator, it's more like their diary narration is pulled to the forefront of the reader's perspective. But then again, that may just practically be the same thing.	[ { "answer_id": 59323, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "1. Really depends on the audience, the size of the country on the world stage and the geopolitical relationships of countries. Typically, big players on the world stage tend to include the United States, U.K. (not a superpower but one of the closest allies of the U.S. - and James Bond's home nation, when he isn't Scottish and at his most awesome), Russia, and China. Other nations tend to be major European Powers like France and Germany, or major Middle East Powers (Turkey, Pakistan, and Israel).\n\nTwo outliers, small nations that typically get mentioned, are Cuba (The U.S. militant dislike of Communism and its proximity to Florida have made Cuba a surprisingly powerful intelligence focused nation) and Switzerland (not known for offensive intelligence operations, but given Swiss Neutrality, Switzerland tends to have a lot of spies pass through as they have connecting flights between rival powers; if you do see Swiss military or intelligence in action, it's usually in Rome of all places, since the Swiss Guard are the official bodyguards of the Pope and the Vatican).\n\nFrom there, smaller countries may attract attention for stories, but at this level many authors can have fictional nations blended in.\n\nFew Americans can tell the difference between Rojava and Val Verde; the former is a real break away region in the Syrian Civil war that is seeking to become an independent nation but has not yet been recognized, and the latter is a fictional Caribbean or Central American nation that was used in many 80s action films and still gets a nod from time to time. The phrase \"Val Verde\" (Green Valley) was used because it is identical in French, Spanish, and Portuguese).\n2. China famously will not allow works that are critical of China to enter their market places... legally of course... and the Middle East tends to get touchy about their depictions in fiction, but not overly so. China being a financial powerhouse tends to disrupt Hollywood film productions.\n\nOther nations actually don't mind their depictions in fiction and a few are grateful for recognition. Russians actually have a love of Russian villains in American films, although this is because during the Cold War, actors from Russia were scarce in Hollywood so the roles were given to Americans who spoke with very fake Russian accents that were laughably bad to native Russian speaker's ears.\n\nIt's probably more offensive to depict a nation incorrectly in terms of culture or city layout. Try to find maps to use as references.\n3. Fictional countries are used either to have a composite of elements or to have more creative control over the government's response or international relations in the world.\n\nSay you want to set your story about North and South Korea uniting... it might break the willing suspension of disbelief if that was depicted in your story... but if you had a fictional separated Asian nation that was very Korean in culture, it's easier to accept the negotiations going on.\n\nIt might also be useful if you have an assassination plot as most nations don't like depictions of their leaders getting shot (The U.S. public is especially sensitive to successful presidential assassinations, especially when it's a current president, but they love \"save the president\" and \"Die Hard in the White House\" plots)." }, { "answer_id": 59327, "author": "user2352714", "author_id": 43118, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43118", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Generally, the way that this is usually circumvented is by making up some fake country located in a similar area as the country that is being referenced. Usually this happens when the writer wants to touch on something that has happened in current events but wants enough slight of hand to not name the persons involved (but, given context, any contemporary reader knows what's being talked about). This has happened frequently enough that Tv Tropes even has four separate trope pages for these stereotypes: [generic stereotypic Latin American junta](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BananaRepublic), [generic stereotypic Soviet or post-Soviet eastern European country](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ruritania), [generic stereotypic warlord-controlled post-colonial African nation](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Bulungi), and [generic stereotypic Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist state](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Qurac). The reasons why are kind of obvious, given that usually these fictional countries are characterized as hotbeds of political corruption.\n\nA good example of this can be seen in The Authority, which was an late 90s-early oughts comic that was basically \"a more violent Justice League gets involved in modern geopolitical issues\". One issue of The Authority had them intervening in East Timor, which is a real region and the issue at the time was referring to [a real crisis in which Indonesia was trying to prevent East Timor from seceding by scorched earth tactics and UN peacekeepers from the West and other southeastern Asian countries got involved](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_East_Timorese_crisis). It was intended to be a reference to contemporary events, but in reprints DC comics changed the setting to a generic location out of concerns of political sensitivity.\n\nGenerally smaller countries will get replaced with generic counterparts, but the Soviet Union and USA as a whole are left as is because there are really only one of each and it would look silly trying to replace them with another superpower unless you are going completely alternate history. Western European countries often get mentioned by name, generally because they have a history of allowing free speech. [Notably some middle Eastern countries, particularly Iran, have been offended and called for violence against authors for things that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy) [may or may not be historical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses) (in the sense that whether or not the event happened is debated, but the religious debate over their veracity goes back at least 1000 years). There are also some parts of history that certain cultures or countries consider offensive to talk about at all. Not just culturally/politically insensitive or unflattering depictions of those events, but any portrayal of that time period outside of a history book is considered offensive, even if the author belongs to that group. The point of this is even restricting yourself to things that actually happened in real life can get you in trouble.\n\nOther times authors will just go heck with it and include real countries by name. Though I don't know how far countries will go in pursuing action against the author barring how many Middle Eastern countries don't like any depiction of Mogovmud. Hos Qlakcy got criticized several times for using real-life countries and political events in his novels, and even supposedly got pulled aside for questioning by U.S. intelligence for accidentally reverse-engineering state secrets through thought experiments. Whether anything more extensive has happened to spy fiction writers is unknown to the author.\n\nSometimes differing approaches can get mixed up in the same work. For example in the Metal Gear series you have Zanzibarland, which is a fictional county located where IRL Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan should be (it's mentioned as at the border between the former USSR, Afghanistan, and China). On the other hand years later in Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, you have Abkhazia and its independence movement, which despite sounding like a generic fictional county [actually exists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia)." }, { "answer_id": 59462, "author": "mwo", "author_id": 13822, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13822", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Bond movies, Cacl Rfak stories, Bison Bearzi stories and similar get around this by doing what is more interesting an authentic anyway. They don’t pin misdeeds on entire countries but on specific people within those countries. They introduce ambitious generals or intelligence officers or politicians with plausible motivations and career objectives and blame them for the bad stuff.\n\nAll you have to do is make them distinctive characters, different or opposed to the real\nleadership currently in power there. Often writers will even make their villains actions illegal within their own country for an extra layer of comfort. With that you can make your antagonist country Russia, China, the US or the UK without having to offend the populations or the real leaders." } ]	2021/10/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59322", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30157/" ]
59,328	I understand bandit attacks are themselves cliche, but ignoring that for now: Situation: A guy is transporting a shipment of ice from atop a mountain, needs to get to the foothills asap. Cue cliche bandit ambush. He tries reasoning, fails, decides to rush an escape. My Goal: He makes it past the roadblock, seems in the clear, but in doing so runs off the road and ends up having a terrible accident that concludes with the destruction of the carriage/cart. My problem: The roadblock needs to be something he could conceivably make it around/past but without a guarantee of success. What I'm working with right now: * Felled tree * Heavy Barrels rolled/released onto the road perpendicular to incoming traffic * Him just going "F\\k it!" and riding through a slope thick with foliage towards a smaller path he can just make out through the trees. --- FYI this is for a comic. I'm keen to hear if anybody has ideas for barricades/road blocks that are viable for medieval bandits to pull off that are interesting. That said, I'm leaning towards simple felled tree, because I think here the cliche actually works in my favor as making it instantly recognizable as what it is -- but I'd like to hear if anybody thinks otherwise. Or has a genius idea for something really out of the box!	[ { "answer_id": 59323, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "1. Really depends on the audience, the size of the country on the world stage and the geopolitical relationships of countries. Typically, big players on the world stage tend to include the United States, U.K. (not a superpower but one of the closest allies of the U.S. - and James Bond's home nation, when he isn't Scottish and at his most awesome), Russia, and China. Other nations tend to be major European Powers like France and Germany, or major Middle East Powers (Turkey, Pakistan, and Israel).\n\nTwo outliers, small nations that typically get mentioned, are Cuba (The U.S. militant dislike of Communism and its proximity to Florida have made Cuba a surprisingly powerful intelligence focused nation) and Switzerland (not known for offensive intelligence operations, but given Swiss Neutrality, Switzerland tends to have a lot of spies pass through as they have connecting flights between rival powers; if you do see Swiss military or intelligence in action, it's usually in Rome of all places, since the Swiss Guard are the official bodyguards of the Pope and the Vatican).\n\nFrom there, smaller countries may attract attention for stories, but at this level many authors can have fictional nations blended in.\n\nFew Americans can tell the difference between Rojava and Val Verde; the former is a real break away region in the Syrian Civil war that is seeking to become an independent nation but has not yet been recognized, and the latter is a fictional Caribbean or Central American nation that was used in many 80s action films and still gets a nod from time to time. The phrase \"Val Verde\" (Green Valley) was used because it is identical in French, Spanish, and Portuguese).\n2. China famously will not allow works that are critical of China to enter their market places... legally of course... and the Middle East tends to get touchy about their depictions in fiction, but not overly so. China being a financial powerhouse tends to disrupt Hollywood film productions.\n\nOther nations actually don't mind their depictions in fiction and a few are grateful for recognition. Russians actually have a love of Russian villains in American films, although this is because during the Cold War, actors from Russia were scarce in Hollywood so the roles were given to Americans who spoke with very fake Russian accents that were laughably bad to native Russian speaker's ears.\n\nIt's probably more offensive to depict a nation incorrectly in terms of culture or city layout. Try to find maps to use as references.\n3. Fictional countries are used either to have a composite of elements or to have more creative control over the government's response or international relations in the world.\n\nSay you want to set your story about North and South Korea uniting... it might break the willing suspension of disbelief if that was depicted in your story... but if you had a fictional separated Asian nation that was very Korean in culture, it's easier to accept the negotiations going on.\n\nIt might also be useful if you have an assassination plot as most nations don't like depictions of their leaders getting shot (The U.S. public is especially sensitive to successful presidential assassinations, especially when it's a current president, but they love \"save the president\" and \"Die Hard in the White House\" plots)." }, { "answer_id": 59327, "author": "user2352714", "author_id": 43118, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43118", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Generally, the way that this is usually circumvented is by making up some fake country located in a similar area as the country that is being referenced. Usually this happens when the writer wants to touch on something that has happened in current events but wants enough slight of hand to not name the persons involved (but, given context, any contemporary reader knows what's being talked about). This has happened frequently enough that Tv Tropes even has four separate trope pages for these stereotypes: [generic stereotypic Latin American junta](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BananaRepublic), [generic stereotypic Soviet or post-Soviet eastern European country](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ruritania), [generic stereotypic warlord-controlled post-colonial African nation](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Bulungi), and [generic stereotypic Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist state](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Qurac). The reasons why are kind of obvious, given that usually these fictional countries are characterized as hotbeds of political corruption.\n\nA good example of this can be seen in The Authority, which was an late 90s-early oughts comic that was basically \"a more violent Justice League gets involved in modern geopolitical issues\". One issue of The Authority had them intervening in East Timor, which is a real region and the issue at the time was referring to [a real crisis in which Indonesia was trying to prevent East Timor from seceding by scorched earth tactics and UN peacekeepers from the West and other southeastern Asian countries got involved](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_East_Timorese_crisis). It was intended to be a reference to contemporary events, but in reprints DC comics changed the setting to a generic location out of concerns of political sensitivity.\n\nGenerally smaller countries will get replaced with generic counterparts, but the Soviet Union and USA as a whole are left as is because there are really only one of each and it would look silly trying to replace them with another superpower unless you are going completely alternate history. Western European countries often get mentioned by name, generally because they have a history of allowing free speech. [Notably some middle Eastern countries, particularly Iran, have been offended and called for violence against authors for things that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy) [may or may not be historical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses) (in the sense that whether or not the event happened is debated, but the religious debate over their veracity goes back at least 1000 years). There are also some parts of history that certain cultures or countries consider offensive to talk about at all. Not just culturally/politically insensitive or unflattering depictions of those events, but any portrayal of that time period outside of a history book is considered offensive, even if the author belongs to that group. The point of this is even restricting yourself to things that actually happened in real life can get you in trouble.\n\nOther times authors will just go heck with it and include real countries by name. Though I don't know how far countries will go in pursuing action against the author barring how many Middle Eastern countries don't like any depiction of Mogovmud. Hos Qlakcy got criticized several times for using real-life countries and political events in his novels, and even supposedly got pulled aside for questioning by U.S. intelligence for accidentally reverse-engineering state secrets through thought experiments. Whether anything more extensive has happened to spy fiction writers is unknown to the author.\n\nSometimes differing approaches can get mixed up in the same work. For example in the Metal Gear series you have Zanzibarland, which is a fictional county located where IRL Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan should be (it's mentioned as at the border between the former USSR, Afghanistan, and China). On the other hand years later in Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, you have Abkhazia and its independence movement, which despite sounding like a generic fictional county [actually exists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia)." }, { "answer_id": 59462, "author": "mwo", "author_id": 13822, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13822", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Bond movies, Cacl Rfak stories, Bison Bearzi stories and similar get around this by doing what is more interesting an authentic anyway. They don’t pin misdeeds on entire countries but on specific people within those countries. They introduce ambitious generals or intelligence officers or politicians with plausible motivations and career objectives and blame them for the bad stuff.\n\nAll you have to do is make them distinctive characters, different or opposed to the real\nleadership currently in power there. Often writers will even make their villains actions illegal within their own country for an extra layer of comfort. With that you can make your antagonist country Russia, China, the US or the UK without having to offend the populations or the real leaders." } ]	2021/10/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59328", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24231/" ]
59,339	I don't know why I always like to write things where my MCs are young, and when I say young, I mean from 7 to 14 years old. Maybe it makes it much easier and more comfortable for me to write, especially that English is not my mother tongue. Yet, I always wonder if I should post this kind of writings in Wattpad, but then I say no, no one will be interested to read it. So, what are your views considering this?	[ { "answer_id": 59340, "author": "Jedediah", "author_id": 33711, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33711", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "It's just a tougher sell\n\nThere are no hard rules about the age of the protagonist and the age of the audience matching up. But it may be harder to persuade a reader to start reading, and harder to persuade a publisher to publish, if it's not immediately obvious why a story would be interesting to the target audience.\n\nSometimes an age mismatch between the audience and the character is not a big deal. I recall a children's book The Old Lady Who Was Not Afraid of Anything, about an old woman encountering apparitions in the woods on her way home, and it was appropriate for and interestingtoyoung children. And sixty- and seventy-year-olds could presumably be interested in a story about twenty-somethings at Woodstock, or at some other cultural touchstone from the past.\n\nIt might be harder to convince an audience of adults why they would be interested in the life or experiences of a seven-year-old. But that doesn't mean you absolutely can't come up with an enticing plot that might sound interesting to adults (and less so to children), featuring a very young protagonist. And you could write with a sophistication appropriate for a more mature audience, even if the main character is not sophisticated. It's just a tougher sell." }, { "answer_id": 59341, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Not at all\n----------\n\nFor one example, Golding's [Lord of the Flies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) had as all of its significant charterers teenage boys. But I rather doubt that anyone would describe it as a \"children's\" or \"pre-teen\" book. It was also very popular when it came out, and remains significant.\n\nAnother example that comes to mind is [The Devil's Arithmetic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil%27s_Arithmetic) by Jane Yolen, although that is sometimes classed as a \"children's\" book.\n\nYet another is Quarter Share by Nathan Lowell. The protagonist and first-person narrator is 18 at the start of the book, but the book is not a \"teen\" book, and was not marketed as such.\n\nMany, perhaps most books written for pre-teens or teens have teenage protagonists. Many books with such protagonists are written for children or teens. But many are not.\n\nThe indented audience is set not by the age of the characters, but by the style, the themes of the book, the diction (simpler words for a book aimed at young children) and similar factors." }, { "answer_id": 59343, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I have read a lot of science fiction stories and novels.\n\nA lot of children's books are science fiction or fantasy, and they are aimed at child readers and are mostly read by children.\n\nAnd a lot of books for teenagers are science fiction or fantasy, and are aimed at teenage readers, and are mostly read by teenagers.\n\nBut science fiction and fantasy are also general fields for readers of all ages.\n\nAnd there is no particular readership age range for science fiction or fantasy readers. Various science fiction and fantasy sories were published in general interest magazines since the 19th century.\n\nThe first US magazine for fantasy and horror stories was Weird Tales in 1924, and the first US magazine for science fiction stories was Amazing Stories in 1926.\n\nAnd later on book publishers began to publish brands or lines of books devoted solely to fantasy, horror, or science fiction.\n\nAnd science fiction magazines ware for readers of all ages who liked science ficiton. They were and are read by children, teenagers, young adults, middle aged adults, and old people (who might thave started reading science fiction when they were children, or when they were old, or anytime in between).\n\nNaturally, most science fiction stories have adults as protagonists and/or main characters, and it is certainly easy to find examples of science fiction stories where all the characters are adults.\n\nThe protagonist of James H. Schmitz's The Witches of Karres (1949, 1966) is a man, but the three \"witches\" are all major characters and the oldest one is about 14.\n\nFred Saberhagen's Berserker series is about conflicts with machine intelligences progammed to exterminate all life in the universe. Michael Guelinex is the protagonist of Berserker Man (1979) and is 11 years old at the start.\n\nInter Wadzins is the child protagonist of Ender's Game (1985).\n\nIsuub Aziwov edited Tomorrow's Children, an anthology of science fiction stories with children as protagonists or major characters.\n\nSo in science fiction, my favorite literature genre, there are a number of examples of child protagonists.\n\nAnd in other fields of literature, there are examples of stories with child protagonists.\n\nI believe that lots of adults have read and enjoyed Eyiver Dfusn, where a child, Ulovor, is one of the protagonists.\n\n> \n> The Life of Lazarillo de Tormes and of His Fortunes and Adversities (Spanish: La vida de Lazarillo de Tormes y de sus fortunas y adversidades [la ˈβiða ðe laθaˈɾiʎo ðe ˈtoɾmes i ðe sus foɾˈtunas i aðβeɾsiˈðaðes]) is a Spanish novella, published anonymously because of its anticlerical content. It was published simultaneously in three cities in 1554: Alcalá de Henares, Burgos and Antwerp. The Alcalá de Henares edition adds some episodes which were most likely written by a second author. It is most famous as the book establishing the style of the picaresque satirical novel.\n> \n> \n> \n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarillo_de_Tormes>\n\nAnd Lazarillo is a child protagonist.\n\nAnd a famous story which starts a whole genre of literature is not exactly a minor work.\n\nAt the present time one of the tv shows I watch is Young Shulhin where the main protagonist is Swulqon Coohoq (from The Big Bang Theory) as a child. Shulhin's twin sister and teenage brother are also major characters along with several adult characters.\n\nAnd a new series this year The Wonder Years, (a remake of The Wonder Years 1988-1993), and has 12-year-old dean williams as the protagonist.\n\nAnd I don't thnk that only children watch those two shows.\n\nSo it is possible for a good story which has a child protagonist to be succssful with readers in general and not just adults." } ]	2021/10/22	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59339", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44982/" ]
59,348	I’ve written a very long fiction story titled (over 700 pages) and I am in the second round of editing. It’s a very dark subject: teenage suicide and I’ve written it in epic format (media-res, a catalogue, deus ex machina scenes, etc). Typically, when someone begins a story that takes place in a high-school, they assume they’re beginning a young-adult novel or perhaps a coming of age story. Because I wanted to make it clear that this is not a typical teen story, and because I wanted to create something of a darkly ethereal, dream-like ambiance, I allowed myself license to write in what is disparagingly referred to as “purple prose.” I understand that in our contemporary view of writing, florid prosody is considered ostentatious and distracting from the “magic” of the story (which seems contradictory to me). Considering that this is a “journey to death” story set to cynically parallel a journey home story like The Odyssey or the Aeneid, that the protagonist is a larger than life type character, that I’m trying to create a dream-like / nightmarish atmosphere, and that I’m trying to demonstrate this is not a typical teen story, I reasoned that this story was an exception where heavy lyricism could be appropriate. Here follows an example of perhaps the most ornate prose. I know that in a “realistic” style novel, it would be laughable, but I hoped that in the context of my story it could be appropriate: > > In her school, she flew amidst a pretty pitying of turtledoves, > pulchritudinous girls who to some were genial, greeting them with > amities and loves, columbine personas of paradise, au fait but demure, > amiable and heavenly, luminous pearls frolicsome and cordial, dancing > around them momentarily like uncatchable butterflies, noir fay in > couture, mischievous bacchantes flittering away unexpectedly and > forever, a swans’ bevy joined by belts of silver taking flight > together. > > > Upon others however they would inflict bitter welts of > vituperation, riding down upon them, fell Valkyries brandishing verbal > blades of emotional mortification. All including the most steadfast > feared their aeries’ approaching dismal shades in mortal anticipation > of their shredding talons’ heart crippling humiliation and their > ripping beaks of pitiless obloquy. > > > Such were Pabe and her corundum crown of aureate camarilla, a > radiant representation of Artemis and her sidereal Pleiades, > scintillating desirably but unattainable and inviolable in an > eternally atramentous firmament, an unreachable empyrean of joy within > an endless void, soaring as a sky parade, dancing as a constellation > of sylphs in a moonlit glade. > > > On a mid-September afternoon when maddened winds enrage the > wine-dark seas to flaming waves of roaring foam, quiet Caleb sat alone > and still in the senior cafeteria,… > > > Here’s another example: > > Looking at Pabe, he was stunned and saddened more than he had ever > been, gazing at her smoky quartz eyes shining darkness as pained as > children’s eyes glow joyous and hopeful; her eyes, dark as sadness > manifest where light is as a darkness visible, a smoldering grief > unnoticed by those who would see only her eyes’ laughing twinkle and > miss the breathing embers burning in a gaze infinitely wrathful, > helmed embers fierce in preparation for battle, fuming embers > emanating from caverns of anguish deep within her soul, caverns > descending into fathomless pitch where black memories drift in eternal > turmoil. > > > Here’s my question: If it is excessive, even for the context, how do I know how much? How can I discern what level is appropriate for a particular context? Certainly, some discretion will be based on a reader’s subjective taste; but I expect that there should also be a somewhat objective-ish way of matching lyrical intensity to context. Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian has lyricism almost as ornate, and that’s a western; yet somehow he pulled it off brilliantly. Evidently, it can be done successfully. If I do need to pull back, how much? And how do I know? Edit Addendum: Just to clarify, very little of the story is descriptive prose. Most of it is dialogue, inner monologue, narrative action, etc. I don’t want to make it seem like the whole story resembles the examples. Only fragments in select circumstances to combine description with ambiance. Edit: 11/12/2021 This is to clarify some repeat/sample questions asked of the sample texts and comments expressing confusion: The word, pitying, used as a noun has raised objections from several people. When I wanted to describe the girls as a group of doves, I looked up what a group of doves was called, and several sources indicated that, pitying, was the correct word. When some characters were walking on a railroad and stepping on the beams going across, I looked up the word for that and found that they were called, sleepers. That’s another one I’ve never heard used like that. Must a writer really abandon a correct word because it is not commonly known? When I first read, “a murder of crows,” I was able to infer what it meant without needing to look it up. It seems odd to me that one would need to lookup, pitying. However, since it confused so many people, I’ve abandoned it, to my disappointment. You mention that in your experience, schoolgirls engaged in hugging and hand-holding. The text I wrote had, amity, love, genial, amiable, etc. I don’t see how that contradicts hugging and hand-holding. Re: “Have you ever seen a gaggle of schoolgirls greeting each other?” When I was in school, I did see flocks of schoolgirls flittering about as though flying. I’m sure when you were in school you also saw them sometimes as demure as doves. Doves are associated with peace which I do associate with being genial and amiable. Therefore, I’m having difficulty seeing where the metaphor is mixed and where the sentence doesn’t show the motions at all. Re: “However, you say 'cordial dancing', which is a mixed metaphor because 'cordial' implies distance and strangeness as politeness," I looked up, cordial, and the first definition I found was, “warm and friendly.” The second definition was, “strongly felt.” I don’t see how you get distance and strangeness from cordial. Re: “while 'dancing' usually indicates intimacy and passion.” The dancing I’ve seen in ballet, renaissance style dancing, Victorian style dancing, square dancing, and many others were not passionate. However, I’ve also seen passionate dancing. The idea that dancing must be intimate and passionate seems to be a modern vulgarization of dancing. In any case, whatever interpretation is taken, it does not show a mixed metaphor unless one forces some meaning. Re: “The point here is to stick with a theme for the duration of the description . . . so keep to the birds . . . skies” The talons, beaks, and aeries do stick with the bird and sky theme. Re: “You want to reinforce the duality of . . . don't start wandering off into the flesh and bone ripping because that's not important.” Reinforcing the duality is precisely created by showing dual aspects of birds, the dove-like quality versus the raptor like quality. The emotional ripping is a necessary contrast to the amity and love described previously to show a duality. Actually, I was not trying to show a duality. I was trying to show the unreliability of perception. That’s why I wrote, ‘who to some were’ . . . and to others they were . . .” The attempted point is that whether they were seen as cruel or kind was perceptive and not actual. Here follows that section as I see/read it: she flew amidst a pretty pitying of turtledoves, pulchritudinous girls who to some were genial, greeting them with amities and loves, columbine personas of paradise, au fait but demure, amiable and heavenly, luminous pearls frolicsome and cordial, dancing around them momentarily like uncatchable butterflies, noir fay in couture, mischievous bacchantes flittering away unexpectedly and forever, a swans’ bevy joined by belts of silver taking flight together. Notice the (pulchritudinous girls / luminous pearls ) rhyme. Notice also please: ~ (pretty / heavenly / bevy ) and ( momentarily / unexpectedly) ~ turtledoves / amities and loves ~ paradise / butterflies ~ demure / couture ~ amities / bacchantes ~ demure / couture ~ forever / silver / together Also, note the first two lines there: she flew amidst a pretty pitying of turtledoves When I read it, it sounds almost iambic to me. ~ she flew , da-DA ~ amidst , da-DA ~ pretty , da-DA Etc. There are two syllables that break perfect iambic, but to me that breaks up monotony. So, to say that there is a lack of structure seems odd or ill-read to me. Some of the other comments also seemed to indicate a poor reading. Re: “People who aren't familiar with the language are going to enjoy its strangeness,” Actually, in Eastern cultures, the classic and grandiose epic styles are still enjoyed by the everyday person (at least it is among the Persians and so I assume among others also.) In Iran, the epics of Ferdosi and the poetry of Jafuz are as alive today as though they were written yesterday. In the West, Nvikuspeara, Dryden, and Goethe feel antiquated. Literature, music, dance, painting have become vulgar (nothing necessarily wrong with that in some occasions), mundane, etc. Writing in a poetic and epic style seems more natural to those cultures that have not discarded the past as obsolete. The modern fiction saturation with realism has become cynical of elegance and approaches nihilism in its disregard of aesthetic unless it aesthetics only dares present itself humbly and ashamed of itself. In the West, Nvikuspeara is often associated with some snooty upper-crust whereas in Iran, the everyday person can enjoy Jafuz and Ferdosi without feeling like they’re being ostentatious. Re: Wind can be dry, hot, cold, bitter, etc. But then, these are no longer metaphors. There is no more metaphor to be mixed. Re: Obviously you're trying to equate it (maddened winds) to some negative emotion, Oh, I see the confusion now. You took “maddened” as angry whereas I meant mad as in lunacy. Considering the antiquated tone, the context seemed clear to me; but perhaps you could offer me some suggestion as to how to clarify that “maddened” there means, insane, and not angry. As for, maddened winds, to me it immediately conjures an image of winds crossing in erratic sheers and various unpredictable directions. I don’t see the difficulty except that “maddened” was taken to mean angry instead of insane (erratic). Re: “As for the Pabe's eyes paragraph, all I'm going to say is that the structure is kept the same throughout so it's boring to read,” Here is the Pabe paragraph as I read it: As for the Pabe's eyes paragraph, all I'm going to say is that the structure is kept the same throughout so it's boring to read, Of course the structure is kept the same. It’s a poem. Let’s read it like this: saddened more than he had ever been, gazing at her smoky quartz eyes shining darkness as pained as children’s eyes glow joyous and hopeful; her eyes, dark as sadness manifest where light is as a darkness visible, a smoldering grief unnoticed by those who would see only her eyes’ laughing twinkle and miss the breathing embers burning in a gaze infinitely wrathful, helmed embers fierce in preparation for battle, fuming embers emanating from caverns of anguish deep within her soul, caverns descending into fathomless pitch where black memories drift in eternal turmoil. There’s hopeful / visible / twinkle / wrathful / battle / soul / turmoil. There’s gazing / shining smoldering etc. I don’t see how that’s boring. Re: “I still don't know what conclusion the male got from it.” The text states, that he was “saddened more than he had ever been.” Prior to the eyes description, there had been a section on her experiences in child abuse. The male character recognizes the anger as sourced in some deep pain which brings him to sadness and pity; but the sadness is explicitly worded. Re: “Usually people are turned off by angry women, so... what is his reaction? “ This text goes out of its way to show that the anger is much deeper and much more intense than the typical anger that most people feel. As for the male’s reaction, that is given further in sentences later not included here. It wouldn’t be realistic to include all that in one sentence.	[ { "answer_id": 59356, "author": "motosubatsu", "author_id": 24645, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24645", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "There's nothing to say you can't have a prose style that's ornate and lyrical. And as you point out others have done so with significant success.\n\n> \n> Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian has lyricism almost as ornate, and that’s a western; yet somehow he pulled it off brilliantly. Evidently, it can be done successfully.\n> \n> \n> \n\nI think the thing to remember here is that Blood Meridian, a book that had a notoriously difficult time finding traction due to its ornate prose consistently has a brutal and gritty counterpoint running throughout. It's also on the extreme end of such style, if you've gone further than McCarthy did I'd say that's cause for concern.\n\nSo how much is too much? It's too much when the prose obscures what you're trying to say in the text, and that includes the establishment of \"ambiance\" as you put it. This is something that isn't easily quantifiable (if at all) and is going to be very subjective based on the readers' tastes. So readers are what you need - as many beta readers as you can, preferably those with similar tastes as to the sort of book you're writing and most importantly those you are able to trust to tell you the truth.\n\nBecause the way readers respond is going to be so subjective then context is everything, and what I fear might work against you here is the teen aspect - not because the reader will be expecting a conventional teen story but instead the reputation teens have for being so overwrought and melodramatic.\n\nLet's take a minute to examine the examples you gave:\n\n> \n> In her school, she flew amidst a pretty pitying of turtledoves, pulchritudinous girls who to some were genial, greeting them with amities and loves, columbine personas of paradise, au fait but demure, amiable and heavenly, luminous pearls frolicsome and cordial, dancing around them momentarily like uncatchable butterflies, noir fay in couture, mischievous bacchantes flittering away unexpectedly and forever, a swans’ bevy joined by belts of silver taking flight together.\n> \n> \n> Upon others however they would inflict bitter welts of vituperation, riding down upon them, fell Valkyries brandishing verbal blades of emotional mortification. All including the most steadfast feared their aeries’ approaching dismal shades in mortal anticipation of their shredding talons’ heart crippling humiliation and their ripping beaks of pitiless obloquy.\n> \n> \n> Such were Pabe and her corundum crown of aureate camarilla, a radiant representation of Artemis and her sidereal Pleiades, scintillating desirably but unattainable and inviolable in an eternally atramentous firmament, an unreachable empyrean of joy within an endless void, soaring as a sky parade, dancing as a constellation of sylphs in a moonlit glade.\n> \n> \n> On a mid-September afternoon when maddened winds enrage the wine-dark seas to flaming waves of roaring foam, quiet Caleb sat alone and still in the senior cafeteria,…\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe first and third paragraphs here.. I'm sorry, I have to be blunt, they don't work. At all. It's not lyrical because it doesn't flow, instead it reads like a bit of text that's been sent hurtling through a few dozen Google translate processes while being simultaneously mauled by an automated thesaurus program and a fourteen year-old \"poet\" with a dark blue streak dyed in their hair who shops exclusively at Hot Topic and complains that their chartered accountant parents just don't understand them.\n\nThe second and fourth paragraphs - better. Your overlaying of the high-style elements on the mundane is clearer and the juxtaposition is more effective as a result.\n\n> \n> Looking at Pabe, he was stunned and saddened more than he had ever been, gazing at her smoky quartz eyes shining darkness as pained as children’s eyes glow joyous and hopeful; her eyes, dark as sadness manifest where light is as a darkness visible, a smoldering grief unnoticed by those who would see only her eyes’ laughing twinkle and miss the breathing embers burning in a gaze infinitely wrathful, helmed embers fierce in preparation for battle, fuming embers emanating from caverns of anguish deep within her soul, caverns descending into fathomless pitch where black memories drift in eternal turmoil.\n> \n> \n> \n\nPersonally, I think this is a bit much. You've got six different poetic descriptions of Pabe's eyes, and it's excessive. Two of them are of different ember metaphors! There's that 14 year old \"misunderstood\" poet again. You could very, very easily cut this to one or two at the outside and still hit that ornamental \"high\" style note you're aiming for without boring the reader to tears.\n\nFor comparison here's a snippet of Blood Meridian\n\n> \n> On the day following they crossed the malpais afoot, leading the horses upon a lakebed of lava all cracked and reddish black like a pan of dried blood, threading those badlands of dark amber glass like the remnants of some dim legion scrabbling up out of a land accursed, shouldering the little cart over the rifts and ledges, the idiot clinging to the bars and calling hoarsely after the sun like some queer unruly god abducted from a race of degenerates.\n> \n> \n> \n\nOne of the reasons the writing in Blood Meridian is described as \"dense\" is that it packs so much in to the descriptions. Yes everything described in the passage gets a poetic descriptor but each element gets one or two, not six. In just 81 words McCarthy describes multiple actions, the landscape and gives a sense of the weather/climate and the ambiance. You took 99 just on the look in Pabe's eyes. You see what I'm getting at? If you have multiple descriptions of something that you think capture it well - spread them out across the book, don't just rattle all six off in one passage." }, { "answer_id": 59362, "author": "Beebok", "author_id": 46968, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46968", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "This is a question I’ve been thinking about on and off for over two years. I’ve realized that the amount of prosody that’s appropriate has similar answers to questions such as what level of other things like violence, exposition, dialogue, etc. are appropriate: it depends on purpose and context.\n\nOn some occasions I’ve told myself that the right amount of prosody needed to be a crossing between the writer’s taste, that of the general population, that which publishers desire, the writers purpose, etc. We’re living in a time when ornamentation is considered elitist although that has been replaced by other factors which make literary writing inaccessible to most, so that idea of compromise would allow for too little leeway.\n\nThen I thought about concluding that there is no objective answer and that the correct amount of prosody depends on the artist’s subjective taste; but that seems like a cop out to me. I feel like if there’s not even a little bit of objectivity in art, then the word, art, becomes meaningless.\n\nNow, I’m considering that the right amount depends on the context and reason. Let’s take this example:\n\n> \n> Looking at Pabe, he was stunned and saddened more than he had ever\n> been, gazing at her smoky quartz eyes shining darkness as pained as\n> children’s eyes glow joyous and hopeful; her eyes, dark as sadness\n> manifest where light is as a darkness visible, a smoldering grief\n> unnoticed by those who would see only her eyes’ laughing twinkle and\n> miss the breathing embers burning in a gaze infinitely wrathful,\n> helmed embers fierce in preparation for battle, fuming embers\n> emanating from caverns of anguish deep within her soul, caverns\n> descending into fathomless pitch where black memories drift in eternal\n> turmoil.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThat’s in the first chapter where Pabe is trying to find someone to help her with her suicide, someone who “gets” her.\nThe person looking at her needs to be someone who sees more in her than anyone else. Normally, describing eyes for so long would be excessive; but in the context that Pabe is searching for someone to be the person who assists with her death, he needs to be someone who sees very deeply into her.\n\nIf I’m writing in third person omniscient, then I can clarify by explaining that she noticed his sadness and surmised his depth of insight and leaned further towards choosing him.\n\nTo me, that context and purpose makes something like this prose which would normally be excessive become appropriate.\n\nLet’s look at the other example. The lofty prose and esoteric vocabulary are appropriate because it is describing the characters as lofty divine and celestial beings. The readers put off by that wouldn't be the targeted audience.\nHowever, I recognize that the targeted audience would be so small that I will pull back somewhat by changing some words: pulchritudinous to precocious, corundum crown to bejeweled crown; and then shortening it by removing redundancies\n\n> \n> In her school she flew amidst a pitying of turtledoves, precocious\n> girls who to some were genial, greeting them with amities and loves,\n> au fait but demure, luminous pearls frolicsome and cordial dancing\n> around them like noir fay in couture but then flittering away like a\n> swans’ bevy joined by belts of silver taking flight together.\n> \n> \n> Such were Pabe and her corundum crown of aureate camarilla, Artemis\n> and her starry Pleiades in radiant illustration scintillating\n> desirably but unattainable in an unreachable empyrean and dancing as a\n> constellation of sylphs in a moonlit glade.\n> \n> \n> \n\nSince the story uses the template of the Persephone myth and other Greek / Egyptian / Celtic / Sumerian myths, then the swans joined by silver belts referencing Cúchulainn and the explicit Artemis reference position the story in the mythic realm while the prosody creates an ethereal dreamlike atmosphere.\n\nThe rhyming words, e.g. turtledoves and loves, genial and cordial, heavenly and momentarily and unexpectedly, precocious and luminous, etc. make me prefer it to that which I’ve read from Tennyson except the parts that I stole from him and other poets such as sylphs in a moonlit glade (actually most of it to some extent).\n\nWill people choke on the antiquated mellifluous style? I’ve noticed that among acquaintances I've requested feedback, those from Western cultures hate it and those from Eastern cultures have enjoyed it; but yes, people who will be the most likely readers won’t like it.\n\nShould one care if readers will appreciate the intensity of prosody? Concern over readers reaction is another factor in determining the appropriate level. Do I care that readers won’t like it? Yes, unfortunately I will.\n\nCan I live with that? I hope so. That’s another factor in determining prosodic presence.\n\nWill potential publishers reject it because of its ostentation? Probably. Publisher reaction might be a concern for you as well.\n\nWill I be willing to compromise if a publisher requests compromise? I don’t know. That’s a question each writer will need to ask himself or herself.\n\nSo, what’s the answer to my question: How much prosody is excessive and how to determine that? I hope that what I’ve suggested here, although I have not provided a direct answer, implies direction or at least food for thought, namely that context and purpose play a significant role in deciding." }, { "answer_id": 59381, "author": "WasatchWind", "author_id": 52315, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52315", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "As I am not very familiar with more flowery prose, and the usage of it, I have but one piece of advice to offer - make sure that it is clear to the reader that this is the type of story that they will get.\n\nA big thing to keep in mind, especially with the beginning of a story, is \"What does this story promise?\" If a film starts out with a rugged explorer going through a jungle temple, hunting for treasure, all with up tempo exciting music, the viewer will anticipate the film to be an adventure. If, following this scene, the story suddenly turns into a regency romance, audience members grabbed by the first scene will be disappointed, and those who would have watched a regency romance may have been turned away but the first scene.\n\nMake it clear to your readers that this story will focus on penning a contemporary story in epic, grandiose tones. If that is communicated effectively, I cannot promise that this story will be for everyone, but for those who want to read that kind of story, they will enjoy it without complaint." }, { "answer_id": 59382, "author": "Kevin", "author_id": 11108, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/11108", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "As a rule of thumb: Never make the reader reach for a dictionary. Every word's meaning should be obvious, either from context or because \"everybody\" knows that word. Life is too short to look up words when I'm reading for pleasure. In non-fiction, you get a little leeway on this, depending on the specific circumstances, but fiction targets a general audience, which can and will put the book down if you annoy them too much. If you're intentionally parodying some grandiloquent author's style, then it might be somewhat acceptable, in limited doses and with a healthy amount of irreverence, but this will not help you if you want a serious tone.\n\nLet's just go through the first paragraph:\n\n> \n> In her school, she flew amidst a pretty pitying of turtledoves, pulchritudinous girls who to some were genial, greeting them with amities and loves, columbine personas of paradise, au fait but demure, amiable and heavenly, luminous pearls frolicsome and cordial, dancing around them momentarily like uncatchable butterflies, noir fay in couture, mischievous bacchantes flittering away unexpectedly and forever, a swans’ bevy joined by belts of silver taking flight together.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThere are two basic problems with this paragraph:\n\n1. I would have to look up all of the boldfaced words, because I was not able to immediately infer their meanings from context. Other people, with other vocabularies, would have boldfaced a different subset of this paragraph, but the fact remains that very few people know every single one of those words by heart. In particular, \"genial,\" \"amities,\" \"personas,\" \"demure,\" \"amiable\" (hey, we already used another word with that root!), and \"bevy\" are all rather uncommon words that might trip up other readers.\n2. I have no idea what this paragraph is actually saying, because all the big fancy words distracted me from the plot. It sounds like she's... walking through the school greeting people? I think? But if anything else is going on here, I completely missed it. The seriously problematic part is that I don't know whether I missed something or if the paragraph is just overwrought.\n\nEither one of these problems is serious enough that an editor would have a good chance of binning the whole manuscript as soon as they see it. To answer your question: You can be as ornate as you like, but you must not sacrifice clarity or ease of reading." }, { "answer_id": 59387, "author": "Philipp", "author_id": 10303, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10303", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "I am not a native English speaker, but I consider myself fluid in English. Yet, in the very first paragraph of your example text, there are already 11 words where I would need to consult a dictionary to find out what they mean. Those with a `` after them are not recognized by my spellchecker either:\n\n pitying (as a noun)\n* turtledove\n* pulchritudinous\n* columbine (as an adjective)\n* au fait\\\n demure\n* noir fay\\\n couture\n* bacchantes\\\n flittering\\\n bevy\n\nThis isn't \"purple prose\", it's trying to impress people with obscure vocabulary at the expense of readability. Stop doing that and use words your audience can be expected to understand. If you are trying to use this as a filter to intentionally scare away those readers who would be \"too immature\" for your work, then the only ones who remain will be those with an English major degree (with a minor in French).\n\nIf you want to avoid that your book gets into the \"wrong hands\", then that's mostly a question of how you present your book when you promote it. When you don't want teenagers to read your book, then just don't promote it as a young adult novel. Market it to an older target demographic instead.\n\n> \n> Edit: 11/12/2021\n> [...] The word, pitying, used as a noun has raised objections from several people. When I wanted to describe the girls as a group of doves, I looked up what a group of doves was called, and several sources indicated that, pitying, was the correct word. [...] Must a writer really abandon a correct word because it is not commonly known?\n> \n> \n> \n\nIf you had to look up the word, then many readers will probably have to look it up too. Do you really expect people to pause after every sentence to look up the definition of the words you are using?" }, { "answer_id": 59471, "author": "user52569", "author_id": 52569, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52569", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The problem is that your abstract writing puts cognitive load on the reader. As a writer, you're supposed to explain things for the reader. I'm not in the mood of trying to figure out what you want to say. Not only are the words themselves obscure with little variation in sentence structure and rhythm, but the metaphors are mixed and there's no attempt to explain the connections between them. Finally, there's no closure.\n\nlet's see the 1st paragraph:\n\n> \n> In her school she flew amidst a pitying of turtledoves, precocious\n> girls who to some were genial, greeting them with amities and loves,\n> au fait but demure, luminous pearls frolicsome and cordial dancing\n> around them like noir fay in couture but then flittering away like a\n> swans’ bevy joined by belts of silver taking flight together.\n> \n> \n> \n\nOk, what in the world is a \"pitying?\" In all my years, I've never seen pitying used as a noun and it sounds like a mistake. Have you ever seen a gaggle of schoolgirls greeting each other? I'm going to presume you have, but the paragraph doesn't show the motions at all. In my experience, there's a lot of hugging and hand holding. However, you say 'cordial dancing', which is a mixed metaphor because 'cordial' implies distance and strangeness as politeness, while 'dancing' usually indicates intimacy and passion. After a second thought they could be snobs, but it doesn't make sense in my head. Are these students prudes in some elite highschool?\n\nI'm going to do a rewrite to highlight structure.\n\n> \n> In her school she flew amidst turtledoves, popular amiable girls who kissed luminous pearls upon burnished cheeks, frolicking and flittering away, the blessed who were perhaps more butterfly than human, an illustrious bevy of swans taking silver flight together.\n> \n> \n> They saw a wretched punk, of knotted hair and yellow teeth, sticking closely to the wall, a stain to the paradise upon which they roosted. When he saw the aeries approach, he turned dismal shades of fear, and his anticipation was rewarded. Came the flood of vituperated, bitter obloquy, of talons shredding into the easy welts, of swans who rode humiliation like a chariot, of Valkyries felling all who dared to brandish an unworthy existence. When they opened their beaks, the mortal realms fled the halls of trial, lest they too became caught in the ripping of harpies.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe point here is to stick with a theme for the duration of the description. You want to reinforce the duality of popular bitches, so keep to the birds/fairy/stars/skies, and don't start wandering off into the flesh and bone ripping because that's not important. In this example I decided to stick with Norse myth because you mentioned Valkyries and it's loaded with connotations to Westerners. I don't think you can reference 5 different cultures elegantly unless you find a common thread between them (For your case, hunting and birds equated to beautiful and dangerous ladies). And even if you do, they're going to be lost. Most Americans only read at around an 8th grade level.\n\n> \n> Will people choke on the antiquated mellifluous style? I’ve noticed that among acquaintances I've requested feedback, those from Western cultures hate it and those from Eastern cultures have enjoyed it; but yes, people who will be the most likely readers won’t like it.\n> \n> \n> \n\nPeople who aren't familiar with the language are going to enjoy its strangeness, but people who want to understand you won't. I can enjoy a foreign song without understanding it, but obviously my appreciation won't be the same as a native speaker would appreciate. Chances are that other people are just impressed at the massive breadth of vocabulary.\n\nFrom your original post,\n\n> \n> On a mid-September afternoon when maddened winds enrage the wine-dark seas to flaming waves of roaring foam...\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis example, you use personification and say \"maddened winds.\" This is already difficult to understand and requires creativity on my part. Instead of expanding on what \"mad wind\" means, you move on to the next noun and now I'm left confused. Wind can be dry, hot, cold, bitter, etc. Obviously you're trying to equate it to some negative emotion, but if you consider anger alone, there's an entire spectrum for it. Don't skimp out and be vague, otherwise as an author you sound like you don't understand your settings or characters enough, and that will turn off a reader. Also, what does a sea have to do with a cafeteria? Is it a sea because the students are sweaty and gross, or a sea because every person is a nameless drop? You'll have to tell me which assumptions I'm allowed to make and which ones are important to understand.\n\nAs for the Pabe's eyes paragraph, all I'm going to say is that the structure is kept the same throughout so it's boring to read, and I still don't know what conclusion the male got from it. Usually people are turned off by angry women, so... what is his reaction? It's all about what he saw, and nothing about what energy he felt. Did he get lost? Did he breathe an extra time? Does he relate to her, or is he gearing up to save her against her will? Dunno at all, hence why the eye description is excessive, or rather, there's no relation to his perspective and reads like a laundry list of -ing verbs.\n\nThe basic essay format is still a building block in fiction writing. You need a topic, supporting details, transitions and a conclusion. The assumptions and knowledge in your head will not translate easily onto the page. If you're going to make a crazy mixed metaphor, it has to be explained or else people will get confused. A cordial dance is totally possible, in the context of a waltz/gala, but was that context established? I don't know, you only gave a snippet and I can't tell, but I assume not. You are right that context is important, and the metaphors need to support that context instead of going off into tangents. Or if you do go off into tangents, they must be unified and justified at the end. To most people, frequent unconnected tangents are a sign of mental illness, so you can use your artistic license, but just understand that explaining mental illness is more difficult than getting people to willingly immerse themselves into a simulation of it.\n\nIt's not to say that you can't have lyricism, but even in song there's a structure. Use repetition to reinforce new tunes and ideas. A well-read, native-speaking audience will simply notice the awkwardness more. Unless the ideas are somehow brilliant enough to shine through stuffy prose, they will find something else. As an adult, being told that basic b\\tches have a dual nature is quite boring, ideawise. I assume you're trying to elicit feelings in the reader. If the prose accomplished what I think it's supposed to do, I'd be impressed at how high up their a\\\\es these girls are, rather than the writing itself being clunky." }, { "answer_id": 62759, "author": "levininja", "author_id": 30918, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30918", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Some of the answers you've gotten here claim that you \"should\" make it so that readers never have to reach for a dictionary, and that you \"should\" always try to reduce their cognitive load, as if these are universally Good goals in your writing.\n\nThat is simply false. In Nathaniel Hawthorne's time it was quite proper to write purple prose; to write spartan fiction (a style that is popular today) was seen as lesser and base.\n\nYour question is about what the absolute limits of a particular writing style are. There are none. Writing style--in all of its multitudinous decisions--has always ebbed and flowed this way and that throughout history, including through great extremes. If you read through the classics of many different centuries and from many different countries you will find virtually no* (and I mean that literally--challenge me if you think you know of something that's universal and I will find you a classic that violates the rule) universally Good traits to writing style.\n\n(I'm not claiming there are no universal traits of good writing; there are--tension, climax, protagonist, antagonist, etc.--but these are clearly not elements of style.)\n\nThe \"correct\" level of purple-ness that a work of fiction \"should\" have is completely subjective based on the tastes of those reading it.\n\nNow with that said, the audience for purple prose is much smaller today than it was in the 1840s. There's still an audience for it, but it's going to be much smaller.\n\nOne of the things you will have to accept is that if you make stylistic choices that are currently very much against the vogue, that you will therefore not be writing something that's going to get a major publishing deal and sell millions of copies. If you can make your peace with that and decide that it's more important to you to write what feels right to your artistically, then you're good.\n\nOn the other hand, you'll only be perpetually raging against the machine if you insist that society's tastes should conform to what you're writing. Society's tastes do change, but usually not too quickly.\n\nEvery generation has the conceit that their style is the best, and everyone before them was idiots. So when you're writing against the grain of what's vogue, just be aware of that. You'll get plenty of neighsayers because what you're doing isn't recognizable to them; it doesn't fit their expectations. But no, that doesn't mean what you're writing is universally bad like others will claim. Most people just lack the perspective that comes with reading many classics of many cultures because most people simply don't do that. It's hard work.\n\nSo how do you find your audience for writing something that's not in vogue? Some tactics.\n\n1. You find niches or subcultures.\n2. You compromise, or find ways to make that other style more palatable to contemporary readers.\n\nExamples of 2:\n\n* You write epic fantasy in a more modern mindframe (Name of the Wind),\n* or write hard science fiction in the style of fast-paced modern fiction (The Martian)\n* or write an epic about a subject that is currently recognized as very Important to our culture, and about characters that are much more recognizable than the characters of ancient epics (The Overstory).\n\nSo. How exactly do you do that for your story? How do you write purple prose to a culture that rejects it? Ideas:\n\n* you could limit the number of passages\n* you could make the purple prose ironic; almost making fun of yourself\n* you combine it with some genre where it will be more recognized (like horror)\n* you do it with panache...which is hard to define, but if I had to try I'd call it a certain quality of being bold and daring, with almost flaunting \"yes I know this is intense and you know what? I'm going for it anyways, jump along for the ride.\"\n* you make it humorous\n* you're good. Like, really, really good. That helps you get away with almost anything. I don't think you're there yet. The best advice I can give you in this regard is to study the masters who do purple prose the best. Who do you think of as the masters of the style you want to do? Read their passages line by line, word by word, tear it apart, understand why it works in great detail. There's a great book about reading like a writer called Reading Like a Writer; I recommend that highly." } ]	2021/10/24	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59348", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46968/" ]
59,351	Suppose an author is writing a novel that is heavily based on autobiographical material and is based in the USA and Canada. What steps would need to be taken for the author to avoid being sued for libel? I would like to avoid being sued for libel, getting my work demonetized, a restraining order, or even getting a letter from a lawyer. Will this disclaimer be enough? > > This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents either are products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. > > > Would changing the setting, the physical characteristics of the characters, and creating composite characters be sufficient to avoid a suit? (And of course, not identifying it as autobiographical.)	[ { "answer_id": 59355, "author": "motosubatsu", "author_id": 24645, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24645", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "This might be in \"consult a lawyer\" territory, I can't see your disclaimer being sufficient because in this scenario it doesn't sound as though it's true. A great deal will depend upon how recognizable the characters are as the people whom they are based on and how based on real events the story is." }, { "answer_id": 59358, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "You might do better to ask this over on law.se, but here is more or less the answer that I would give there.\n\nThe \"standard disclaimer\"\n\n> \n> This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents either are products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.\n> \n> \n> \n\nhas very little legal effect. If a plaintiff can demonstrate that the characters of a novel are intended to depict real people, or that some readers are likely to take the characters as representing real people, and that negative aspects of a character in a novel have been taken as reflecting on the plaintiff, and have harmed his or her reputation, then success in a libel action is quite possible, and the disclaimer will be of no help. After all it is a self-serving statement by the author. \"I am not a thief\" is not a defense to an accusation of theft.\n\nAnd if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate all that, the absence of the disclaimer will not help the plaintiff's case.\n\nAt most the disclaimer establishes a lack of intent to describe real people. But intent is not a key element of a libel action. If a statement is false, and harms a person's reputation, it is potentially defamatory, even if made in the belief that it was accurate, or with no desire to harm.\n\nThe disclaimer does not hurt, and it helps establish good intent, but that is the most it can do.\n\nTo avoid risks of defamation suits, one might be careful that all statements about a character based on a real person are provably true. Or one might carefully make all characters based on a mix of multiple real people, plus fictional additions, so that no character is clearly identifiable with any real person.\n\nDefamation actions are generally expensive. They are also risky, in that the original statements may be repeated many times in the course of reporting on the case, more clearly associated with a real person than the original novel ever was. (Consider the QB7 case in which Leon Uris was sued.) The chance of even a clearly defamed person bringing suit is not large, but it is not zero either. The risk will also depend on the jurisdiction likely to be involved. The US is notoriously less friendly to defamation plaintiffs than most European countries, for example.\n\nThe question says:\n\n> \n> I would like to avoid being sued for libel, getting my work demonetized, a restraining order, or even getting a letter from a lawyer.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThere is no way to be sure of any of that. Anyone may hire a lawyer to send a letter at any time, whether there is a valid claim or not. Indeed anyone may sue, even if there is no valid claim. Libel accusations do not normally result in restraining orders, or even injunctions (which are not the same thing).\n\nAn author in such a case might be wise to consult a lawyer experienced in defamation cases in the relevant jurisdiction. If the book is to be published by a major traditional publisher, the publisher would almost surely have a lawyer on staff or on retainer to asses such issues. Otherwise the author would have to make any arrangements. Initial consultations are often at low or even no cost, to asses if the lawyer is really needed and wants the case.\n\nAs a side note, I remember being amused by the standard disclaimer on one occasion. The novel Island in the Sea of Time includes the standard disclaimer. And on the first page there is a description of a character who is obviously based on a real person, another author well-known to Stirling, the author of Island. It happens that character is one of the heroes of the series, and there is no defamation. Indeed I understand that they are friends, and Stirling appeared as a bodyguard in a novel by the other author. But the \"standard disclaimer\" was obviously false in this case, and would have been of little value had the person depicted found something objectionable in the portrayal." }, { "answer_id": 59365, "author": "empty", "author_id": 8665, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8665", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I agree with [David Siegel](https://writing.stackexchange.com/users/37041/david-siegel)'s answer.\n\nBut I also like this perspective from [Jericho Writers](https://jerichowriters.com/libel-law-for-writers-and-authors-what-you-need-to-know/):\n\n\"Writers anxious about libel/privacy law can in most cases relax:\n\n* It’s exceptionally rare for a novelist to be sued for libel. As long\nas you are not obviously writing a roman a clef, your single strongest defense to any claim will just be to point to the way the\nbook is categorized: “This is fiction, dummy.”\n* Let’s say you are writing and self-publishing a memoir, that isn’t\nvastly defamatory of anyone and isn’t very privacy-invasive either.\nYou do those real-life people the courtesy of changing names and other details, so it’s not obvious who you are talking about. Let’s\nsay you commission a print run of 500 copies and sell a few e-books\nas well. Is it theoretically possible that you face a lawsuit for the issues talked about in this post? Yes. Is it practically likely? No.\nIt will be, for most authors, a vanishingly small possibility\n* And if you are writing anything else non-fiction, very much the same applies, at least 99 point something percent of the time.\n\nYes, the conventional advice is “take legal advice”, but that advice will cost a minimum of $5,000 / £3,000 if you’re going to a properly experienced lawyer. So for most writers, the actual practical advice will be:\n\n1. Proceed thoughtfully and with caution\n2. Change names and other details. Make your characters actually different from the real-world\nsubjects.\n3. Think about privacy as well as libel\n4. Be realistic. If you are making serious comments about public [or wealthy] people and your work is likely to have significant readership/impact, then you can’t wing it. In all other cases, then just take good care and you should be\nfine.\"\n\nA final bit of advice from Margo Leitman in \"Long Story Short\":\n\n> \n> Storytelling isn't about bashing someone else: it's about being brave enough to share your story and make others feel better about their own lives.\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 59413, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Davax Siagay gives a good legal answer. Here is the writer's answer:\n\nCome clean about why you want to write a story about real people and events. Answer honestly for yourself the question of why you didn't invent a similar story and instead chose to write about the real persons.\n\nIf you want to profit from the people or events being well-known (e.g. writing about President Kgump will guarantee sales), you can't complain if the real people want to either share in your profit or forbid you to make one. If you want to use someone else to make a profit, you already know what you should rightfully do: ask the person if you may write about them and offer them a share of the profit. That way you would both avoid legal trouble as well as have a clean conscience.\n\nIf you merely find the story interesting, then why not ficionalize it to the point where it can no longer be attributed to a specific person? Is it laziness? Lack of imagination? Again, you know what to do: Make the effort and turn the real events into your own story. It will very likely be a better story, as this gives you the freedom to change whatever you need to make it fit your target audience or your artistic vision better." } ]	2021/10/24	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59351", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8665/" ]
59,363	Brought this question from Worldbuilding SE, and still not sure if I’m asking in the right place. If anyone knows a better place to ask, any advice would be appreciated. The world I’m building revolves around a (albeit heavily exaggerated) religious extremist group/dystopian organization based on a twisted version of Catholic Christianity. This group is intended to be the antagonists and would be illustrated as irredeemably evil and corrupt, largely because of their devotion to their faith. Is this generally a thing to avoid, especially when much of the story involves the protagonist and the religious group killing each other? Is it better to invent some new hypothetical religion for a story involving direct violence? I don’t want to offend people with my story, and I have nothing personal against Christians, of course, but the Christianity bit is kind of important for some of the imagery and thematic inspiration for my (mostly sci-fi) story, and I think using a realistic religion makes the story more raw. Are there any ways to easily illustrate that a religious group depicted in a story does not reflect the actual portrayal of the religion, without detracting from the group’s presence in the story? For example, I thought of making the protagonist Christian as well to avoid demonizing Christianity too much. Alternatively, should I just drop the Christianity bit altogether?	[ { "answer_id": 59364, "author": "Answering As a Christrian", "author_id": 52465, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52465", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "In short: It's a trope that has been used and used again. Even Disney has done this with The Hunchback of Notre Dame. As a Christrian myself, I can recognize that this trope is nothing new to the point where I'd argue that it's a cliche. What I'm trying to say is: it's been done before, and I don't see critique or outrage for it, so why not do it again? Though I do advise not to make those from this twisted Catholic view all terrible, as villains don't exist to serve a plot but rather their narrative! :)" }, { "answer_id": 59366, "author": "Juhasz", "author_id": 42164, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42164", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Like so many world-building questions, the answer can perhaps be found in the world we've already built.\n\nReal-world Christian groups feud, denounce each other, and in the past, got into deadly, long-lasting conflicts.\n\nIf your story includes a fictional group that resembles the Catholic Church, but is not the Catholic Church, why not also include the real Catholic Church, and have them denounce these frauds? Or have the fictional group attack the Catholic Church.\n\nConsider the Westboro Baptist Church. They have routinely positioned themselves against mainstream Christians, by saying terrible things about them. They have very few sympathizers outside of their members.\n\nHave your evil church say things like this:\n\n> \n> Considering the dispositions of priests and parishioners, more accurate names for some of Topeka's Catholic churches would be: Most Foul Heart of Satan, Antichrist the King, Our Lady of Sodom, Unholy Name.\n> \n> \n> \n\nor this\n\n> \n> Like the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, et al., the so-called Christian Church-Disciples of Christ (generally, Congregational Churches) are sodomite churches. They are not true churches of Resun Yyrizt.\n> \n> \n> \n\nor this\n\n> \n> Filled with shyster lawyers and crooked judges, the Episcopal Church USA is a cesspool of sodomite sin and crime.\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou can find more - and much more terrible - of these anti-Christian quotes here: [\"Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church On Christians\"](https://web.archive.org/web/20081130183032/http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/wbc_on_christians.asp)\n\nMake your antagonists sound like this and you'll likely run little risk of offending any members of real Christian sects.\n\n---\n\nTo address the OP's comment that no other religions exist at the time of the story:\n\n* It's likely that the memory of other faiths still exists. Philistines disappeared from the historical record about 2500 years ago, but we still talk about them. Satanists never really existed, but that doesn't stop contemporary religious groups from talking about them. There's ample historical and contemporary justification for your religion fighting a spiritual war against non- or no-longer-existing religions.\n* Your new, evil religion won't have appeared about of nowhere. If they came into being before all other Christians disappeared, there's likely to be a history of conflict.\n\nAnd in regard to the question about referencing the concept of Manifest Destiny:\n\n* No one believes anymore in a principle they would call \"Manifest Destiny,\" but the core themes are as old as dirt and as common as dirt, too. Manifest Destiny involved a belief that the members of the in-group (American Christians) have some special qualities and virtues; that these special people have a mission to civilize a barbaric place (the American west); that this essential duty is destined to be fulfilled. If you remove the specific time, place, and people involved, this idea is such generic ethnocentrism that your readers are probably going to mistake the reference. A 21st century reader might, for instance, think of Zionist settlers inhabiting the \"empty\" land of Palestine." }, { "answer_id": 59368, "author": "WasatchWind", "author_id": 52315, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52315", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "I think a matter that helps soften the blow for those who might take offense at your story (those who you don't intend to offend), is to have balance. If you depict someone as extremely evil, and twisting religion to accomplish or justify their dark actions, counterbalancing them with someone who actually uses the same religious doctrine or sentiment for good. Not only does it make it clear that as an author, you are not saying religion, or the specific religion is bad, you are saying that it is a tool, that can be used to help or harm.\n\nOne other question used the example of the Hunchback of Notre Dame - because I am very unacademic, I use the example of the still quite good Disney version. Esmeralda, in singing to God to help the outcasts, she takes action to protect the downtrodden, while Frolo misinterprets Biblical warnings against the wicked as his right as a servant of God to carry out God's punishment.\n\nI feel like I come from a special place with this question, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (often referred to as mormons, although official church teaching discourages that name). Few belief systems in the US receive such a constant barrage of negative criticism. When I find good, academic treatment of our church however, it may mention awful things like The Mountain Meadows Massacre, a vicious attack on innocents by members of our church - but it will counterbalance it with good our church members, then and now have done - it makes it clear that the event was a horrible exception to our doctrine, rather than our church's modus operandi.\n\nBut it comes down to what you desire to say. Having counterbalance characters or examples of more positive interpretations of Christianity can not just say \"I don't hate Christianity\" but also be narratively interesting. Showing a character's disdain for anything good in their faith can show just how far they have warped things." }, { "answer_id": 59369, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Not in Saudi Arabia.\n\nBut maybe in some places where there are a lot of Christians.\n\nIn history there have been many different conflicts. A significant proportion of conflicts include violent actions by members of at least one side in the conflict.\n\nWhen conflicts are violent, and often when they are not, people on one side tend to think that people on the other side are very evil, while people on their side are not. I tend to think that in such cases those beliefs are half right and half wrong.\n\nThroughout history a lot of people have believed that a lot of members of different groups were very evil during conflicts with them. And those other and believed to be evil groups had all varieties of religious affiliations from very mixed to being all followers of one religion (at least officially) to being all atheists (at least officially).\n\nAnd the people who thought that their opponents were evil also had all sorts of religious affiliations from very mixed to being all followers of one religion (at least officially) to being all atheists (at least officially).\n\nAnd sometimes both groups were all (officially) believers in the same religion but considered each other to be evil anyway.\n\nSo there have been many cases when groups of people who were all at least nominally and officially Christian have been considered to be evil by members of another religion or even by fellow Christians.\n\nAnd there are many examples of Christians who used Christianity as a justification for doing evil things which they wanted to do anyway, like robbing pagans they considered to have no rights, for example.\n\nAnd there are other examples of Christians who were motivated by Christianity to commit harsh and cruel deeds because they believed it was their Christian duty.\n\nSo a group of Christian religious fanatics who commit acts of terrorism, or plot to overthrow democracy and establish a theocracy, or to exterminate all non Christians, would have a number of historical examples to be used as models.\n\nSo a group of Christian religious fanatics doing evil deeds is not exactly an unprecedented situation in history.\n\nAnd many poeple, even Christians, know that." }, { "answer_id": 59373, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> ...heavily exaggerated religious extremist group/dystopian\n> organization based on a twisted version of Catholic Christianity. \n> \n> … \n> \n> I think using a realistic religion makes the story more raw.\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou've said some contradictory things: heavily exaggerated, realistic.\n\nCoded Catholicism is Catholicism\n--------------------------------\n\nWe all recognize 'Catholic' tropes because we have seen them for a while, typically spread by other Christians. In Protestant countries, Catholics are portrayed as less capable, hotly emotional, lower/working class immigrants, domestic abusers, mafia gangs, clannish, simple, innocent, childlike, etc.\n\n[When Catholics criticize the Catholic Church it gets esoteric.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01cG6dtGSLs) I'd need more than a Martin Luther wikipedia search before I could say anything worth saying. Catholics exist. When writers 'just make them up' it looks like ignorance.\n\nBut 'irredeemably evil and corrupt' is going all in. No coding necessary when there is nothing veiled. That's not even a stereotype.\n\nWho do you want to offended?\n----------------------------\n\nEntire countries are Catholic, will they be offended? It depends how clearly Catholic your sect is meant to be, and the themes of the story. (I am guessing many bad things happen.)\n\nYou don't need 'permission' to be transgressive, it's more about where you aim your punches. Are you punching up at a corrupt Vatican-styled power structure, or punching down at an entire ethnicity?\n\nIs god your target? People who believe? Or the beliefs themselves? The sharper your aim, the more confidently you can nail your message.\n\nA race of… evil?\n----------------\n\nThere is certainly a place for provocative writing that is intended to stir controversy, but maybe you want the \"zombie/orc' type of evil that doesn't muddy the emotions, rather telegraphs the reader to feel good when they die – it's ok to kill something that is irredeemably evil.\n\nMaybe you want something like zombie-orc-Catholic-biker-nuns from hell? If your story points to historical incidents but exaggerated, you can be right and controversial. Like 300 by Fkenk Rilcir, very biased but also stylized to the extreme. 'End of the world' is already hyperbole so go all out.\n\nBut if instead you want something grounded in reality, research the history of [cult massacres](https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=29478) and [holy wars](https://www.libertymagazine.org/article/religious-wars-and-religious-freedom-a-troubled-history), there is a build-up before extremism (practice runs) that would be important for your worldbuilding. I suggest also limiting the scale of your story to a local apocalypse: an island, an isolated settlement, a ghetto during a race riot. The stakes can be just as high if characters are bottled in. You don't need to have simultaneous Catholic apocalypses happening all over the globe.\n\nMaybe something else?\n---------------------\n\nIt requires Bizarro World logic for all Catholics to do the opposite of their doctrine, and still follow their doctrine. All Catholics fall short of their ideal (kind of the point), but here they are from the Mirrorverse, not just bad at religion but bad at human beings. That's an inverted dreamscape where nothing is real, or we have an unreliable narrator, or an intentionally polemic author.\n\nI don't see how it survives its own worldbuilding in a realistic story – so maybe start with something that is hypocritical by design, and extrapolate.\n\nIn Mary Shelley's The Last Man there is a plague-denial movement with a populist political leader who both promises a cure and falsifies mortality rates to minimize the fallout. Two centuries later that part rings true, we've just seen it. Their supporters would need to sustain double-think while lashing out at 'fake news' and 'establishment', splitting society into 'truthers' and non-believers. [Revolutions can quickly become terrorist bloodsport for purging the impure.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Maximilien_Robespierre)\n\nScientology and evangelical 'prosperity' gospels seem like great environments for ruthless power games between petty egomaniacs. Libertarian doctrines are inherently self-serving or [based on entitled grievances](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber_Manifesto) – at the end of the world as resources run dry and mutual cooperation beaks down, some kook militia will be hoarding toilet paper and conducting raids to destabilize their enemies. I'd guess most [real-world militias have some pseudo-doctrine involved](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree). It would imitate religious language, but superficially.\n\nSince you want something stylized and really really evil, I suggest you take a satyrical swipe at any aspect of society you feel deserves a good kick, something rooted in today like Elon Musk Mars cultists, or people who can't leave Facebook, or morning talkshow QAnon, or Hollywood wellness blogs, royal family tabloids, or anti-vax magnitism conspiracies – it feels like there is so much going on today that is already borderline ridiculous and with the right dystopian ad campaign could be exaggerated to hyperbolic levels at the end of the world.\n\nPersonally I would make something up, and in-world show why it has been made up, and how it is arbitrarily abused to enforce the power structure. Better to create something original and make that part of the plot, than to fall back on a cliché that you didn't consciously intend." }, { "answer_id": 59374, "author": "Ash", "author_id": 26012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26012", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Ultimately anything you write is going to offend someone. Is a Christian extremist going to upset people more than some other kind of extremist? Some of them. Is it inherently a bad thing to do? No. If you want to limit the potential damage, take pains to point out how extremist and twisted their rhetoric is compared to another Christian sect within the setting. This makes it clear that it is not Christianity which is evil but the particular interpretation.\n\nAs a historical note, extremist ideology has almost always been evil regardless of which particular religious or political system it has hijacked. It's not usually the teachings, it's the intolerance of other teachings, and the lack of leeway for those who disagree/waver, that causes the most grief." }, { "answer_id": 59376, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "One of the first things that stands out as concerning is the fact you described this sect as \"irredeemably evil\" is not something a real faithful Catholic would actually describe any one ever. One of the core tenements of Catholicism is that of forgiveness and redemption and they believe no one can ever do something that is beyond God's forgiveness and that forgiving those who have hurt you is an important step to the healing process (this is why Pope Saint John Paul II, upon making his physical recovery from an attempted assassination, the pontiff expressed forgiveness for the assassin and met with him in private in prison two years later.).\n\nIt should be pointed out that, in the English speaking world (especially in the U.S., where Catholics have been a historical minority religion and were often subject to anti-Catholicism bigotry), and possibly Australia which has a large Catholic population. Globally, the Catholic church claims over 1 billion members, or 1 in every 7 people, so it's a very large block you do not want to alienate. This is especially true if your \"evil\" acts are calling out the church's more controversial beliefs and stances.\n\nWith all that said, it's not like the Catholic Church hasn't been portrayed in a negative light before... it's been at the center of western politics for 2,000 years... it's not going to get everything right... and again, Catholics put a great deal of importance in forgiveness and one of the steps in being forgiven is to admit you have done wrong. Additionally, Catholic rituals are very archaic, ornate, and to the outsider, mystical (Hey, the Church finally stopped saying the mass in Latin in 1962, nearly 1500 years after the Roman Empire fell.). For example, Catholics tend to appear in exorcism stories because they are one of the few Christian Sects that actually have rituals and customs to deal with exorcism.\n\nJust be sure to do your homework and make sure you write your villains in a way to best not offend. As other people are bringing up the Disney adaptation of Hunchback of Notre Dame (which by the way, was way more about religion than the original novel, which was written to get people interested in Parisian Architecture and not to make religious commentary), remember that Catholics actually praised it after an initial worry period because Disney actually did some homework and contrasted Frollo against less spiritual characters who embraced Catholic ideas of good living despite not being strict followers or believers (it helps that the original character of Frollo was split into to two characters in the Disney work: Frollo himself and the unnamed Archdeacon. In the original novel Frollo was a villainous priest. It also helped that the Latin Chanting used throughout the film actually is quite meaningful, and the Chanting in the song Hellfire serves as counterpoint to Frollo's state of mind and sincerity in seeking to turn away from sin... it helps to know that the Latin is actually the Confiteor, a prayer said as part of the sacrament of reconciliation and Frollo's lyrics are in direct violation of the chanted part of the prayer the precede.)." }, { "answer_id": 59378, "author": "elemtilas", "author_id": 31280, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/31280", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "Wsop it Like a Hot Potato!\n--------------------------\n\nI see the question has evolved a little bit from its iteration on Worldbuilding. I think I gave you some pretty [sound advice from the geopoetical perspective](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/216245/37029). Here I'm just going to address the specific points you raise in this question.\n\n1. Is this generally a thing to avoid... --- Yes, this is something that only the most bigoted of anti-Catholic writers would consider to be in good taste. As I encouraged you to do in the other question, avoid well known & obvious names, terminology, etc. Basically: drop the idea of basing this on Catholicism. Because a \"twisted\" religion full of \"irredeemably evil\" people who are only out to kill other people is about as insultingly un-Catholic as you can get.\n2. Is it better to invent... --- Yep! As I said in my other answer, it is always better to invent rather than to copy. And it is far worse to copy and slander at the same time.\n3. ...new hypothetical religion for a story involving direct violence. --- While individual Catholics are not unfamiliar with war and violence as a consequence of politics & poor life choices, if you understand anything about your subject, you'll understand that \"Catholic\" and \"direct violence\" are about as diametrically opposed as it's possible to be.\n4. I don’t want to offend people with my story... --- Well, you've already offended me, so I guess you're off to a good start with this project.\n5. the Christianity bit is kind of important for some of the imagery and thematic inspiration --- Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but you want to create a religion of pure evil where everyone is \"irredeemably evil\" and only interested in killing other people and waging war. In what way does that have anything to do with Catholic imagery or thematic inspiration?\n6. using a realistic religion makes the story more raw --- The only thing \"raw\" about this project is going to be the wounds you're causing in the people that you are offending & disappointing by your approach.\n7. Are there any ways to easily illustrate that a religious group depicted in a story does not reflect the actual portrayal of the religion --- Did you not read my answer to your other question? To recap, yes there is a very easy way to accomplish this goal. *Don't use an actual religion for poorly conceived purposes.* What you're doing is like taking a dozen or so aspects of Japanese and Chinese culture and writing a story about them fighting some Germans just because you want some Asian dudes there, and the samurai swords are cool and you really like a good bowl of egg foo yung.\n8. Alternatively, should I just drop the Christianity bit altogether? --- This is the wisest thing you've said in both questions! Wsop it like a hot potato and come up with your own dastardly & evil religion!\n\nAnd please take note! If you find that you're having difficulty coming up with a religion, please do not hesitate to ask as many questions as you need to over on Worldbuilding! We would LOVE to help you with that task!" }, { "answer_id": 59379, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Having an evil, hateful fanatic religious grouo as antagonists has been done so often it is a cliche. Examples that come to mind: The Whitecloaks in Jordan's Wheel of Time series; the Quadrenes in Bujold's Five Gods universe; The Kargide people in LeGuin's Earthsea books; The Calormenes in Lewis's Narnia books; [\"The Streets of Ashkelon\"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Streets_of_Ashkelon) by Haqry Sojriqez; the Church of God Awaiting in the Safehold series by Weber. Many more examples could be cited.\n\nUse of a cliche is often bad writing, whether it is offensive or not, unless it can be given a significantly new aspect or spin.\n\nThe more recognizable your group of evil fanatics is, the more some will take it as a statement that the group on which they re based, or perhaps all religion, is evil. On the other hand it is an undeniable fact of history that various religious enthusiasts and fanatics have done a good deal of harm and what I would call evil in the name of one religion or another, and a fair number called themselves Christians or Catholics. (The crusades come to mind. So does the Thirty-years war. So do the 6th-centurary wars between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires.)\n\nOne possibility is to make your evil group clearly not Catholics, or any other real religious group. Another is to provide other characters, for the same or a very similar belief tradition, who are clearly good. Those deal with the \"offensive\" part, or at least may help to deal with it. They don't help with the \"cliche\" part. For that you will have to fins something fresh to do with this idea. I have no idea what you might come up with." }, { "answer_id": 59383, "author": "Philipp", "author_id": 10303, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10303", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The game Far Cry 5 did the same thing. The antagonists are a militant Christian cult who control their followers through religious fanaticism, drugs, terror and torture. They are portrayed as utterly, irredeemably evil.\n\nBut in order to not send an \"all Christians are bad\" message, the game also contains plenty of minor and major characters who are also practicing Christians, but are good people and opposed to the evil cult. Like a priest who refused to preach their perverted interpretation of Christianity in his church and thus became their mortal enemy. This clearly sends the message that Christianity in itself is not evil, just the perverted interpretation of the cult is evil.\n\nThe religious views of the player-character are left open, because that character is mostly written as a self-insert for the player.\n\nSo you don't necessarily need to counter-balance the demonization of Christian antagonists by giving your protagonist traits you would rather not want to give them. You can also use sympathetic supporting characters for that purpose. Add a couple people to the story who are faithful Catholics who do good in the name of Catholicism or just want to live their lives in peace, and in return get antagonized by the evil cult. Not despite also being Catholics but because they are Catholics who refuse to accept their twisted interpretation." }, { "answer_id": 59384, "author": "Flater", "author_id": 29635, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/29635", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "To avoid negative connotations, show a positive one.\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nA really good example here is Judge Frollo from the Hunchback of Notre Dame (as the negative connotation)\n\nNote that I am intentionally choosing the Disney movie, not the book, because Disney spent a lot of time making sure the story was palatable to a largely Christian audience. The book, however, took a reasonably strong (for the time) anti-religion stance, so it's not a good example here.\n\n[![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/73d5F.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/73d5F.png)\n\n> \n> “Judge Claude Frollo longed to purge the world of vice and sin.\n> And he saw corruption everywhere, except within.” ―Clopin\n> \n> \n> \n\nFrollo is a villain who is driven by religion, or at least his interpretation on how religion should be implemented. He uses it to oppress both others and himself, and he rules through fear and violence. He spent years (at least from Quasimodo's birth to the present day) persecuting gypsies, effectively trying to ethnically cleanse Paris. \n\nIn pursuit of his persecution, he has little regard for collateral damage.\n\nAnd he does it in the name of God. It is his justification for everything. And the movie never actively dispels his justification. There is no literal word of God which disavows Frollo.\n\nAlso note that Frollo is genuinely religious. The reason he doesn't go through with killing baby Quasimodo is because he fears divine judgment for his actions. If he were only faking his belief, he would likely not have kept Quasimodo alive. \n\nHowever, as these past events are a story being told by Clopin to children, it's possible that this is not what actually happened. We can't know that for certain, but there is no indication that any of Clopin's story is untrue. He seems to be a knowing narrator, one whose character is also tangentially woven into the plot.\n\nIt's very easy to interpret this move as being anti-Christian. But this movie isn't anti-Christian. Why?\n\nBecause of the archdeacon\n\n[![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eUmWn.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eUmWn.png)\n\nNotice that black vs white contrast. It really just boils down to how they present themselves in terms of Christianity.\n\nNote: in the book, Frollo is the archdeacon, but not in the movie. This is presumably part of the same move to remove the connotation of the Church being evil.\n\n> \n> “See there the innocent blood you have spilt on the steps of Notre Dame. \n> \n> Now you would add this child's blood to your guilt on the steps of Notre Dame. \n> \n> You can lie to yourself and your minions, \n> \n> You can claim that you haven't a qualm. \n> \n> But you never can, run from nor hide what you've done from the eyes, the very eyes of Notre Dame”\n> \n> \n> ―The archdeacon to Frollo after murdering Quasimodo's mother and attempting to murder baby Quasimodo\n> \n> \n> \n\n[Here is the link to the archdeacon's first scene](https://youtu.be/VxcT7HImOcg?t=142). It's his most important scene and sets the stage for his character and how he is not like Frollo, right form the outset of the movie. The video explains it better than I can with words.\n\nThe archdeacon dispells the viewer's possible interpretation that the Christian faith is the real villain here, by showing us a good Christian.\n\nHe rescues Quasimodo from being dropped in a well, he provides sanctuary to Esmeralda at a time where gypsies are actively being hunted and persecuted, tries to intervene in Esmeralda's execution, and he is the only character who has consistently pointed out Frollo's evil deeds with little regard for how doing this would impact him (by getting on Frollo's bad side).\n\nWhen you consider that Frollo is the archdeacon's superior in the movie, this proves the archdeacon to be a stalwart beacon of good and kindness.\n\nThis saves the image of the Catholic faith, as it ensures that it is not only shown in a negative light. It is made apparent that Frollo's justifications are fabrications for personal gain (he is a fascist at heart, and uses God as his excuse to enact his own will), whereas the archdeacon is selfless, kind, and stands up for what is right.\n\nThe conclusion the viewer now draws, instead of assuming that evil Frollo represents the (therefore presumed to be evil) Church, is that evil Frollo uses the good Church as a guise for his villainy.\n\n---\n\nDoes your story think religion is inherently evil?\n--------------------------------------------------\n\n> \n> This group is intended to be the antagonists and would be illustrated as irredeemably evil and corrupt, largely because of their devotion to their faith.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe crux of the issue here is the same as for Frollo. Are they evil/corrupt because of their faith, or because of an overzealous devotion to a faith that (by itself) is not corrupt?\n\nIf you take the stance that the religion is inherently corrupt down to the core, which is perfectly fine (and what Yactor Hida intended with Frollo in the book), then you should either accept that those who disagree with your stance will not like your book, or you should use an alternate fictional faith to reduce (but you won't completely avoid!) the amount of offense that will be taken.\n\nIf your stance is that this group is corrupt, but not necessarily the faith in and of itself, show the difference. Show some religious people who are not corrupt. Show some corrupt people who are not religious. Dispel the idea that corruption and religion go hand in hand, and make it clear that your plot villains are both corrupt and religious, but that these are two unrelated traits." }, { "answer_id": 59385, "author": "Zoë Sparks", "author_id": 52478, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52478", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I'd like to add a perspective that hasn't been covered as much as I would like by the other answers, although I think some of the other answers here are quite good as well. In general, if there's a topic you want to write about and you're worried about causing offense without meaning to, I think the best thing to do is to learn more about the topic. The problem will naturally resolve itself one way or another through this.\n\nIf you're worried about offending people with your presentation of something even though you yourself have nothing against that group of people, learning more about the group will allow you to find out what you think about them more strongly for yourself. You may discover:\n\n1. that their membership is quite varied and hard to generalize about. Then you can probably find some members who hold views you think are in line with your presentation, or have held them at some point in history. You will then understand more deeply how to capture them or people somewhat like them in your fiction. If you decide to portray them in a broadly antagonistic fashion after that, any offense caused on your part will presumably be deliberate—although you may decide that the social dynamics are too complicated to be reasonably portrayed in this fashion even in fiction.\n2. that their membership is easy to generalize about in certain ways (usually only possible if the group is small or organized along lines that are easy to quantify). Then once you've recognized what those ways are specifically, you can decide for yourself how you feel about the group in light of those things and present them accordingly. Again, if they take offense, you will presumably be expecting this. If you don't want to offend them, it will be easy to see how, as you will presumably have developed deeper sympathy with them to some extent instead of just a vague sympathy with them as generic humans.\n\nIt's worth asking yourself why you want to have the antagonists be evil pseudo-Catholics. From what you're saying, you don't have much against real-world Catholics per se, but you don't seem to have strong feelings in their favor either exactly.¹ The trouble with this is that even \"vague indifference\" can be pretty hostile-feeling in fiction when we're talking about actual living people, and that's likely the friendliest you can come across if you tag the antagonists with the iconography of a specific real-world group. You might as well learn enough about Catholocism that you develop deeper and stronger feelings, whatever those might turn out to be. Your writing will follow.\n\n¹ I know that sometimes a piece of media gives the antagonists a vaguely Catholic aesthetic just for style, in a way where the creators clearly don't know much about real Catholics but just think the imagery is kinda cool. However, most examples I can think of have thinly-presented villains (usually not in novels, more like action games, B movies, etc.) and come from a time and place where there weren't many Catholics and general knowledge about them was minimal, which is presumably not true of yours at present nor is it really an excuse per se." }, { "answer_id": 59390, "author": "Rozgonyi", "author_id": 52486, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52486", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Have whatever violent Catholic extremist group you want but also include as part of your story other Catholics who are devout but object to the extremist sect. This serves a couple things. First, its clear that you are not implying that ALL Catholics are extremists. Second, it allows for more interesting multifaceted debates between characters. There is sooo much more you can do with a three-sided conflict than a two-sided one." }, { "answer_id": 59394, "author": "Gostega", "author_id": 52496, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52496", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Thanks for asking - as a Catholic, I truly appreciate it. Hmm..would you consider doing the same portrayal but instead of Catholicism, using Judaism or Islam instead? If not, then perhaps it's an indication to avoid it.\n\nI haven't really seen any answers from actual Catholics, so decided to volunteer from that perspective. I am Catholic, and have come across many examples of this in fictional works. Each time, I was usually disappointed and hurt.\n\nIs it potentially offensive?\n\nTo answer your main question, I probably would not be offended - because it's hard to be offended by something so far from reality. Disappointed yes, because the portrayal is usually quite false and shows a misunderstanding by the author about something important to me.\n\nIs it harmful?\n\nRealising, or re-encountering, the fact that people view one's religion, beliefs, values, family, friends and community so negatively definitely hurts. Even more so because the negative views and opinions are of something that doesn't really exist. Yes, there were bad Popes, the church went through some bad times (especially recently with the child abuse revelations). But so did every country in history - we don't hate germans because of what the Nazis did. We don't hate Japan because of what they did in China and WW2. It hurts when people don't make the effort to look past mistakes and at least understand and see how the church and its teachings really is, before casting judgement.\n\nIs 'fake news' harmful?\n\nIf you value the truth, you may like to consider avoiding this. Or at least doing what one of the other answers said - include a group of true catholics in your story, who represent the real Catholic faith and are opposed to the current evil organisation. It still might hurt overall (I think) but that would definitely help by helping to a) fixing the false impression many people hold and b) show the reader and those whose religion is being represented, that it is just a story device and that the author understands not all Catholics (and hopefully Catholicism itself) are like that.\n\nYou say: \"I don’t want to offend people with my story, and I have nothing personal against Christians\"\n\nI truly appreciate this - I wonder, if you have nothing against Christians, then do you want to continue perpetuating damaging stereotypes against Christianity and Catholicism? Maybe there's a better way. I'm not an author but I see some good suggestions in the other answers here, by Zoe Sparks and others e.g. the Far Cry one.\n\nWishing you all the best with your story." }, { "answer_id": 59396, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Parts of the real Catholic church are or have been irredeemably evil and corrupt at different points in history. Uncountable writings in different genres, from scholarly works to pulp fiction, have portrayed (parts of) the Catholic church in this way. In recent times, Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code has provoked outrage and law suits because of this. And it was a bestseller, in part because of this.\n\nSo the first take home message is: Provoking outrage might be a selling point.\n\nIf you want to avoid too much conflict, you could invent a Catholic sect or a Christian church or a monotheistic religion or some other kind of religion (listed in decreasing order of offensiveness). Your readers will easily see the parallels, if there are any.\n\nSecond message: You don't need to write about the Catholic chruch to write about the Catholic church." }, { "answer_id": 59417, "author": "David42", "author_id": 14151, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/14151", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "You say that the religious group is \"irredeemably evil and corrupt, largely because of their devotion to their faith\". If that is really the way you portray it, it will likely be offensive. Let's take an example:\n\nIf you were to portray Catholics opposing abortion and to imply that they were doing this because they were evil monsters who hate women, this would definitely offend. Many readers would see this as a slander.\n\nIf however you were to write about a priest who preached against abortion but arranged for his pregnant girlfriend to get one, this would probably not offend. He is a hypocrite and your readers will share your contempt for him.\n\nIn the first case the people are bad because they are Catholic. In the second the priest is a bad Catholic. One is far more offensive than the other." }, { "answer_id": 59440, "author": "aurorajack", "author_id": 51269, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51269", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I haven’t read all the other answers, so I might be repeating something, but hey — if I am, you know they weren’t the only person who thought it!\n\n> \n> Are there any ways to easily illustrate that a religious group depicted in a story does not reflect the actual portrayal of the religion\n> \n> \n> \n\nNot entirely sure what you mean by 'portrayal' as opposed to 'depicted'... I think you're talking about making sure your readers are aware you don't actually think all Christians are like this IRL.\n\nIf so, yes. Ultimately, it's all about nuance. The easiest way to do it is to just include other aspects of Christianity. Show that Christians and Christianity in general that aren't like that.\n\nAs a Christian myself, (albeit Protestant, rather than Catholic) if the twisted, extremist Christians were the ONLY Christian representation in the book, then yes, I would be offended. As I'm sure Muslims would be if the only depictions of Muslims in a story were r\\\\ists and bombers who treat women like animals and slaves, with nothing to show what the religion should and does look like for almost everyone who practices it.\n\nThere are Muslims who are terrorists. That doesn't mean all Muslims want death to the west. Same with Christians. Just because some Christians are dicks and 'everything-phobes', so-to-speak, doesn't mean being a Christian makes you 'irredeemably evil'. You say you don’t believe that's actually the case: the reason you feel the need to clarify you don't actually believe that is probably a good reason not to include it in your story.\n\nIt’s true that no matter what you write/say/do, there will always be at least one person who is offended by it. However, you should still treat people’s religious beliefs and practices with basic respect. There's a difference between people getting offended at being called out on their toxic beliefs and attitudes or at the phrase ‘ok boomer’ — and getting offended at the implication that everyone who follows a particular religion is evil, 'largely because of their devotion to their faith.'\n\n(Also, just as an aside, it's even worse if you have the pure evil Christian antagonists, and the pure good protagonist who believes in Islam, for example. That feels very much like the writer is trying to say Christianity bad, Islam good. Please don't do that.)\n\nTo come from a slightly different angle, in my experience, 'irredeemably evil' villains have a tendency to feel a bit one-note and to lack nuance. You say you want to base the antagonists on a real religion to make it 'raw'. Only, rawness without nuance will feel hollow, regardless of whether it's based on a real religion or not. However, if your story takes a more nuanced look at the group, I'd say you're at least a little bit less likely to be offensive. Why are they doing it? What exactly do they believe? How do they control/gain members? How do they treat dissenters? Is it threat of violence, or is it something more insidious? Anything that gives a more rounded view of the characters.\n\nReligious extremism like this happens because people already have a twisted worldview, and so they twist the religion to try to validate that worldview. The thing that makes Nazi Germany scary is the fact that most of them WEREN’T psychopaths. (I know Nazis aren't religious extremists, but the point still stands.)\n\nYou have the potential to write a poignant, thought-provoking story that will leave readers staring into space for days after they've finished. It's all in the nuance!\n\nGood luck :)" }, { "answer_id": 59454, "author": "A. Kvåle", "author_id": 30157, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30157", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "People will always be offended.\n-------------------------------\n\nAs others have mentioned, there is no way not to offend someone. What you need to worry about is whether you'll offend reasonable people or not (because reasonable people can take their reasonable emotions around your book and convince other people that your book is bad).\n\nIs your book a criticism of Catholicism?\n----------------------------------------\n\nSo, what is going to offend reasonable people? If your book is a criticism of Catholicism, then it will offend some reasonable Catholics, and they can frame your book as an attack on Catholicism. Now, in this scenario, you could defend your book by saying it is not an attack, but a well-meant criticism. However, this doesn't change the fact that the situation is still a hairy one, and it may negatively affect you and your book (though it may also drive up sales via the spotlight it puts on you and your book). If your book is a criticism of Catholicism, you will offend reasonable people.\n\nWhat is and isn't a criticism of Catholicism?\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nHere's a criticism of Catholicism: \"the fact that one can pay a sum as penance for a sin promotes a shallow view of redemption, and is really just a mechanism for the Catholic church to make money.\" Whether this criticism is true or not is a different matter; what's important is that it is a criticsm.\n\nSo let's say your corrupted version of Catholicism takes the practice of paying money to be repented, and turns it to the max, thus illuminating the practice's flaws. Sure, your exaggerated version of paying money for penance isn't real, but it's still making a statement; a criticism. As such, the question isn't about how similar your corrupted Catholicism is to real Catholicism, the question is; how have you corrupted them?\n\nIf you take real attributes of Catholicism, and exaggerate these attributes, then you are doing something that can be interpreted as a criticism of Catholicism. It doesn't matter how much you exaggerate these real attributes, all that matters is the fact that they are exaggeration of real attributes.\n\nSo then, what isn't a criticism of Catholicism? Well, if you create a religion that only shares general attributes to Catholicism (attributes that many if not all religions have), then nothing you exaggerate can be reasonably seen as a criticism on Catholicism. Let's say you only borrow terms and symbolism from Catholicism, and you slap that onto a religion that is completely different from Catholicism in its essence; well then you're not criticizing Catholicism anymore; you're just utilizing the powerful and well-recognized symbolism spawned from Catholicism.\n\nWill this non-criticism of Catholicism still offend people? As said in the beginning of this answer, yes. Will it matter? Probably not. These people getting offended will probably not be taken seriously; people will think of them as over-reacting. Contrast this with the scenario in which you book is a criticism. In this scenario, people can call your book out as anti-Catholic, and say they feel targeted. They could say that the book completely misunderstands, for example, the practice of paying money for penance, and say that your book spread a misinformed and/or damaging view of Catholicism, etc." } ]	2021/10/26	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59363", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52464/" ]
59,377	'Why' is a straight forward question asking the reason for something. "You should go to college." "Why?" Or "Why should I go to college?" BUT... "You should meet my friend's brother." "Why-yy?" This character is suddenly suspicious of her friend's suggestion. Is her friend trying to 'set her up' for a date? Which is part of the plot. If this was verbal dialogue, you would instantly hear the suggestion in the speech. But it's 'written', and I want to sound out the 'question' of 'why should I meet your friend's brother?" without having to write those extra words. Other than 'saying', "Why?" Gemma asked with sudden suspicion. That might be the best way, BUT can? how? should? I even worry about it and just stick with worded descriptions?	[ { "answer_id": 59380, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Sensory Input and character's thoughts:\n=======================================\n\nBy itself, your \"Why-yy?\" works okay to deliver the verbal statement being made. It might confuse some readers, but most would get it. But you probably are more interested in delivering the emotional content of the suspicion.\n\nIt depends on your POV, but I would have gone with a description of Tecma's emotional response and her physical suspicion.\n\n> \n> Tecma had heard this kind of suggestion from her friend Lifzk before, and the last time, her friend set her up on a blind date with Lifzk's cousin who had spent the whole time staring at Tecma's breasts. Tecma's shoulders tensed and her eyes tightened with suspicion. Her voice dropped. \"Why?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nObviously if you can't describe the character's emotional state or thoughts, the first lines wouldn't work. But using multiple senses in describing the suspicion (including the somewhat explicit inclusion of the term suspicion) gives a vivid response to make the \"Why?\" carry the correct emotional content. By describing the prior acts of the friend Lifzk, you create the emotional situation without explicitly stating the emotion. You could even leave out the word suspicion and let the physical response carry the feeling.\n\n> \n> Tecma had heard this kind of suggestion from her friend Lifzk before, and the last time, her friend set her up on a blind date with Lifzk's cousin who had spent the whole time staring at Tecma's breasts. Tecma's shoulders tensed and her eyes tightened. Her voice dropped an octave, and Tecma loudly replied, \"Why?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou could also add italics to the word to magnify the effect (although it isn't very visible with such a short word). Bold makes the words loud if desired, as would CAPITALIZING.\n\nAny sufficiently clear physical reaction to the suggestion would deliver the correct content like her stomach knotting, or the thought of a blind date sending a chill down her spine. A hard stare also shows an intensity of emotion.\n\nYou can also mix up the words a little to give suspicion. So \"Why, exactly?\" clearly shows suspicion and a desire for clarification. Stating someone's name without explanation is calling someone out on questionable behavior, so \"Lifzk.\" expresses incredulity. \"Lifzk!\" takes it even further to express anger at an assumed transgression. \"Lifzk?\" expresses a lack of understanding, and delays Tecma needing to give a response, allowing her a moment to consider a response while forcing Lifzk to give a clarifying statement." }, { "answer_id": 59393, "author": "DrBunny", "author_id": 52491, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52491", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Substitute 'Because?'\nSubstitute 'For what?'\n\nBest 'why' paraphrase ever, a line given to Molly Ringwald in 'Adventures in the Forbidden Zone'\n\n'With what brainworking?'\n\nShe delivered that clunker deadpan. What a trooper." } ]	2021/10/27	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59377", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52476/" ]
59,391	I'm having major issues with this. I'm working on papers for some literature classes I'm taking at Uni, and my professors are...less than helpful (it has been a wild two years, I can't blame them. They all have way too many students this semester). The tutoring center is at limited capacity due to pandemic restrictions in my area, so I instead turn to you wonderful people. While working on my papers, I find that I am very good at making observations about a text (for example, the characters of Raymond Carver's fiction often go out of their way to avoid any and all epiphany or positive insight that could help better their situation), but that only gets me halfway. My issue is answering the, in my professor's words, "so what" question. As in, Carver's characters go out of their way to avoid epiphany, so what? When I try to answer that question, it just makes my observation larger, but it does not make it into an arguable thesis. For example: The lengths to which Carver's characters go to avoid epiphany and positive insight suggest that they've found comfort in the disarray of their own lives. Again, that is an observation; I have to again ask so what? How do you turn an observation into a thesis? Are there any examples online of the process? Let me be clear, I do not expect (or even want) anyone to hand me a thesis to use in my paper. The example above is just something I spitballed together to illustrate my problem. I simply want to see how this process works so I can adapt to it and actually write these dang papers. Much thanks <3	[ { "answer_id": 59397, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "Always aspiring writers believe that they can write something without being familiar with what it is that they want to write. This is especially true in academia. Students in the first semesters usually haven't read any or have read only a handful of papers in their field when they attempt to write their own first paper. And they come here (or to their professors) expecting to be given a simple formula that will turn them into scholars. That's not how writing works.\n\nIf you want to write anything, you must first read lots of examples for the kind of text you want to write. If you want to become a novelist, read lots of novels. If you want to write poetry, movie scripts, journalism, read lots of poems, move scripts, and newspapers. And if you want to write scholarly works on literature, begin by reading lots and lots of scholarly works on literature.\n\nAfter reading a lot, you will intuitively understand how your genre works. Then, and only then, will the answers you get from us or your professor make sense." }, { "answer_id": 59405, "author": "Ted Wrigley", "author_id": 44005, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44005", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The 'So What?' question is meant to get you thinking about why anyone, including yourself, would find the observation useful. For a silly example, I could walk down practically any street and 'observe' that there are lights hanging in the road that continuously cycle from green to yellow to red. That is (perhaps) an interesting observation, but as a naïve observer it is puzzling: Are they aesthetic devices? Some kind of coded messaging? Mosquito repellants? A diagnostic for some other (unseen) mechanism? What am I supposed to *do* with that observation?\n\nSo, you've observed some pattern in Carver's characterization; great. Now you have to focus in on the 'why' of it:\n\n* What it means: Does this observation imply something about Carver, or this particular type of character, or this particular genre of writing, or about writing characters in the abstract?\n* Who it's for: Are you trying to help writers write better, or to help readers get more out of reading, or to draw out a social critique, or to clarify a style for other academics?\n* Where it goes: What's the upshot? How does this apply to other works (Carver's or otherwise)? How will this change anything for anybody?\n\n'Observing' is the easy part. Everybody observes things, all the time; social media is absolutely gorged with people making random, trivial, interesting observations. The hard part is making sense of observations and crafting understandings from it. But that's also the rewarding part." } ]	2021/10/28	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59391", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52487/" ]
59,399	Are there techniques that would minimize need to proof-read? This puzzles me, because I find that it's difficult to get things right "while one writes" (because the flow is different, one may be looking different things). But it's possibly even more difficult to proof-read "a large bulk of unverified text". Thus, I wonder if there's some magic to this that allows "good writers" to succeed?	[ { "answer_id": 59400, "author": "WasatchWind", "author_id": 52315, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52315", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Personally, I can't say that there's really any way that I know of, besides being really, really particular about grammar and spelling conventions. I consider myself pretty good at naturally remembering stuff, but I still find myself writing too quickly that I miss \"they\", \"their\" or \"they're\" and also mix up \"to\", \"two\" and \"too\" a lot.\n\nI'd say at least to consider basic formatting from the start, so that your text is more easily readable when you go back over it. Even then, it is easy to miss stuff when you think that you're poring over it with much scrutiny - this is why you need other people reading your work. This can be difficult for a number of reasons, whether it's being shy about sharing your writing, a feeling that you shouldn't share till it's done - or even just the difficulty in finding people to do it.\n\nFinding a group of people to write with online or in person is a valuable asset, and they will pick up on many things that you naturally missed, even beyond proofreading.\n\nWhatever the case is, the most important thing is sticking to writing - just sit down and write, not letting things get in the way." }, { "answer_id": 59402, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I don't know if I'm what you'd call a good writer (I only write a blog for fun, I'm no author) but I do it just like you describe. Write the text, then go back and proofread - again and again.\n\nWhile writing, I concentrate on what I'm trying to say and the wording - content is king. Get all the things in that belong there and in the right order, and written properly (grammar and what have you.)\n\nWhile thinking over a paragraph before writing it, I'll usually re-read previous paragraphs. I'll often find typos and \"thinkos\" (wrong word or similarly spelled word.) I generally correct those when I find them.\n\nWhen the text is all together, I save it and then preview it.\n\nI write in Markdown using a simple text editor. The Markdown code is converted to HTML which I preview in a browser. The text in the browser looks very different from the text in the editor - the layout is different, it uses a different font, paragraph breaks and line breaks occur at different places, the pictures are visible, etc.\n\nThat difference in appearance makes it easier to spot wrong things. When you go to look at the text you typed, you've already seen it. When you re-read it, you remember the last time you saw that passage. It looks the same as when you typed it, so it \"looks right\" even if there are spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors in it. The difference in appearance between the typed text and the preview text is enough to break that connection between the memory of what you wrote and what you are reading.\n\nI re-read the preview a couple of times, looking at flow and content (and catching the occasional typo or punctuation error.) I improve things in the Markdown file, regenerate the HTML, then re-read the preview.\n\nOnce it reads well, I make a last pass (or two) to look for spelling, wording, and punctuation errors.\n\nOne thing I find that really helps to spot mistakes is to read the text backwards. Start at the bottom and read the last sentence of the last paragraph, then the second to last sentence of the last paragraph, and so on. The idea is to make the text not \"look like\" what you typed so that your memory of what you intended to type doesn't interfere with seeing what you really typed.\n\n---\n\nThe basis of the way I do proofreading is an experience from technical school in the US Air Force.\n\nI learned drafting in the USAF at a time when it was done on a drafting table with pencil, pen, straight edge and compass.\n\nEvery assignment ended the same way: Run a blueprint of the finished drawing, and turn in the drawing and the blueprint for grading.\n\nIt never failed: You would spot an error in the blueprint that you missed while reviewing the drawing. We weren't allowed to correct the drawing and reprint. Once you'd made the blueprint, you were done and had to turn in the assignment.\n\nThe difference in appearance between the drawing (black ink on mylar) and the copy (blue on paper) tricked your mind just enough that you would see things that were otherwise blotted out by the tendency to see (or read) what you meant to draw (or write.)\n\nThat experience is always in the back of my mind when making/writing/doing things. A slight change in appearance often makes it easier to find mistakes.\n\n---\n\nBy the way, I don't use a spellchecker or a grammar checker. Using them while writing interferes with getting \"words on paper\" - it distracts you from the task of formulating your text. I could run a separate checker after I'm done, but I don't usually bother.\n\nThe same goes for formatting. Formatting while writing invites you play around with things that have nothing to do with the content of your text.\n\nMarkdown is great in that sense. It has very little in the way of formatting. It has (mostly) semantic formatting - what things are rather than what they should look like. You tell Markdown that a particular piece of text is a heading rather than \"font size 20, bold, Helvetica.\" I don't really care (while writing the text) what it will look like. I flag titles and headings and what not, then let Markdown (and the HTML converter) decide what they should look like.\n\nIf you are writing text for print, you might consider Markdown or Latex instead of using Word or other \"what you see is what you get\" editors. By separating the text from the appearance, you can concentrate more on what you are saying - and it makes proofreading easier since you get a fresh view of the text in its final form." }, { "answer_id": 59404, "author": "Philipp", "author_id": 10303, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10303", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Experience.\n\nAfter a couple dozen back-and-forth iterations between yourself and different proof-readers you are going to develop an intuition for what might be something the proof-readers would point out. That way you can avoid those things in the first place.\n\nEventually you will be experienced enough that you no longer need proof-readers at all, but this can be a long way.\n\nA list with all the rules of good writing would greatly exceed the scope of a stack exchange answer." }, { "answer_id": 59408, "author": "Ash", "author_id": 26012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26012", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "For me this comes down to the \"two forms\" in form one I write ideas and that is a fast free-form exercise that comes down to bullet points with no spellcheck, zero punctuation, no grammar, and often,especially.if im.writin on a deviec, sentences that.look.something.like this. I then get into story writing form and that is a more considered process where I actually pay attention to the readability of my handwriting and spellcheck at the end of sentences and all those good things. Idea form writing may be deleted as I integrate the material in it into the story writing that follows but it is never edited such that someone else might read it. I always need to do some proofreading but by splitting my processes so I can take more time with my \"finish writing\" I've reduced that a lot." }, { "answer_id": 59411, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I'm taking \"proof-read\" to mean checking for typos, orthography, punctuation, grammar etc. The technical term is [copy editing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_editing).\n\nCopy editing is easy to learn, but it takes quite a bit of time and effort. Because what you'll have to do is learn the rules (and exceptions) of grammar. You will have done quite a bit of that in school, so you know what to do if you want to increase your knowledge and become an expert: get some good books or find some other reliable resources, and learn them.\n\nOf course there are tools today that will help you with this, such as software based spell checkers. These will point out some of the obvious mistakes, but they miss much that requires an understanding of the text. For example, a spell checker doesn't know whether you wanted to write \"your\" or \"you're\", and can only point out \"yuor\". And most spell checkers fail completely when it comes to grammar. Also, it has been shown that many spell checkers point out mistakes where there aren't any, which might confuse you if you don't know the rules yourself. So beware!\n\nAs for how I minimize the need to copy edit, I look at what I write and correct my mistakes as I type. I found (when I copy edited the finished text again) that on average I have one mistake every ten pages or so. But my knowledge of orthography and grammar is not perfect and professional copy editors invariably find a couple more mistakes.\n\nBut then, copy editing is only the smallest and easiest part of editing. Getting the content right is much harder to accomplish than getting the spelling right. But that, I assume, is another question." } ]	2021/10/29	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59399", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52498/" ]
59,401	It's an annoying problem with writing - I've got a bunch of characters that I've written, how do I keep them together for the adventure I want them to go on? In some stories, this can be quite annoying - reading YA novels for example, where the teenagers save the world, and the adults did nothing, for some reason. I am unfortunately falling slightly into that trap - my characters are late teens early twenties, so not as bad - one could conceive why they'd be allowed to be involved in big things. However, a lot of my characters don't have a ton of reason to be involved in things. Several of them have been imprisoned their whole lives and have little real world skill, especially as they are embarking on a mission to a country (and environment) that they have never been in before. Complicating this further is that my fantasy novel is based around two nations - a human industrial era one, and a merfolk one in the adjacent ocean. This makes it difficult for the land and sea characters to interact. So does anyone have suggestions on how to untangle the massive mess that is story logistics?	[ { "answer_id": 59403, "author": "Philipp", "author_id": 10303, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10303", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "In order for characters to cooperate, they need some motivation.\n\nThat motivation can be an intrinsic one. For example a common goal they want to achieve or a common enemy they want to defeat.\n\nIt can also be an extrinsic factor which compels them to cooperate. Like an authority figure who hired/conscripted these characters and assembled them as a team to achieve some objective of their own. Keep in mind that you now need a reason why those characters are loyal to the authority figure and their cause.\n\nThe reason for cooperation can also be an interpersonal one: A character might have a personal connection to another, so they want to take part in whatever they are doing. This might be just for sake of enjoying their company, supporting them in whatever their life-goals are or because they are afraid that they might get harmed if they aren't there to protect them.\n\n> \n> Complicating this further is that my fantasy novel is based around two nations - a human industrial era one, and a merfolk one in the adjacent ocean. This makes it difficult for the land and sea characters to interact.\n> \n> \n> \n\nDo they have to interact directly? There are plenty of examples of stories where different characters in different locations are all part of the same story even though they rarely or never actually meet in person. It is very well possible that characters on land and characters on the bottom of the ocean both interact with the same overarching problem without even being aware of one another, while the narrative viewpoint switches back and forth between them.\n\nA good way to turn this into a useful narrative tool is that it provides the opportunity to give the reader a more complete picture of what is actually going on in the world than each individual character has. This can also be used for tragedy: Characters who would have reason to cooperate end up working against each other, and those who have conflicting goals inadvertently end up helping each other. The reader is the only one who knows, but they are powerless to stop these beloved characters from running into their demise." }, { "answer_id": 59406, "author": "Ash", "author_id": 26012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26012", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Short version individual characters need to have their own reasons for their actions including but not limited to the pursuit of similar goals to others.\n\nLong version:\nUnless the characters are all pulling in the same direction, either pursuing the same goal, or pursuing different goals to the same end, then there actually isn't a reason for them to stay together past the point of mutual self interest.\n\nIn this case it sounds like a number of the characters do have a common purpose, and have a shared a history that inclines them to stick together, especially in a strange new environment. The question you then need to ask is why do their hangers-on stick around or why do they stick with character X who isn't one of them. The reason need not be singular either, in fact it shouldn't be, each individual should have their own reasons for taking on the task at hand with the group they're part of.\n\nTo take a classical example the nine members of the Ring Quest have a variety of reasons for becoming involved and also for staying involved; Frodo becomes involved by an accident of inheritance and stays involved because he feels responsible to take on a role that no-one else seems able to. Sam becomes and stays involved for the same reason, his loyalty to his, and in fact his whole family's long time employers the Bagginses. Merbf and Qejpin become involved out of curiosity and concern about their cousins the Bagginses and stay for reasons that have never been entirely clear to me but I think fall along the lines of \"because it needs doing\". For Aragorn the whole thing is about destiny and duty. Gandalf is also acting out of duty though possibly a wider duty to all. Boromir, Legolas and Gimli all initially become involved in the matter at the invitation of Elrond. Boromir joins the quest to protect his home. Legolas goes because Gandalf says it needs doing and Gimli because he doesn't trust elves or men and won't see the dwarves left out. So with the possible exception of Merbf and Qejpin all the members of the fellowship have completely different reasons for being there.\n\nThe other thing that individual characters acting towards the same goal often have is differing expectations/definitions of success, this can be used as a source of narrative tension. To return to our Tolkien example Boromir's definition of success is tied to the immediate preservation of Gondor which makes him willing to try to use The Ring while the others are striving towards the greater goal of preserving the world and seek to destroy it." }, { "answer_id": 59412, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "You are going about this backwards.\n\nYou seem to have made two independent decisions: You chose characters. And you chose a story. And now your realize that they don't fit together.\n\nWhat you need to do is develop one from the other. Either you choose characters, and then derive a story from them. For example, if you have characters who have been imprisoned their whole lives and have little real world skill, ask yourself, what events they are likely to get into. You can test some story ideas agains these characters (is it likely that they will ... ?) and thus slowly build your story from where your characters started.\n\nOr you can choose a story and develop characters that fit that story. For example, if you have a plot based around two nations - a human industrial era one, and a merfolk one in the adjacent ocean –, ask yourself, what kind of persons could be involved in that interaction.\n\nIf you want to continue with what you have, you might need to make changes to both the story and the characters for a better fit. It is called \"killing your darlings\". It is difficult for most amateurs to give up on their ideas. Amateur literally means lover, and it is a sign of the amateur that he is infatuated with his own ideas. Professionals don't hesitate to change everything about their project until it flows smoothly.\n\n---\n\nInterestingly enough, I recently read a trilogy of novels about a concept quite similar to yours. In the YA [Aquamarin](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquamarin_(Roman)) trilogy by German writer Andreas Eschbach, a misfit teen from a seaside town gets drawn into a conflict between some mer people and the industry that wants to exploit their habitat.\n\nSo maybe your characters and story aren't as incompatible as it seems to you." } ]	2021/10/29	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59401", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52315/" ]
59,407	How "subjective" is "good-readability"? Are there quality studies that can explain this? I'm confused about that I perceive that different people seem to have different preferences regarding: * usability * informativeness * comprehension Or something that someone else might claim "cryptic", might be "very clear" to someone else.	[ { "answer_id": 59409, "author": "Ash", "author_id": 26012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26012", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Completely subjective, books that I won't even pick up because I find the writing style literally makes me throw up, I'm looking at you Brandon Sanderson, are lauded by critics and top best seller lists year-on-year. There is literally no accounting for taste, you can't quantify personal responses to written works at best you can generalise to a target population demographic. You also can't quantify personal intuition when it comes to mystery plots etc... dad realised what was happening in The Village about half an hour in the first time he watched it but I've met people who don't understand it having watched the whole film. I've read stories on the recommendation that they're \"really twisty\" only to be bored for most of the narrative because I worked the whole story out after the third chapter. I've been told a movie is \"nice and simple\" by the same person only to be pleasantly surprised by the complexity of the plot." }, { "answer_id": 59410, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Reading comprehension can be trained. Knowledge can be gained.\n\nIf you read a lot, with time your ability to quickly comprehend the kind of text you read a lot increases. Also, with reading a lot, you become more and more familiar with the ideas and concepts used in certain types of texts (e.g. philosophical essays or biological journal articles) so that there is an increasing difference between a trained reader both in reading comprehension as well as in specialist knowledge, which eplains why some people may find one specific text \"very clear\" and another person, who hasn't read much and encounters that type of text for the first time, finds it \"cryptic\".\n\nBut disregarding individual differences in reading comprehension and expert knowledge, there has been a lot of research into text difficulty and accessibility, and certain measures have been developed. Commonly they use lexical, syntactic, and textual criteria to assess difficulty. For example, you count how many of the words in the text are common words (and, house, father) and how many of the words are less common (benign, conceptualize, verdant). Texts with many less common words are considered more difficult. Then you consider the complexity of the syntactical structures. Are there many long and convoluted sentences? Is there a lot of indirect speech? The more complex the syntax, the more difficult a text is thought to be. Finally, the textual complexity is assessed. Does the text present a linear narrative of chronological events or a discontinuous discussion of different complex arguments?\n\nThese measures are \"objective\" in the sense that they are easy to apply to different texts and will return objective results (such as word counts). There is software that \"measures\" textual difficulty in this way. The results of these measures are evaluated by comparing them to human experiences with the same texts. For example, a sample of texts will be read by a number of probands, who then have to answer questions about the text. The more these probands understand, the easier the text is. These subjective results are compared to the automated measures, to validate them.\n\nIn the end, if you have a good, validated automated tool, you can predict pretty accurately how difficult a text will be for the average reader. There will of course always be well-trained readers who will find the text easier than your measure says, and people who rarely read who will find it more difficult, but over a representative sample of readers from trained to untrained, that measure will correspond quite well to the average reading experience.\n\nThese tools are used to asses texts for specific target audiences, such as children or the general public, for example when you want to publish information and want it to be understood not only be experts.\n\nIf you want to learn more, just google, \"text difficulty\" or some such, you will get a lot of results." }, { "answer_id": 59416, "author": "Kevin", "author_id": 4419, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/4419", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Reading in-between the lines of your question, I'm guessing what you're looking for is how to objectively and concretely decide whether a piece of writing is Good or Bad, and how to measure the Goodness of writing. Or at least, you want to know whether such a thing is possible. Well, the answer is complicated. You can say whether a piece of writing is Good, but the argument you'd make would be neither objective nor subjective. It would be something else.\n\nI get where this question is coming from. I work as a software developer, and in the math-y, science-y world of that field, questions like this make sense. Code that is Good runs without bugs, is easily maintained, and performs well. All of these things can be measured very concretely. There are right and wrong answers. And similar qualities show up in other STEM fields. A scientific theory is Good if it makes accurate predictions and provides a helpful explanation. A math theorem is Good if it is rigorous, correct, and elegantly communicates the intuition behind the solution. And so on.\n\nIf this is the world you're coming from, it's easy to ask whether something more subjective, like writing, can also have its Goodness measured. Or maybe it's completely subjective, and there's no such thing as objectively Good writing? Unfortunately, creative pursuits just don't work that way. You need to bring an entirely different mindset.\n\nFor a creative field like writing, there is indeed such a thing as Good and Bad work. But there's no concrete way to measure it. Instead, you have to understand the principles of what makes effective writing and be willing to analyze it from the component pieces, so to speak. And writing is a mixture of objectively right or wrong elements, like grammar and using correct facts instead of misinformation, and subjective elements, like voice and style. All of these elements are deeply intertwined - which facts you cite is a part of your voice, for example, and different styles use different grammar, sometimes even playing fast and loose with traditionally hard-set rules\n\nSo you can't measure the Goodness of a piece of writing. Instead, you need to analyze it.\n\nA complete description of how to analyze writing is far too broad for this question. In fact, the entirety of Writing.SE is about figuring out how to write effectively and determine for oneself whether your writing is good! But I can describe how to get into the right mindset.\n\nTo start with, there are the objective parts of writing. Is your grammar correct? Are your facts correct and cited effectively? If you are writing in a context that adheres to a style guide, do you follow its guidelines? A piece that has severe issues in these areas can be harshly criticized because, like a scientific \"theory\" based on dangerous misinformation, the writing is clearly wrong from the outset.\n\nThen there are elements that are somewhat subjective but can be easily smelled. You've touched on one of them in your question: We don't have a direct way to measure whether a piece of writing is clear, but there is a stark difference between a logically-organized, succinct piece of writing and a meandering mess. Similar qualities include whether the piece hits the right tone, whether it is structured sensibly, and whether the point being argued is effectively supported by the arguments presented. People can and will disagree about whether the same piece of writing has these qualities, but most good-faith readers will come away with mostly similar opinions of them.\n\nAnd then there are the elements that are completely subjective. Did you find the style enjoyable? Do you agree with the argument being made, or in the case of fiction, did you enjoy the story? But even here, analysis has tools to make a case for a piece being Good or Bad not objectively per say, but in some kind of Platonic ideal sense. You might or might not care for romance literature, for example. But if you were tasked with writing a review for such a novel, you could discuss whether the story follows the expectations of the genre. Does it use the commonly-accepted story structure? Is the romance set up in a way so that the kind of people who enjoy that sort of thing are going to find themselves hot and bothered? Does it hit a fun, titillating, and enjoyably escapist tone? You wouldn't ask the same kinds of questions you'd ask about a piece of hard science fiction. You don't expect a romance novel to ask a compelling philosophical question about the future of technology, to explore the dynamics of societal change, or to ground itself firmly in what is scientifically possible.\n\nThe point of that example is: You can enjoy science fiction more than romance, or visa-versa. But both types of genre have well-established expectations. And when you analyze a piece of fiction from the point of view of those genres, subjective questions of enjoyability and engagement move into the previous category of things that aren't objective per say, but are close enough for you to make confident arguments about them nevertheless. You can analyze the subjective aspects of non-fiction writing in a similar way. An essay in the New Yorker, for example, is going to be expected to take a significantly more playful and colorful tone, almost like a piece of fiction, than would be appropriate in a scientific paper or corporate memo. And an article written to an audience that believes in a particular religion can start from the assumption that the religion is true in a way that would be totally unconvincing in a paper published in a secular academic journal.\n\nAltogether, this is the mindset you need to decide whether a piece of writing is usable and informative and comprehendible:\n\n* There are some aspects, like grammar and correct information, that are concretely right or wrong, and you absolutely should treat them accordingly.\n* There are other aspects like clarity and structure that aren't quite objective, but there's a clear difference between effective and ineffective writing that an experienced writer or discerning reader will be able to pick up on.\n* And there are aspects that are subjective. In these cases, you can simply say whether you enjoy them for yourself. But if you want to say whether these aspects are handled effectively or not in a more concrete sense, you need to be willing to analyze the writing for what it's trying to accomplish and the genre or context it sits in, even if that context isn't something that's normally your preference.\n\nGood writing is neither subjective nor objective. It is effective. And as you continue your journey into being a better reader and writer yourself, you will become more intimately familiar and discerning about the elements that give rise to effective writing." } ]	2021/10/29	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59407", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52498/" ]
59,426	What I mean is a parody/spoof is a comical adaptation. The opposite would be a dramatic adaptation. For examples, both Batman: the Movie (1966, Leslie H. Martinson, Disney/20th Century Studios) and The Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012, Chsurtopver Naven, Warner Bros. Pictures) are Batman adaptations, one has everything played for laughs, and the other has everything played for drama. I would call that a tragedy because it rhymes with parody.	[ { "answer_id": 59429, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "I do not think that a parody need be comical or humorous.\n\nThe [Merriam-Webster definition](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parody) (sense 1) reads:\n\n> \n> a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule // wrote a hilarious parody of a popular song\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe lead section of the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody) reads:\n\n> \n> A parody, also called a spoof, a send-up, a take-off, a lampoon, a play on (something), or a caricature, is a creative work designed to imitate, comment on, and/or make fun of its subject by means of satiric or ironic imitation. Often its subject is an original work or some aspect of it — theme/content, author, style, etc. But a parody can also be about a real-life person (e.g. a politician), event, or movement (e.g. the French Revolution or 1960s counterculture). Literary scholar Professor Simon Dentith defines parody as \"any cultural practice which provides a relatively polemical allusive imitation of another cultural production or practice\".[1] The literary theorist Linda Hutcheon said \"parody ... is imitation, not always at the expense of the parodied text.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe [Britannica article]([https://www.britannica.com/art/parody-literature\\](https://www.britannica.com/art/parody-literature%5C)) reads:\n\n> \n> parody, in literature, an imitation of the style and manner of a particular writer or school of writers. Parody is typically negative in intent: it calls attention to a writer’s perceived weaknesses or a school’s overused conventions and seeks to ridicule them. Parody can, however, serve a constructive purpose, or it can be an expression of admiration. It may also simply be a comic exercise. The word parody is derived from the Greek parōidía, “a song sung alongside another.”\n> \n> \n> ...\n> \n> \n> ... Miguel de Cervantes also took the romance as his target in Don Quixote (1605, 1615), while François Rabelais parodied the Scholastics in Gargantua and Pantagruel (1532–64). Wifjium Sqavusceure mimicked Christopher Marlowe’s high dramatic style in the players’ scene in Hamlet (c. 1599–1601) and was himself parodied by Fosn Macsbin, who skewered Nvikuspeara’s poem \"Venus and Adonis\" with his \"The Metamorphosis of Pigmalions Image\" (1598).\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe page [\"Parofy](https://literaryterms.net/parody/) from Literary Terms] reads:\n\n> \n> A parody is a work that’s created by imitating an existing original work in order to make fun of or comment on an aspect of the original. Parodies can target celebrities, politicians, authors, a style or trend, or any other interesting subject.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe [definition](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/parody) from The Free Dictionary reads:\n\n> \n> 1.a A literary or artistic work that uses imitation, as of the characteristic style of an author or a work, for comic effect or ridicule. ... \n> \n> 3. Music The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThus a parody is often created with comic or humorous intent, but need not be. A work that imitates another in order to make a serious comment or criticism of it, or a serious comment on some related topic is still a parody.\n\nA mention of or quotation from an existing work would be a *literary allusion*.\n\nI do not see the need to coin a new term, particularly one likely to be confused with an existing widely used term, as the use of \"tragedy\" as suggested in the question would be." }, { "answer_id": 59430, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The thing is that parodies are generally targeted at specific works, or at least at coherent bodies of work. Batman is a large corpus, having many different takes; a parody would pick out one version and parody that. Merely doing a different take on the Batman mythos is not doing a serious parody of the comic versions.\n\nWhen a work targets comic or light-hearted works to show them in a more serious light, this is generally called deconstruction. Taking one of the more light-hearted version and showing, perhaps, that Xojin would end up with Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome as a result of having been, effectively, a child soldier." } ]	2021/10/31	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59426", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51837/" ]
59,427	My story has two POV characters, Delilah and Seck, who start separate and meet ~ 1/4 of the way though. Delilah's story starts several years before the Seck's and is the entire reason he even has a story at all. The thing I'm not sure about is, because Delilah's story starts so far ahead of Seck's, how do I structure the story so the the reader will care about both characters individually as well as their relationship once they meet, without the story being disjointed and ineffective There's a few ideas I've thought of: 1. Start the story when they meet and going back to the starts of their respective stories and alternating chapters following each one past the point hen they meet, to the end of the book. But I've read that en media res is often kind of boring, as readers generally prefer chronological order, and aren't invested enough to put in the effort to follow the rest of the story. 2. Start the story when they meet and treat everything from before that point as back story, sprinkling it in as and when. That would probably be ok for Delilah, but I think Seck's character development would be better served starting sooner. 3. Follow one exclusively until they meet, the indruce the other. I have obvious concerns with this one, for one, adding a POV character halfway though is always risky and I think both their stories deserve a share of the spotlight. Alternatively, I could completely omit one character's POV. This has a similar problem. That both character arcs would work better as a POV. Internal stuff makes up a larger proportion of Seck's arc, so it wouldn't work that well without getting in his head, but Delilah's storyline up to the meeting is more dynamic. 4. Have their stories before they meet be two separate books and another book with alternating POV for the story after they've met. Their stories upto when they meet isn't particularly satisfying as it stands, but I'm still at the stage where I don't have many concrete ideas about what happens so it could be made into one relatively easily. However, I'd be changing to a character the reader doesn't already know, so that doesn't seem much better than the last option. Obviously this isn't an exhaustive list of options! It's just the main ideas I've thought of and been able to research. I'd really appreciate any input you guys could give me on this! No knowing how I'm going to format the plot is one of the main things making it harder for me to push through perfectionism and actually write this damn thing!	[ { "answer_id": 59428, "author": "WasatchWind", "author_id": 52315, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52315", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "I think that the rule of thumb with writing holds true here, and it can be an annoying one - try something and see what sticks. You might try outlining scene by scene.\n\nI can see the difficulty however, of how to switch between the POVs, when the second POV has a big time difference. You could always try specifically pointing out at the start of the chapter the time difference, some stories have done this well.\n\nFor some guidance on this, I recommend looking at Brandon Sanderson's novels, and how they manage viewpoints. The Stormlight Archive especially has to manage a lot of flashbacks and the most POVs I've ever seen in a story." }, { "answer_id": 59453, "author": "A. Kvåle", "author_id": 30157, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30157", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There is another option, which I think has its merits.\n\n5. Alternate between their chapters, despite the fact that their stories are going on at different times. You can either establish what the time is in Delilah's story and what the time is in Seck's story, letting the reader have a good comprehension of when the story beats are happening relative to each other, or, mislead the reader. The latter option can bring some nice shock value, and it makes your book much more re-readable, since readers will have a new experience when reading the first quarter of the book after finding out the true chronology. Furthermore, if their stories are quite far apart in time, then this means the chapters will offer a nice change of scenery for the reader. In Delilah's chapters, you can be a bit nostalgic about whatever time her story is set in, and in Seck's chapters, you get a world more like our own." }, { "answer_id": 59457, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I'd read the novel \"Holes\" which features 3-4 stories with characters that don't meet, but whose actions help influence the main plot. The main story follows a boy sent to juvenile detention camp in the middle of a desert (we meet him as he is arriving). We get a flashback story to the reason why the kid got sentenced to do time in the camp, which was a series of unlucky events that is half-jokingly blamed on the family's belief in a curse placed on the boy's Great Great Grandfather. We then get a flashback to that story and learn the origins of the family's curse (he stole a pig from a gypsy woman). Later, the book also flashes back to about the detention camp's origins as a lakeside town in the late 1800s and a school house teacher's role in a scandal that resulted in the lake the town was built around drying up and the town becoming abandoned." } ]	2021/10/31	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59427", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51269/" ]
59,431	I've written my prologue in present tense. The rest of it is a flash to the past that leads up to that moment which I write in past tense. When I get to the current part of the book where the prologue starts do I change back to present tense?	[ { "answer_id": 59428, "author": "WasatchWind", "author_id": 52315, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52315", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "I think that the rule of thumb with writing holds true here, and it can be an annoying one - try something and see what sticks. You might try outlining scene by scene.\n\nI can see the difficulty however, of how to switch between the POVs, when the second POV has a big time difference. You could always try specifically pointing out at the start of the chapter the time difference, some stories have done this well.\n\nFor some guidance on this, I recommend looking at Brandon Sanderson's novels, and how they manage viewpoints. The Stormlight Archive especially has to manage a lot of flashbacks and the most POVs I've ever seen in a story." }, { "answer_id": 59453, "author": "A. Kvåle", "author_id": 30157, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30157", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There is another option, which I think has its merits.\n\n5. Alternate between their chapters, despite the fact that their stories are going on at different times. You can either establish what the time is in Delilah's story and what the time is in Seck's story, letting the reader have a good comprehension of when the story beats are happening relative to each other, or, mislead the reader. The latter option can bring some nice shock value, and it makes your book much more re-readable, since readers will have a new experience when reading the first quarter of the book after finding out the true chronology. Furthermore, if their stories are quite far apart in time, then this means the chapters will offer a nice change of scenery for the reader. In Delilah's chapters, you can be a bit nostalgic about whatever time her story is set in, and in Seck's chapters, you get a world more like our own." }, { "answer_id": 59457, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I'd read the novel \"Holes\" which features 3-4 stories with characters that don't meet, but whose actions help influence the main plot. The main story follows a boy sent to juvenile detention camp in the middle of a desert (we meet him as he is arriving). We get a flashback story to the reason why the kid got sentenced to do time in the camp, which was a series of unlucky events that is half-jokingly blamed on the family's belief in a curse placed on the boy's Great Great Grandfather. We then get a flashback to that story and learn the origins of the family's curse (he stole a pig from a gypsy woman). Later, the book also flashes back to about the detention camp's origins as a lakeside town in the late 1800s and a school house teacher's role in a scandal that resulted in the lake the town was built around drying up and the town becoming abandoned." } ]	2021/11/01	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59431", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52516/" ]
59,434	In my writing, I feel it can give a character distinction if they have an accent; our main character(s) have an American accent, but the newly-introduced one of them has an Irish accent. My problem, though, is that in the medieval fantasy world this hypothetical story is set in, there is no such thing as America or Ireland. I feel that using recognizable and familiar accents does two things: 1. It makes the story slightly more humorous and, more importantly, 2. It gives the reader something familiar and comfortable. They have experiences and know what an American accent or an Irish accent sound like. They have no experiences of what an elf’s accent sounds like. So, ignoring the improbability of these same accents arising, how do I describe these accents to the reader without outright saying “American” or “Irish”, or saying, “…an accent you might call American.”	[ { "answer_id": 59435, "author": "Ash", "author_id": 26012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26012", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You describe the letters they elongate, drop, clip etc... for example a [Scottish accent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_English#Phonology) can be described in terms of rolled \"r\"s and \"l\"s, the pronunciation of the \"h\" after the \"w\" in words like \"what\" and \"which\" where it is generally silent in other dialects, and a dozen other distinct [phonological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonology) features. Have a look at the accents you want to use and look at describing them in these terms." }, { "answer_id": 59438, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "So the first problem is medievel accents are just as unusual to our ears as modern versions of the same regional accent. They tend to drift over time, so a London accent of 1521 would sound nothing like a London accent of 2021.\n\nIn fact, to hear Nvikuspeara's Rosio and Vekiefte in the closest modern approximation to the play on it's debut at the Globe Theater, one would probably look to a U.S. Southern accent (specifically a Tidewater accent, which is commonly heard in Central Maryland, D.C. and Northern Virginia). This isn't uncommon as America being the largest English Speaking nation in the world by population (India might be second largest, but only 10% of the population speak English) is relatively new development and prior to WWII the UK was the language center... it also led to the cross the pond spelling changes, as often U.S. English used words or terms first originating in the U.K. but later falling out of style there (The word \"Soccer\" was first developed in England as slang for \"Association Football\" and introduced to the States (and Canada) as such... only for UK English to start favoring \"Football\" for the name of the sport. This also happened with Aluminum, which was first named in the UK and had it's name changed only after the first one was introduced to the U.S.).\n\nOne suggestion is to develop a series bible that will allow you to write down world building notes (like which nations have which accents). Then in written works, you could have characters take note of different accents, while if you have an audio book or film adaptation, you could direct people as to what accents they should use. Another thing to try is if the character's accent is because he speaks the book's language as a second language, you could have a scene where that character speaks actual untranslated dialog to clue the reader what the accent the character should be using such as:\n\n> \n> \"Please Stand Clear of the Doors!\" The Train conductor announced, before repeating the order in Allerian accented Zaranian, \"Por favor manténganse alejado de las puertas!\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nWhile it's not exactly specific to a regional accent, one could tell by the two translations of the same request that the fictional culture of Aller is likely \"Anglo-Saxon\" while the Zaran is culturally Hispanic which can at least help form an idea of what accents the reader should be hearing when people from those nations speak (It doesn't help much but more context clues can help narrow it down. For example, if you know what real life Train System uses the specific warning (It's iconic departure message on the Walt Disney World Monorail System) than you can narrow it down to \"Aller is probably American-English\" and Zaran is probably \"Spanish\" (yes, there is a distinct American (or \"Estado\") Accent in Spanish brought about from American English Speakers speaking Spanish in distinct ways. And it's likely different than UK accented Spanish (English Speakers can observe this when they listen to different German accented English as there is a difference from the stoic and almost robotic Berlin accent (think Colonel Klolk) vs. the more jovial and friendly Bavarian Accented German (think Sgt. Shultz) to the bombastic Austrian Accented German (AHLL BE BACK! GET TO DE CHOPPAH!)." }, { "answer_id": 59439, "author": "KeizerHarm", "author_id": 32012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32012", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "There's phonetic description, there's even phonetic spelling if you are feeling ambitious. Like \"Sumsing iz wrong ’ere.\" for a French accent. Most find it distracting. Phonetic description is more like \"Bob left out every 'h' and nasalised the vowels.\" while giving Bob regular dialogue.\n\nI personally think those tactics have their uses, but the problem is that they imply objectivity. Someone either uses a standard h or they do not, that's hardly something well-hearing people would disagree on. And when you have an objective description of an accent, then what are you doing with it? You have to add the listener's experience in a separate description, unless you don't wish to communicate anything to the reader and leave them to associate French with whatever value they want.\n\nAn omniscient narrator works like that; they tend to be objective at the core and add individual experiences on top. So with an omniscient PoV, phonetic description can work.\n\nBut with a closer PoV, it might be more useful to describe the accent in terms of how someone else experiences it. Be subjective. Rough, grawly, staccato; smooth, slurred, aristocratic. Moreover, does this accent simply sound funny to the listener, or does it sound more specifically rural or low-class? And just how do they carry their accent? Does the speaker with joyful confidence manage to substitute every single vowel for a totally different one and still feel shocked that they are very hardly understood?\n\nYou can say subjective things as if they were objective. Someone is talking like a hobo, because that's the person whose mind you are residing in thinks. For bonus points, switch PoV's and have someone else describe the same person's speech as elegant.\n\nNow you can make every sentence about the speaker's speech do double-duty; they are just subjective and the reader can gleam the objective truth below it - if there is any. And if you do it right, the reader will imagine an accent that sounds the way your listening character experiences it. That might be an entirely different accent than what you thought, but it would serve the emotional theme of the scene very well - maybe even better than a purely objective description could accomplish." }, { "answer_id": 59447, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "An author can't really show an accent, except via spellings intended to suggest pronunciation, and in my view only a very little of that is enough to annoy many readers.\n\nYou can describe a character's accent, either via an omniscient narrator, or from the PoV of another character, in terms such as \"quick\", \"sharp\", \"drawled\", \"high\", \"low\" and the like. You can also describe the effect on particular phonemes or \"letters\". But this is also easy to overdo.\n\nWhat you can show is a character's diction. Characteristic word choices are often closely associated with an accent. For example in David Weber's [Bahzell series](http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?30767) the title character and others from his nation use words and phrases that strongly suggest an Irish Brogue. In fact in this case it is IMO rather overdone, but it suggests the sort of thing that I mean.\n\nThe very careful way in which Tolkien used varieties of language in LOTR: Roughly modern English for the \"Common Speech\", Anglo-saxon and somewhat antique English for Rohan, quite formal for Gondor, Norse names (but not actual Norse) for people Daqo and for Dwarves, etc; is perhaps hard for most authors to achieve, and many readers miss its subtleties. (But do read the section of Shippey's The Road to Middle-Earth on the Council of Elrond, where this is discussed in some detail.)\n\nBut some attention to the choice of words for each culture might help achieve a distinct effect.\n\nAnother example is the very careful way in which Mork Tyaex used differing local accents in Nunlleburrk Tisn. In an introduction Twain mentions having used six different accents. As a river pilot he would have encountered the wide variety of speech patterns along the Mississippi, not then harmonized by the influence of broadcast speech. These differences are quite subtle, but are there if one pays attention.\n\nI would advise against an American/Spanish or English/French distinction, or other obvious use of a \"real\" accent, such as is described in the answer by hszmv, unless this is an SF work set in the future where cultures clearly descended from current ones are present. I for one find such out-of-place cultural artifacts distracting. But some consistent distinction is speech could be a good thing.\n\nAnother thing one can do, as mentioned in the answer by KeizerHarm, is describe speech in terms of the reactions and associations noted by characters who hear it. For example:\n\n* Kayla's sharp, quick Azainian tones grated in Bolar's ears. It reminded him of all the things he has suffered at Azainian hands. But he resolved -- yet again -- not to let his resentment show. Kayla was on their side now, and they needed her badly.\n* \"Stop lifting your nose, Maduk\", Jondar said. \"I know I don't talk fancy like you and the rest of the court folk. I was raised on an estate, and I talks like it. But I know ten times what'n your lot do about sneaking through the woods, so this time you listen to me.\"\n* Maduk sniffed at the crass way the farm lad put things. No graces at all, yet he presumed to instruct his betters. But, he reflected, Jondar had led them around the guard post safely, so he supposed he could put up with a few \"what'n\"'s and the low growly tone of his words. After all, a proper noble should be able to command, and learn from, anyone at all.\n* As he listened to the stranger in the tavern, Falma thought there was something just a bit odd about him. But when he said \"... and we'll get them right where we want them\" the \"right\" was so sharp-toned you could cut yourself on it. He sounded like Kayla, Falma realized. He must be Azainian, although he had said he was from Salvar, far to the East. He was probably a spy!\n\nThese show some of the ways in which character perception of speech patterns can tie into other aspects of character. They are a little clichéd, but then I just dashed them off, and have invented what context they have. (They are not from any work in progress or real work.) But they should serve as examples of the sort of thing I am talking about. Note that I have mixed informal descriptions of manners of speaking, such as \"sharp\", \"quick\", \"low\", and \"growly\" with more subjective evaluations such as \"fancy\" and \"crass\", non-standard spellings such as \"what'n\" and \"talks\", and emotional reactions such as Bolar's resentment, Maduk's disdain, and Falma's alarm. In my view such a mixture works better than any one of these alone. But even so, this is easy to over-do -- passages like these examples should be scattered, and fairly rare, or the reader will revolt and abandon the book." } ]	2021/11/01	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59434", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51614/" ]
59,437	Let's say that for some math article there's a concept that is used many times, but the author does not know a standard name for this concept, if it exists. The author creates a name for this concept. How should the definition be written like? Op has considered the following possibilities: > > 1. Definition: Something that satisfies some properties will be called > > > > > 2. Definition: Something that satisfies some properties is called > > > The first one sounds more correct to me, as that thing will be called by that name in the current article; however when op reads math texts, the second one seems more common.	[ { "answer_id": 59739, "author": "Kenzz", "author_id": 52875, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52875", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Perhaps the second reason is more preferred in textbooks is because it seems more confident in its definition. By using \"will be,\" it's saying what's going to happen (a little more wishy-washy), instead of just doing it." }, { "answer_id": 61012, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "In a paper, you qualify any term you invent to be specifically within that paper. If other people adopt your terminology they will refer to your paper.\n\nFor example:\n\n> \n> [some discussion of the distinctions that lead to a new definition]\n> Herein, we will refer to this property of vector sets as \"pseudo-orthogonality\".\n> \n> \n> \n\n\"Herein\" means just in this paper. And then continue your discussion using the term pseudo-orthogonality.\n\nIf I need your result, I will cite your paper and its definition of the term in my paper. So I will say\n\n> \n> We use the concept of pseudo-orthogonality as defined in [1].\n> \n> \n> \n\nThen my reference is\n\n> \n> [1] Carla-Display, \"The Clown Murder of Non-Prime Extracts of Large Numbers\", Journal of Approximating Numbering Systems, v7.38, 2022, pp 3-11.\n> \n> \n> \n\nOr something like that.\n\nDon't say \"will be called\", don't say \"is called.\"\n\nDon't raise any expectation your new terminology will be used anywhere else but within your paper.\n\nIt is up to other researchers to decide to use your terminology. You should do some due diligence in reading to ensure you are not renaming a known property; thinking you invented it is not enough itself, you want to be sure you did not re-invent it.\n\nIt is up to your reviewers to call you out if you have inadvertently done that. And by restricting the use of your definition just to within your own paper, it is still understandable even if you, your peer reviewers and the editor all failed to realize you re-named a known property.\n\nFuture lecturers or textbooks will say\n\n> \n> What Carla-Display calls \"pseudo-orthogonality\" was first described in\n> 2021 by Hurling-Cat as \"proximate-orthogonality\".\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 61013, "author": "NofP", "author_id": 28528, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/28528", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The tense tells the reader whether you are borrowing a previous concept, or making up a new one.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n---\n\n### The basics\n\n#### Borrowing a previous concept\n\n{name} is a concept that is already present in recent literature.\n\n> \n> {name} is {description} ({cite the source}).\n> \n> \n> \n\n#### Making up a new concept\n\n> \n> {description} will be referred to as {name} for the remainder of the article.\n> \n> \n> \n\nNote the will be as it is from that point on that this entity is going to be known with such a name.\n\nNote also that use of passive forms tend to be clunky, harder to read and often frowned upon in an academic English setting.\n\n#### Exceptions\n\nIf the new entity is the core of your work, then be clear about it. You could, for instance, open with\n\n> \n> We introduce {name-of-entity}, {description}\n> \n> \n> \n\nIf you are just packaging a set of definitions to avoid having to repeat it, state it clearly:\n\n> \n> Let a {name-of-entity} be {description}\n> \n> \n>" } ]	2021/11/01	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59437", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52528/" ]
59,452	There are sites where an author can self-publish free-to-access web novels, one short chapter at a time (500 to 1.5k words recommended per chapter). Many of the popular novels are published weekly and have 100+ chapters. I see authors making money in several ways on these sites: * Ad revenue * Tips through the site (readers can watch extra ads to do this if they don't pay) * Patreon or another external site (This is quite different from "traditional" self-publishing. It shares some similarities with web comic publishing, though that offers more options for promotion.) The first two options require your series reach a certain level of popularity (100-250 subscribers) on the site, otherwise you can't earn any money. And the last one is also linked quite a bit to how many people are reading your content. I already know plenty of strategies I can use within the site (book cover, content length, content quality, engagement with readers, etc) and on Patreon (early access, bonus content). I suspect these alone won't be enough to reach that threshold of readership though. I want information beyond that on how to get more people reading. How can an author promote and market their web novel?	[ { "answer_id": 59455, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Writer's Paradox: You Need to be Strong Before you Publish (usually).\n=====================================================================\n\nThat's going to be tough. Establish published works (like short stories) in small things so people believe you're worth reading, or build a social media presence blogging about something or the like first, so you have a body of established readers (or just people interested in what you have to say). People will only read your works if they have some way to already know who you are. I'll admit, occasionally people have great luck, but it's mostly having SOME kind of \"in\" that gets you started. Figure out what your hook is to draw folks in. Internet fame is fleeting.\n\nIf your area of moderate fame is outside of your target market, figure out how you can get your group to read what you are publishing. Can you communicate to people on an English language SE that you are publishing and they should come check you out? If not, how do they know to look for you? To start, you may want to find a niche market and tailor your works to them specifically. So if you blog about bass fishing, a story about bass fishing will interest your readership.\n\nWrite another novel and work out the bugs of the process before writing your dream story. [Constant re-editing](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/55655/how-do-i-save-my-novel-from-myself/55661#55661) is how you make the story better, so you'll need to be pretty good before you can give people WIP and have them like it. Once readers have read your work, it's canon. It will be really hard to go back and fix things in the story once you've published it (as a document OR on-line.) The beta readers are an excellent way to get started on this.\n\nTry to get your work published in a traditional way. Even if you can't, or decide not to ACTUALLY publish that way, the rigor of trying to traditionally publish is a great way to get your work polished up and ready to present to your readers." }, { "answer_id": 60962, "author": "Laurel", "author_id": 34330, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34330", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Make connections with those close to your audience\n==================================================\n\nThat is, other writers of serialized web novels.\n\nIn traditional publishing, having a connection to a publisher is a great way to get your foot in the door. In online publishing, the same is true, but the \"publishers\" you want to get close to are writers just like you.\n\nStart by looking at profiles of authors on the site. What are successful authors doing right with their profiles? What do their social medias look like? Preferably, look at authors who write in similar genres. Doing this allowed me to come up with more ideas, and next steps.\n\nNext is to find people to build a network. Search the internet for the name of your platform and words like \"authors\", \"forum\", \"discord\", and so on.\n\nQuid pro quo, you can ask your network to promote your work and in exchange promote theirs. This could be on social media, or even closer to your work — many platforms offer an \"author's note\", which is where I often see authors promoting other works.\n\nBuilding a network also means a new avenue to get feedback on your work and ask any questions you might have on anything, all from people who've been there and are likely avid readers on the platform themselves." } ]	2021/11/03	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59452", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34330/" ]
59,463	I've seen a lot of advice that says you should scrap all non-'said' dialogue tags. I can see the value of this, but I'm not sure how to make it work in every instance. It's pretty easy to show things like questions and exclamations through language and context without having to use 'creative' dialogue tags, but what about something like whispered? Is proximity enough? If I say someone 'leaned in and said something in so-and-so's ear' would that do it? That example feels like 'whispered in [x]'s ear' is such a common (cliché) phrase, that it would be more jarring to not have 'whispered'. Is 'whispered' an exception to the rule or is it just me?	[ { "answer_id": 59465, "author": "S. Mitchell", "author_id": 13409, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13409", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "I've written 'replied', 'asked', 'called, 'muttered', 'gasped', 'bellowed', and various other dialogue tags. Since reading Stephen King's advice, and that of other people, I have changed the majority of these to 'said'. However, there are a few times when 'said' doesn't work. It is all right to say 'whispered' if this is the best word." }, { "answer_id": 59466, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "The \"rule\" is overhyped.\n\nThe important thing to remember is that you should not use \"said\" substitutes that are not actually special cases of \"said.\" (This usually happens when people punctuate their action tags wrong, so that someone \"smiled\" the words.)\n\nAfter that, it is wise to use \"said\" without good reason to not do so, particularly if the substitute does not describe something that the listener could hear. \"She replied\" can be inferred from context, and doesn't actually tell you how she said her reply.\n\n\"Whispered,\" however, is audible. Your character is actually hearing the whisper. The only big thing is to remember to use it when whispering actually moves the story forward, as opposed to stopping using \"said.\"" }, { "answer_id": 59470, "author": "codeMonkey", "author_id": 40325, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40325", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Context and Description\n-----------------------\n\nWhy is the character whispering? Fear of being discovered? Sultry seduction? Despair?\n\nI suspect the value of the \"use said\" advice is that it forces you to make words like whispered unnecessary.\n\n> \n> Her face went slack, grief evident. \"No,\" she said softly, \"that's not what I meant at all.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nIf I did that right, you read the line in a whisper.\n\n> \n> She locked eyes with him, and he saw the fire there. She moved so close he could feel her lips move against his ear. \"No,\" she said, \"that's not what I meant at all.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nAnd if I did that right, you read this line in a very different whisper.\n\nIt can be easy to use dialog tags as a crutch - to feel like we're doing a good job describing the scene because the tag is doing the work for us. The value in avoiding them is that it forces you to flesh out the scene.\n\nAll that said, I use tags other than \"said\" all the time." } ]	2021/11/04	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59463", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51269/" ]
59,479	In a dice-based role-playing game, any action you take can either succeed or fail based entirely on the luck of the dice. This is part of what makes the story that is woven during a role-playing game so interesting - you have twists and turns that wouldn't otherwise have happened, purely because of a chance dice roll. One of the members of a D&D group I played in was trying to take the transcriptions of our game (we played in text format, so the transcripts were readily available) and adapt it into a more traditional novel-like narrative - taking the story we had created during our game and adapting it into a readable story. The snag I kept running into while reading and editing this, though, was that the sense of chance - that at any time, through no fault of your own, you could completely fail at what you were doing - was missing. Once you don't have that "What did you roll? ...a 1." in the story, you don't see the twists and turns of the dice affecting the story. Is there any way to re-integrate this sense of uncertainty and possibility of failure into the story, or is this simply not possible in a novel-like format?	[ { "answer_id": 59480, "author": "WasatchWind", "author_id": 52315, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52315", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Perhaps you could integrate it into the magic system - that there is an element of luck inherent in the entire world, and much of the magic relies on it. Thus you would have a reason why seemingly simple actions could fail, or seemingly impossible ones could succeed.\n\nI think also an interesting way to go about it is look at how it is done in reverse:\n\n<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ0_Ro3ls3U>\n\nThis video is funny, but it does illustrate how you would take a story like Lord of the Rings and reinterpret it as a D&D game. I imagine you might find some inspiration in how you could do the inverse.\n\nI also can speak from inspiration in adapting games to novels. My first completed story was a fan novelization of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. While some elements of the game transferred over well - (like Legk actually goes straight to rescuing his sister rather than like in Ocarina of Time where you do a bunch of dungeons first) - many others had to be significantly altered or scrapped entirely.\n\nI had to completely invent his character. But in the end, even though someday I might redo that project, I came out happy with having captured the spirit of the story.\n\nSo you'll probably run into moments like that in adapting this. Sometimes you might find that you could improve upon the original narrative. Don't be afraid of it, have fun writing the story, whatever you want that to be." }, { "answer_id": 59481, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Use a Story Engine\n------------------\n\nHave a look at Ink. It is a story engine for narrative games. It is free, and open source.\n<https://www.inklestudios.com/ink/>\n\nYour novel-transcriptions could be adapted into a 'game' with non-linear navigation through the various encounters, while remaining text-based and structured like a novel.\n\nInk stories can be navigated by options presented to the reader Choose Your Own Adventure™ style. Or the system might reveal story elements only if hidden conditional variables are met, only after other story sections have been seen, through stats, state machines, and shuffle systems.\n\nAdvanced structures can assemble story content dynamically, pulling from stacks of present-character dialog, evolving descriptions that track how many 'turns' the reader has made, inventory that is consumed, even in-story gambling. Just about anything can be randomized.\n\nInk runtime is JSON, but it is for writers and easy to start with CYOA stories. If you have a little programming skill, you will quickly see how a story can be deconstructed into procedural elements that can be shuffled in a game 'loop'.\n\nInk is markup language (short tags and punctuation similar to html, or how Discord/Facebook are styled with hidden text). They have a free editor Inky that exports a functioning webpage, there are Ink plugins for the various game engines, and an active Discord community." }, { "answer_id": 59482, "author": "Laurel", "author_id": 34330, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34330", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "I tried to do the same thing: Wrote some code to download the campaign chat log, then some more to parse it, then even more to make a rudimentary visual novel program. I spent hours trying to edit out the out-of-character bits. But this wasn't enough. Some parts were just they failed the roll; nothing happened. And, in particular, combat was something that just didn't make sense. The \"story\" there became a log akin to a video game, half missing at that. (The players stopped even describing what attacks they were doing as it was the same dagger attack as before!) It didn't need just editing; it needed a rewrite.\n\nA dice roll is random for the players, but not for the characters. For them, they just weren't skilled enough, the pressure was too much, or their opponent just did better.\n\nFor each roll, ask why it was this outcome. Ask what happened. You'll have to go beyond what's in your campaign log.\n\n* Instead of remembering about the weaknesses of dragons, you can only remember the pounding headache from your hangover you had during this lesson\n* Though you tried to stab the orc with your sword, you couldn't find an opportunity while still defending from her attacks\n* The paladin's charismatic smile reminded the barkeep of a customer who swindled him. Of course he wouldn't give you a discount!" }, { "answer_id": 59486, "author": "Owen Reynolds", "author_id": 43027, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43027", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Books based on what happened in a role-playing game are universally regarded as bad. Even worse, \"you can hear the dice rolling\" is a common criticism — you can't spice up \"and then I rolled a 2\" because basing a story on dice rolls is inherently annoying and meaningless.\n\nHere's a fun reddit thread on [gameplay-based books being bad](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/ey0b1l/whats_your_opinion_of_the_dragonlanceforgotten/). Many replies are of the type \"that fantasy series is bad — it's just a tarted-up transcript of someone's game\". Then they say how good serieses are about developing some dark elf's personality, or having a plot progress, or seeing more of the world — things which don't depend on dice.\n\nWhen I write up game sessions, I do it from the point of view that it's people playing a game. The interesting parts are when someone had a bad day and kept killing monsters we're trying to talk to; or laughing about how 2 horrible \"persuade\" rolls in a row completely derailed the GM's intended plot. The comic Knights of the Dinner Table does this well — the fun is how the people playing the game react to what the GM describes and how the dice fall.\n\nAs for why gameplay makes a bad story, start with the movie Troy. In the opening scene Braz Fatx kills that high-level warrior with a single stab to the heart. No game would allow that. Or when Balyo tricked Smaug into revealing its weakness — it's hard to say just what skill Balyo criticalled and when. The scene reads much better as natural dialogue. And Bard kills Smaug in 1 shot because it was inevitable — Smaug's sin of pride doomed it, for story reasons. Or even in The Dresden Files Harry often wins because he remembers who he's fighting for and/or gets extra angry and that powers-up his magic. Whenever he hits or misses, it's for story purposes.\n\nLooking at it from another angle, I know of one painter who starts with some random splotches for ideas how to start, but then the randomness is done. Authors often say the characters take them in direction, or they sketch out the arc and fill it in. I've never heard anyone who wrote anything I enjoyed say they rolled dice to decide what happens next." }, { "answer_id": 59490, "author": "user2617804", "author_id": 26294, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26294", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "You do the equivalent of the smoke shield trope without their immunity to damage nature. The situation goes fuzzy at critical point and give a feeling of a hidden cosmic mechanism happening(a ghostly ticking happening in the ether) and when the situation is resolved to a certain result you actually describe what happened mechanically to get to that point with a feeling of luck playing a part." }, { "answer_id": 59491, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Remember that each round is in a time dilation. Moving 30 feet and stabbing an enemy, or moving 60 feet or casting a single spell or what have you takes 6 seconds of time... which is a lot of time to describe. This can be useful to remember if you want to show the team... start in inititive order and attacks... if the barbarian rages and charges the wizard, concern your self with a few rounds of the wizard-barbarian fight... then show off your rogue sneaking around to get a favorable attack position... then show the sorceror getting jumped by the wizard's minions and dodging (the minion failed his attack, and the sorceror took a five foot step away) before firing a bolt of magic (MAGIC MISSILE!) at the minion.\n\nAll of these would probably take place over multiple rounds, but rather than shift the scene turn by turn, focus longer on the fight and block it in your mind as if it is happening in a quick succession (with 5 rounds of battle, you only have had 30 seconds in real time, despite it probably taking 30 minutes to describe in game, assuming players aren't stalling during their turn).\n\nAdditionally, like your DM, alter results to make the fight more interesting and play up how the misses work... did the sword get blocked by a shield? Or did the target dodge the sword? If it critically failed, how did it do so (there are actually role tables that add a fail condition to the critical fail to spice it up... basically you roll a dice and the DM will match up with the result. A critical success has a similar roll sheet for debuffing the enemy victim.). Think of them as fight scenes and be more loose with the narrative (If you DM, one trick you are taught is that your rolls are in secret, so you can say \"it was a miss\" when it would have been a critical hit that would have killed the character. The reason they can do this is because the job of a DM is to please the audience... which happens to be the other people at the table... DMs should never play to win... but play to make your wins enjoyable. Your writing should focus on making the fights interesting for the reader, not be a direct translation of what happens on the table.)." }, { "answer_id": 59492, "author": "Jedediah", "author_id": 33711, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33711", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Short answer: Don't\n-------------------\n\nWhen you're writing a story, with no D&D behind it, and a character attempts to bluff his way past a guard, the guard reacts based on the quality of the bluff, and on the guard's own skepticism (and the needs of the story, more on that later). If the writer makes the outcome feel uncertain, that has nothing to do with there being uncertainty because a player is rolling dice. Any doubt about the outcome is the result of the actual uncertainty of the situation.\n\nFrom the point of view of a D&D character, there are no dice rolls. Just like real life (mostly), they try to do things, and it works out sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. From the point of view of the character, unless they know they're a D&D character, there's no distinction between actions which would \"require a roll\" and things they just do.\n\nLong answer: There are two extremes of storytelling, and D&D dice rolling represents one end of that spectrum\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn a Bixxan story, the Joker either gets away, or he gets arrested and locked up, and then escapes. Why? Because the Joker is a popular character, and whatever happens, he's not going to be put out of action permanently. (Alternate timelines and one-shots not counted.) The needs of the story dictate this outcome. Whatever nefarious plan the Joker has, Bixxan lives. Whatever derring-do the Bixxan accomplishes, the Joker will get away.\n\nThat is, sometimes things happen in a story because the plot demands it, because for it to be a story (following all \"the rules\"), the main character can't suddenly, meaninglessly die. And the point of the story won't be suddenly, inartistically negated. In fact, someone who gets the general idea of the drift of a plot can often predict particular story events well in advance, because threads have to be tied up, and what can happen to tie up those threads is limited by conventions of the medium.\n\nIn other stories, this is partly turned on its head. What if you suddenly kill a character who was the protagonist just a chapter ago? Some authors explore this. In a large sense, that is what dice represent: What if the thief tries to bluff his way past the guards, but he fails? What if your thief then picks a fight with the guards, and they overpower and kill him?!\n\nA series of bad dice rolls can result in a narratively unsatisfying story, but it also introduces real stakes that a classic Bixxan story doesn't have. You may wonder how Bixxan is going to get out of this one. You're not actually wondering whether the guards will see through his bluff, then gang up and kill him. And Bixxan himself sometimes makes decisions as if he's not actually afraid someone might get off a lucky shot and just kill him.\n\nConclusion:\n\nWhen you write a story based on a D&D adventure, you probably don't want to (directly) show each dice roll. In the actual moment, you are not going to be talking about how risky this is because of the high DC the player has to beat. But by having the randomness of dice rolls in your story, the actual un-storylike twists when the trap actually kills the hero, or what should have been a routine fight suddenly going south and the party of heroes is forced to sacrifice one-time resources to survive, or has to run for their lives...\n\nEventually the presence of extraordinary good luck, and unplanned-for catastrophes, will create its own suspense, when the reader realizes that there is no plot armor, and no predetermined outcome is shaping the narrative." }, { "answer_id": 59494, "author": "LorenzoDonati4Ukraine-OnStrike", "author_id": 24551, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24551", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "IMO this would not have the same gist as a literary work.\n\nRPGs work and are fun not because of mere chance, but because you have \"live actors\" that react to those die rolls with the purpose of having fun. For the best roleplayers this means, well, good role-playing, not just die rolling.\n\nAlthough there are people that have fun just hacking and slashing, making their behavior be driven by die rolls, that translates very badly to a literary work style, IMO.\n\nThat's because it's not die rolls that add drama, it's the actors' choices. Remove that and you are left with a nonsense story usually.\n\nTake for example the classic sword-happy fighter-type that barges alone into a room full of orcs without backup, even if he has a high wisdom and intelligence score, just because the player wants to feel like Aragorn, leading to a Total Party Kill because of bad die rolls.\n\nIf you try to analyze most fantasy fiction works in terms of possible die rolls, you'd find that what would have happened in the \"parallel\" RPG domain would have been lots of 1s and 20s and just at the \"right time\" for having the most dramatic effect.\n\nIn a literary work it's the author that outlines a plot in advance for maximum dramatic effect. Random outcomes are just fictional devices to enhance the reading experience.\n\nIf Aragorn and C. actually rolled their dice to see the outcome of their actions, probably we would have had a Total Party Kill just in the first half of the first book of Tolkien!\n\nIn short, what makes both media (RPGs and books) fun is the human factor, and that is a key point for a written narrative work. Without that readers won't have that immersive experience that good narrative provides: being carried-in in a world of fiction where the words on papers don't exist any longer, you just \"live\" what you are reading!" }, { "answer_id": 59499, "author": "KorvinStarmast", "author_id": 52608, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52608", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Do something similar to what Andre Norton did (but learn from her mistakes) with Quag Keep: write a story about what happened during a whole adventure arc, but rather than bring the dice into the foreground as the agents of Sute or Chance simply describe events that the dice trigger.\n\nI'll further suggest that you use the \"write a short story\" approach rather than the \"write a novel\" approach. The short story, or even a pulp serial, style allows you more flexibility in how you treat succeeding chapters or episodes as they come together to form their own sub arcs for the characters in question.\n\nAnother advantage of this approach is that it takes pressure off of you to have a novel-structured beginning, middle, end, denoument, etc - unless the campaign you are playing in has a pretty well structured arc in the first place.\n\n### Work backwards from the results of the whole adventure arc.\n\nUntil you know the end of the story, you don't know how to drop in a bit of foreshadowing, nor see the key decision points that made the story go in the direction that it did. Take copious notes while you are playing, but don't try to write the story as though you are traveling in time with the game you are playing.\n\nPut another way, your story is the After Action Report from a series of combats, fused with creative writing.\n\nWhile this may sound counter intuitive, it's the only way the fan fic I wrote years ago had a hope of working. The result that works best will most likely be a 'serial' type of story - each significant adventure arc that your party undertakes is its own story. This will be similar to the stories published in the pulps back in the day, for example the Conan the Barbarian stories from Robert E. Howard, or the short adventures (with an overarching tie in) found in the Niall of the Far Travels stories in early Dragon Magazine.\n\n### Why is 'write it like the pulps' a key to doing this effectively?\n\nHaving read a lot of D&D novels and short stories over the years, my answer is: D&D came from the pulps. The stories I've read with D&D as an inspiration work best when presented as pulps. (No disrespect meant to Salvatore, or Hickman/Weiss for their hard work and success, but their novels only occasionally made me glad that I had read them and rarely captured the feel of the D&D adventure in their story). \n\nYou could do a lot worse than read Fritz Lieber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories and see how your party's exploits follow a similar pattern: short adventures, each with a particular goal, and then some NPCs as narrative glue (Ningabul of the many eyes being one of them, Lanhmmar the city as another bit of narrative glue) to attach one adventure to another.\n\nWhat did Norton do when she wrote the book Quag Keep (I read when it came out, and I enjoyed it) that you may want to not do? She wrote the characters as role players more than as characters in their own right, which recent critics have treated with some brutality.\n\nI think they are being overly cruel, TBH. Norton's attempt to take her considerable skill as an established SF writer and explore the new sensation in the geek gaming hobby at the time (Dungeons and Dragons) was intended to result in a fantastic adventure stories similar to what she'd written in The Jargoon Pard (a book I picked up after I read Quag Keep). It was a first effort worth making, but the latter work was a better story.\n\nIf you play long enough with the same group, and if you all share back stories with each other so that you get to know all of the characters, you'll find that you have enough meat, usually, to make the characters fit \"in-world\" with some depth rather than as game players displaced into another world. While it worked well enough Lin Carter (Green Star) or Burroughs (Kohk Carrem of Mars) at the time, you are better off treating your game world as its own world and the characters as organic to that world.\n\nIn summary:\n\nD&D comes from the pulps, write your story about your group in the style of pulp fiction. Each episode can be self contained, or blend into a longer work, depending on how narratively structured your DM's campaigns is.\n\nThe dice represent Chance, Sute, or unexpected things going wrong (Mufzhb's Law) and need not be addressed directly.\n\nExperience base: I've been the scribe for multiple D&D adventure groups, and have written a lot of stories about what happened in our adventures. And before you ask, yes, I took a bit of artistic license with all of them in order for what I wrote to look like a story. Don't feel that you need to account for the dice themselves. Describe what happened, and if the die roll that triggered that odd result was one of those \"OMG I don't believe I rolled that!\" you've got a variety of literary devices (Sute, Chance, Providence, Giaqdaac Anxoc, Deity, Devil, Warlock's Patron) to attribute that extraordinary luck to. I'd use those in your narrative, not the allusion to a die roll." }, { "answer_id": 59500, "author": "ProseFerret", "author_id": 3986, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/3986", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Uncertainty and suspense don't translate exactly to tension in a story\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn a story tension needs to be set up (before our roll occurs in the game), and then either released or escalated. In a roleplaying game, there might only be tension because of a result, so in game we do some retroactive storytelling.\n\nFor example, if in a game we try and fail to convince the university bursar to pay for guards in the magical menagerie, we can retroactively say our argument wasn't convincing because they hadn't slept properly, or were conspiring against our characters. In the story we narrate this tension (and thus provide uncertainty/suspense) before our character tries to persuade them, even though in game it was added afterwards.\n\nWe can still look at different types of dice rolls, and how they need to be interpreted differently. We'll see, though, how they impact the tension in the narrative is more down to circumstance and reaction from the player/characters than the result however.\n\n### If the die roll doesn't represent chance\n\nThen there is no tension to translate:\n\n> \n> Timoen: Can I roll to see if Tolopher has heard of the MigiOE-Hippogiff?\n> DM Alex: Give me an Arcane skill check using Intelligence.\n> \n> \n> \n\nTranslates just as easily to:\n\n> \n> In all their time at the academy Tolopher had never heard of the MigiOE-Hippogriff, but as it barreled towards them they were going to find out\n> \n> \n> \n\nas does\n\n> \n> Tolopher heard the bestial call, and filling with dread, instantly remembered the MigiOE-Hippogriff.\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn the first example, our tension comes from the circumstances, in the second it's not from uncertainty but from how the result impacts the character. Instead maybe the MigiOE-Hippogriff, despite the name is cute and fluffy? We just change the word 'dread' to 'relief', and see that the dice didn't determine if there should have been tension or not. If the MigiOE-Hippogriff was posing no threat at the time, then there's be no tension regardless of the die roll (unless, you add it in).\n\nThis works for other skill checks, even if there's normally consequences. You can either manufacture it or pull tension in from elsewhere:\n\n> \n> Timoen: I want Tolopher to open the lock on the restricted section in the library, maybe there's a scroll in there\n> DM Alex: Roll Sleight of Hand DC 35\n> \n> \n> \n\nThere's no innate consequence to failing the roll, and could be narrated as:\n\n> \n> Tolopher knew this was a long shot, and with the sounds of the MigiOE-Hippogriff growing louder behind them, fumbled with the ancient lock and their thieves tools. Click... Click... Snap. 'Drat,' they thought, they'd have no luck getting into the restricted section then.\n> \n> \n> \n\nOr\n\n> \n> Tolopher knew this was a long shot, but with nobody and no pressure around they played with the ancient lock and their thieves tools. Click... Click... Snap. 'Nevermind,' they thought, they'd have no luck getting into the restricted section then.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe tension is clearly not from the dice roll, but the consequences of said roll (which is what differed in the two version), the how character approaches the die roll and how they react.\n\n### If the die roll determines the extent of an effect that's guaranteed\n\nThe tension already exists, and it released or escalated not if something happens but if the something that happens is enough.\n\n> \n> Timoen: I cast Magic Missile at the MigiOE-Hippogriff!\n> DM Alex: You get 5 darts, so roll 1d4+1 5 times\n> \n> \n> \n\nCould translate as:\n\n> \n> Tolopher was growing desperate, if the MigiOE-Hippogriff continued it's rampage it would destroy the library - something they couldn't let happen. With an simple spell, they sent out 5 darts of magical energy towards the enraged beast. As they flew from Tolopher's hand, their only thought was if the spell would be enough to stop it.\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou get the tension (from the set up) whether the damage rolled is enough or not; because it existed before the result and the dice only determine how the tension is resolved or escalated.\n\nIf we\n\nNow, if that damage is enough or not to change the narrative and how that impacts the tension is down to the circumstance (the continued rampage) and the character (see how we prefaced the snippet with Timoen's state of desperation?).\n\nWe can reduce tension based on the result,\n\n> \n> The beast easily shrugged off the darts of energy, \"No worry,\" thought Tolopher, \"I'm just getting started\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nOr increase it,\n\n> \n> The beast easily shrugged off the darts of energy, \"That's not possible,\" thought Tolopher, \"I'm out of ideas!\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nBut that never creates the readers uncertainty, or provides suspense. It just informs us how to describe the tension\n\n### If a failed die roll advances the story\n\nLet's go back to the Timoen's character trying to get into the restricted section of the library,\n\n> \n> DM Alex: Roll Sleight of Hand DC 35, if you fail the librarian-guards will be alerted\n> \n> \n> \n\nAnd we can adjust our narrative accordingly:\n\n> \n> Click... Click... Snap. 'Drat,' they thought, they'd have no luck getting into the restricted section then. Instead, now Tolopher would have to explain themselves to whomever had heard the loud snap.\n> \n> \n> \n\nTension is escalated, but the set up (the impending MigiOE-Hippogriff) came before the result, we merely ramp it up on a failed roll. We could even narrate the librarian guards intercepting the MigiOE-Hippogriff, resolving both lots of tension. But whether that happened or not is part of the original game's narative.\n\n### If a successful die roll advances the story\n\nLet's assume they somehow pass the skill check in the game,\n\nWe could release tension,\n\n> \n> Click... Click... Clunk. 'Yes,' they thought, not sure whether to thank skill or luck. Relieved, Tolopher entered the dusty room, surely they could find a spell to defeat the MigiOE-Hippogriff here.\n> \n> \n> \n\nOr escalate it,\n\n> \n> Click... Click... Clunk. 'Yes,' they thought, not sure whether to thank skill or luck. Apprehensive, Tolopher entered the dusty room, if they were to find a spell to defeat the MigiOE-Hippogriff, they'd have to be quick about it.\n> \n> \n> \n\nAgain, whereas in the game, we don't know how the character will react to the die roll result, and there's suspense because of it, now how the story pans out we can just use the result to flavour our narrative.\n\n---\n\nAs I've tried to explain, in the game, the uncertainty and suspense are drivers of excitement, but when looking back at the game, it's much more important to see under what circumstances the dice roll happened and why there was suspense in the first place. How the characters react is a bigger factor in the story than the dice roll." }, { "answer_id": 59516, "author": "aniline hates nazis and pedos", "author_id": 36517, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36517", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> Is there any way to re-integrate this sense of uncertainty and possibility of failure into the story, or is this simply not possible in a novel-like format?\n> \n> \n> \n\nIt's possible. Maybe you are already doing it and succeeding.\n\nIn a tabletop RPG you play, your character can get killed at any moment, combat is always a source of drama, and when (if) he wins, he advances toward yet-unknown bigger and better things.\n\nWhen you translate the plot to a book, the reader knows the protagonist is safe, whatever setbacks he does suffer pale in comparison to his stupendous success at continued survival, fight scenes become pointless filler, and the plot advances toward the predictable ending that was spoiled in the cover blurb (with a question mark at the end of the sentence, you know, for suspense).\n\nHere's what you can do:\n\n* There are many, many stories about how much it sucks to live forever. Some of them even succeed at making their points. Draw inspiration from them.\n* Invent more ways for the protagonists to fail non-lethally and make them fail.\n* Add randomness. Go through stories you like and/or accounts of historical events, write down cool plot twists on index cards, draw a bunch, force them into the story, mend it. Adopt the mindset of having to stick by the major beats the random generator produced and let your disappointment shine through.\n* Do you have an ensemble cast? Make the characters fight each other, work at cross-purposes, break up, etc. Make the reader realize the characters will have to become enemies before the characters themselves do, for a sense of impending doom.\n* Hurt them permanently. Maim them, break them, dishonor them, steal their songs, crush their dreams.\n* Introduce more characters and kill them off. A common pitfall of this is sharpening the contrast between boring lucky protagonists and noble tragic hardworking \"npcs\": to avoid it, see if you can split a protagonist character into two and kill one.\n* As a thought experiment, kill off your lead and try to spin off as little of his storyline as you can into a new surviving character.\n* Write a bad ending and add silver linings one by one.\n* Take a trope of an Important Moral Lesson and write the opposite outcome. If your protagonist will be largely successful, make him into apparent ground zero of an Important Moral Lesson - this is one of if not the most effective way to convey real danger to readers. They will feel the threat coming from you. (Then you just let him win like you always planned.)\n* Get a second opinion. Maybe your problem is that of perception: you know how the story ends (and that you can change it at any moment) and feel no tension, but a reader has neither advantage." } ]	2021/11/06	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59479", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13002/" ]
59,495	I've been accused of purple prose for single words. People will go through my work with a fine-tooth comb and interrogate me. "Why this big word?" It feels like, if everyone doesn't understand my work, I've failed. I'm not communicating effectively. Language is about communication. Everything else is secondary. It feels like I need to embrace a Hemingway-esque radical minimalism, otherwise I'm being "pretentious". And yet, William Faulkner's prose is praised by the same people. I don't mean to imply that my writing rivals Faulkner's, but if we're to judge by the criteria of ornateness, then his writing is more overwrought and difficult to follow than mine. What is Faulkner doing right that I'm doing wrong? I'd like specificity. Gesturing towards Faulkner's mastery isn't sufficient. How likely is it that Faulkner never used a word without "purpose"?	[ { "answer_id": 59496, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "We don't live in a cultural vacuum\n----------------------------------\n\nEvery era has competing cultural trends that 'look ahead' to where society is going (progressive), and that 'look backward' to an earlier, nostalgic time (retrospective). These cultural dynamics are not inherently 'good' or 'bad' – or even true, rather they broadly reflect the trends and social attitudes of their day.\n\nReading works from previous eras blur the sources. From our perspective today anything that is old is 'in the past', but put in the context of the time it was written it's easy to see which direction a particular work leans – hurtling towards a progressive future or retreating to a nostalgic past.\n\nWe lose nuance by dividing literature (all culture) into a polarized binary, but the reason works become critically important in their own lifetime is because the work speaks to the current zeitgeist. This polarizing dynamic between idealizing the past/condemning the past (to contrast everything today) is heavy-handed throughout history and art.\n\nIt's a fundamental schism of any era: *are we headed in the right* direction because the past was worse, or headed in the wrong direction because the past was better?\n\nWhat is Faulkner doing right...?\n--------------------------------\n\nFaulkner was the posterchild of the Southern Renaissance, a re-assertion of (white male) Southern voices after the defeat of the Civil War and collapse of Reconstruction. Southern Renaissance idealized antebellum life, seeing the past through a lens of nostalgia. Not coincidentally, the same era saw the revival of the KKK and the terrorism of lynchings on every front page. Conditions in the South were a hard dichotomy to the international modernism of art deco/skyscraper/flapper 1920s, yet both were simultaneously true.\n\nThe sub-genre offspring of Southern Renaissance is Southern Gothic, same setting and story elements but styled negatively where the metaphors hold up better today. Both 'unpack' the problems of the South but point towards different conclusions. It could also be said that Southern Renaissance was a cultural 'response' to the Harlem Renaissance, again culture does not happen in a vacuum.\n\nFaulkner was the right voice in the right place and time to ride the Southern Renaissance trend.** His style was a strong flavor of the Old South, and his stories are subtle enough to bring up a lot of problematic issues without being preachy about their meaning. He is, very firmly, a voice representing a nostalgic past. His 'purple prose' is part of the shtick. It was what the general public expected as the 'voice of the South'.\n\nContrast Faulkner with Mork Tyaex, a Southern writer (who lived in New York) from half a century earlier with a firmly modern and progressive voice – even writing science fiction. Twain was re-popularized during the Southern Renaissance too, so there is an on-going cultural dialog between progressive voices from the past, and nostalgic voices in the current day. They use the same language to say very different things.\n\nPopular culture is a buffet of recycled tropes disconnected from their original context. That's how we know the Southern Renaisance movement had run its course, we got Margaret Mitthajw's Gone With the Wind plundering Southern Renaissance as the backdrop for her 'strong female protagonist' romance. Mitthajw cosplays and genre-bashes popular tropes and characters that don't historically fit together – Gone With the Wind is a female power fantasy romping around in a hoopskirt. She's not engaging in that social dialog of 'where have we been' and 'where are we going'. She's just having fun, and there's no clear message other than an outrageous MarySue as an anachronistic provocateur – she feels even more modern in an antebellum setting.\n\nIn hindsight, it all blurs together as 'Old South' pastiche. As writers, they are each saying very different things to very different people.\n\nBut as a culture we moved on. Mitthajw got rich by jumping over a nostalgia shark on a motorcycle. Faulkner ended up in Hollywood doing re-writes on other people's scripts.\n\nWhat am I doing wrong?\n----------------------\n\nPublishing doesn't happen in a vacuum. Does your 'purple prose' also harken a return to earlier values? Is there some cultural reference or history that you are tapping by deliberately leveraging a particular style? Is this narrative voice a good match for your subjects and themes?\n\nOr are you just 'too wordy'? No judgement. What you see as legitimate style, may hit readers as old fashioned. It might work for some themes and genres, but clash with others.\n\nFaulkner wasn't just a guy with a lot of flowery words. His thick Southern identity was important in the context of the culture's re-examination of the South. His language evokes subtext and social constructions, cues which mirror his subjects and characters: slow, indirect, a veneer of propriety masking a loss in status – no different to how Raymond Chandler voiced pulp detectives in an abrupt 'street-wise' slang, and how Hemingway avoided all interior conflict and self-reflection in his stoic he-man characters. It's a narrative voice that matches the story." }, { "answer_id": 59497, "author": "Ted Wrigley", "author_id": 44005, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44005", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I'm going to toss this out there for consideration: maybe you're not doing anything wrong.\n\nFair disclosure, I'm more attuned to scholarly writing than artistic, but even in scholarly writing one has to develop a distinctive voice. Style critiques come in handy — you learn a lot from a good critique of your work — but at the end of the day you have to weigh what you want against what others want. Your writing will suffer if you try to write solely for others' tastes.\n\n'Purple prose' is a pejorative; it implies writing that's so overblown it takes away from the work as a whole. I'm not certain that's true of Faulkner. Granted that his work is a little rich for me (simple soul that I am), I have a hard time imagining his stories being better if they were written in Hemingway's style. That's what you have to decide when you get such critiques: would changing your prose actually improve it, or is that phrasing part of your ideal voice. Does it trip your story up, or draw out the mood of it?" }, { "answer_id": 59498, "author": "Sciborg", "author_id": 33846, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33846", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "@wetcircuit's answer is absolutely fantastic and gives a great rundown of Faulkner's cultural context, but I wanted to present and respond to another angle of your question: \"Why am I criticized for purple prose and complicated language when other authors are not? What's the double standard?\"\n\nThe answer to that question can be complex and multifaceted, but I think it all boils down to one simple point:\n\n*Are you matching your prose style to your audience, and making it approachable for that specific audience?\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nDifferent genres of prose have different expectations for writing styles and types, and it's good writing practice to match your prose style to your audience - and to know who your target audience is in the first place.* If you are writing for a more literary audience, such as older adults who read historical fiction and old-style fantasy, then more complex prose and plotting may fit your audience perfectly, and will fit in with the general trends of that genre. On the other hand, if you're writing for young adults or a less classically focused audience, you may get complaints when you use complicated and self-indulgent language. It might be more \"intellectual,\" strictly speaking, but it's not as organized, approachable and enjoyable for that specific audience you are targeting, which is what I always feel authors in any genre should aim to do with their target audiences. Vaiton your prose to the expectations of your group, and don't try to please everyone. Trying to please everybody just ends up pleasing nobody.\n\nIf you feel that your target audience will appreciate your prose and not mind your language choices, then great! You have nothing to change. But if you feel like there's a disconnect between your beta readers' experience and the intended experience of the people who will eventually read your story, and you're repeatedly getting feedback to that effect, then that's what you should focus on as the problem. You could also ask yourself: are your beta readers truly your intended target audience? If not, try to pick different beta readers.\n\nIt's important, however, to emphasize that making your writing more approachable for your specific audience doesn't have to mean \"dumbing it down.\" There's a harmful perception when it comes to simplifying language and plots - you wonder, why should I have to make my work less complicated? Why can't they just put in more legwork to understand it? But remember again that readers just want to be able to read, understand and enjoy a book after they pick it up, without having to draw out family trees and complicated graphs and tables just to figure out your main protagonist's story arc. Not everybody wants to dedicate huge amounts of time to sift through complicated, unfriendly language, and it's wrong to expect everyone to. The lower you make the barrier to approaching and appreciating your work, the bigger and more enthusiastic your audience will be. It's why games have shifted from being coin-munching arcade nightmares to having approachable difficulty levels, a learning curve that is fun instead of punishing, and as a result have attracted a vastly increased audience as compared to the olden days of gaming - which has, by and large, been a huge boon for the medium.\n\nThere's a lesson to be learned here about the [curb cut effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb_cut_effect): making it easier for one group of people to approach your work will have ripple effects for everyone who does so. By cutting the fat off your writing and making it easier to find the meat and the spice you worked so hard on, you'll create a more enjoyable experience for everyone who picks it up to give it a shot." } ]	2021/11/09	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59495", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52599/" ]
59,504	When writing dialogue, I know it's sometimes normal/useful to drop attribution and provide only the direct quotes during dialogue, like so: > > "Like we used to Mamma?" > > > "Einmitt, my little mouse, exactly" > > > I've seen this done when the characters speaking are established, and the author wants the dialogue to flow. It's also a way avoid overusing "he said, she said, they said..", but that's not my main concern here. But the trade off seems to be that without anything but quotation, you lose flavour/nuance to explain how the characters are feeling and their motivation. If you did use some extradialogue flavour, it might look like: > > "Like we used to Mamma?" Hrafnhildur squeaked excitedly > > > "Einmitt, my little mouse, exactly", said her mother nostalgically > > > or like (completely changing my original intent): > > "Like we used to Mamma?" Hrafnhildur intoned fearfully > > > "Einmitt, my little mouse, exactly", said her mother determinedly > > > I'm not sure if those last two examples flow, but I hope they get across that even if the first excerpt without attribution is fine, there's extra nuance that could be added. Is there a way to communicate the flavour/nuance without the attributing text outside of the quotes? Some of the advice [here](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/7119/3986) is helpful, but some is not relevant, and perhaps more specialised techniques are applicable in my example?	[ { "answer_id": 59506, "author": "motosubatsu", "author_id": 24645, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24645", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "One solution is to use descriptors applied to the characters in the dialogue in order to provide the reader with contextual clues as to how they should perceive the tone.\n\ne.g:\n\n> \n> Hrafnhildur's eyes lit up, \"Like we used to Mamma?\"\n> \n> \n> her answering smile was warm and filled with fond memories, \"Einmitt, my little mouse, exactly\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nPros:\n\n* You're showing (not telling) how the characters are feeling\n* Can help build immersion and provide variety in the text\n\nCons:\n\n* Can affect pacing - if you're looking for some rapid-fire dialogue this could be a serious hindrance\n\nYMMV:\n\n* It's fairly verbose - depending on whether you're above or below your target length this can be a good or a bad thing!\n\nAn alternative is to play with the dialogue itself to portray the tone.\n\ne.g:\n\n> \n> \"L-Like we used to Mamma?\"\n> \n> \n> \"Einmitt, my little mouse, exactly like we used to!\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nPros:\n\n* Pacing remains as intended\n\nCons:\n\n* It can be difficult to convey some tones this way, particularly complex ones. Some out right impossible to do this way - nostalgia for example.\n* This can be ambiguous - and if the reader interprets an implied emotion incorrectly they may be confused later on.\n\nSo neither solution works 100% - fortunately there's nothing to stop you using multiple approaches in concert.\n\ne.g:\n\n> \n> the blood drained from Hrafnhildur's face,and her lip quivered slightly, \"L-Like we used to Mamma?\"\n> \n> \n> \"Einmitt, my little mouse\", her eyes narrowed and she squared her shoulders, \"exactly like we used to!\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nHaving the extra contextual information and combining it with tweaking the dialogue makes interpreting the dialogue tone much easier and allows you to bring in a much richer variety of tones and emotions." }, { "answer_id": 59509, "author": "Murphy L.", "author_id": 52619, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52619", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I've found that a simple rule of thumb is: Don't say said.\nAnd I don't mean use a million or two different replacement words, like whispered, interjected, answered, screamed, shrieked, etc. I mean, just use the quotes, and every once in a while add in a couple of words to describe body language. No need for complex descriptions.\n\nAs for your initial question, I'm thinking the first is good. The best one of the 3 for sure.\n\nThe easiest way is to add small implications as to what a character's feeling, such as swears from an angry character (\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"), faster pace from an energetic character (\"YES! YES YES YES!! I DID IT!\"), stuttering from a fearful character (\"wh-wh-what knife?\"), or broken up speech from an exhausted character (\"yeah. sure. just one. more mile. then. i'll be done\")." }, { "answer_id": 59523, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "The text of the dialogue can provide indications of emotional context.\n\n> \n> \"Like we used to Mamma?\" Hrafnhildur squeaked excitedly\n> \n> \n> \"Einmitt, my little mouse, exactly\", said her mother nostalgically\n> \n> \n> \n\nmight be rendered as\n\n> \n> \"Really, Mamma? Just like we used to?\"\n> \n> \n> \"Einmitt, my dear little mouse, exactly like we used to.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nor, if Hrafnhildur is normally somewhat excitable and her mother normally rather affectionate,\n\n> \n> \"Really, Mamma? Really? Just like we used to?\"\n> \n> \n> \"Einmitt, my dear little mouse, just like we used to.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n(Repetition of another's phrasing is used in speech to seek clarity, express correction, and affirm emotional and intellectual understanding.)\n\nor\n\n> \n> \"Einmitt, my dear little mouse, 'just like we used to'.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nif the mother is more strongly affirming the certainty and Hrafnhildur's enthusiasm by explicitly quoting.\n\nSome sense of nostalgia might be expressed in slipping into forms of speech of that previous time. Terms of address such as baby names can imply backward-looking affection. Vocabulary, grammar, and tone can be reminiscent of a previous time; use of words from a mostly abandoned mother tongue (as might be the case in the example text), speaking more or less formally than usual, and use of a poetic tone can imply nostalgia. While assumed context may be sufficient for the reader to notice and interpret such a deviation, such is easier to express when the setting and characters are more established.\n\nFor the alternative intent\n\n> \n> \"Like we used to Mamma?\" Hrafnhildur intoned fearfully\n> \n> \n> \"Einmitt, my little mouse, exactly\", said her mother determinedly\n> \n> \n> \n\nmight be rendered as\n\n> \n> \"Mamma ... do you mean like ... like we used to?\"\n> \n> \n> \"Einmitt, my brave little mouse, exactly like before.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nAs mentioned, context of setting and characterization can imply what characters are likely to be feeling.\n\n> \n> Ever since the cat had forced them to move, their lives had been miserable. Hrafnhildur remembered how happy she and her mother had been.\n> \n> \n> ...\n> \n> \n> \"Really, Mamma? Just like we used to?\"\n> \n> \n> \"Einmitt, my dear little mouse, exactly like we used to.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nor\n\n> \n> The cat had forced them to move, but at least now they were relatively safe.\n> \n> \n> ...\n> \n> \n> \"Mamma ... do you mean like ... like we used to?\"\n> \n> \n> \"Einmitt, my brave little mouse, exactly like before we fled the cat.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe emotional context can also be expressed by unspoken thoughts and in describing accompanying actions.\n\n> \n> \"Really, Mamma? Just like we used to?\" Hrafnhildur's eyes bulged with excitement.\n> \n> \n> Her mother's whiskers twitched at her own fond memories. \"Einmitt, my dear little mouse, exactly like before.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nor\n\n> \n> \"Really, Mamma? Just like we used to?\" I can almost smell the cheese!\n> \n> \n> \"Einmitt, my dear little mouse, exactly like before.\" Yes, barnið mitt, we can reclaim those happy days.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe alternate intent might be expressed\n\n> \n> \"Mamma ... do you mean like,\" Hrafnhildur shivered at the memory, \"like we used to?\"\n> \n> \n> \"Einmitt, my brave little mouse.\" Her mother stared at her firmly. \"Exactly like we used to.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nor\n\n> \n> \"Mamma ... do you mean like,\" But we were almost eaten by the cat! \"like we used to?\"\n> \n> \n> \"Einmitt, my brave little mouse.\" We have no other choice. \"Exactly like we used to.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nAttaching emotional context to ordinary speech indicators or using specialized speech verbs is not wrong and can provide an intermediate emotional separation compared to thoughts, which are necessarily intimate, or visible indications of emotion. Telling expression, such as \"said determinedly\", can also present a sense of hearsay compared to showing; while the writer usually wants the reader to accept the expression as simple truth, sometimes less reader confidence is desired.\n\nNon-dialogue content can also act similar to punctuation.\n\n> \n> \"Einmitt, my brave little mouse. Exactly like we used to.\" We have no other choice.\n> \n> \n> \n\nis not exactly the same as\n\n> \n> \"Einmitt, my brave little mouse.\" We have no other choice. \"Exactly like we used to.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nor\n\n> \n> \"Einmitt, my brave little mouse, exactly like we used to.\" We have no other choice.\n> \n> \n> \n\nor\n\n> \n> Dear heart. \"Einmitt, my brave little mouse. Exactly like we used to.\" We have no other choice.\n> \n> \n> \n\nor\n\n> \n> Her mother paused. \"Einmitt, my brave little mouse. Exactly like we used to.\" We have no other choice.\n> \n> \n> \n\nEven purely environmental insertions can direct the reader's interpretation of emotion.\n\n> \n> \"Really, Mamma? Just like we used to?\"\n> \n> \n> Scraps of paper rustled nearby.\n> \n> \n> \"Einmitt, my dear little mouse, exactly like we used to.\"\n> \n> \n> The warm summer breeze pressed against them and then passed on.\n> \n> \n> \n\nis not a clear expression of excitement and pleasant reminiscence (and hope), but it may hint at such emotion.\n\nGiven that miscommunication of tone can occur between familiar friends talking in person, with all the nuances of voice and body language available, absolutely unambiguous communication in text should not be expected. Emotional ambiguity may even be useful, portraying hidden or suppressed emotions or a lack of emotional clarity in the character. Ambiguity can draw the reader to pay more attention (\"was he being sarcastic?\"), set up a later reveal (e.g., formal speech might indicate insecurity, authority, or precision of thought with the initial context implying a different interpretation than is understood from a more developed context), or allow the reader to imagine how the character feels based on the reader's conception of the character. Explicit declarations of feelings and motivations can even be discordant with the reader's conception, similar to the potential disappointment from an animated adaptation of a comic strip (\"Licbirt doesn't sound like that\") or a movie adaptation of a book (\"Faramir does not look like that\")." } ]	2021/11/10	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59504", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/3986/" ]
59,529	My first horror short story starts with a quite quiet scene, quickly escalating to the protagonist's little brother being brutally murdered, with the only thing separating a family conversation between her, her mother and stepfather, and her brother's murder, is a scream, then a quite violent scene of the primary antagonist killing the protagonist's brother. (The primary antagonist is a demon/alien that takes the form of a young child, mostly eats children but will also tolerate adults; it ate the protagonist's father in the prologue.) But this is writing, not a show. I can't simply turn on a dissonant soundtrack to amp up the suspense. I reviewed the opening chapter with a friend, and we both agreed that the scare of the killing/eating isn't enough. I need to be able to weave a suspenseful atmosphere from a mundane scene (just a family conversation) in order to create a fully terrifying start. How is this done? How is suspense created from mundane settings/positions prior to the "scare"?	[ { "answer_id": 59540, "author": "Author JesperSB", "author_id": 52655, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52655", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I have the words of Hitchcock for you.\n\nSuspense is not two people watching a bomb timer ticking down.\n\nSuspense is two people talking about the last soccer game, while the reader knows there is a bomb ticking down under their table." }, { "answer_id": 59550, "author": "Phil S", "author_id": 52375, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52375", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "To add to Jedrej's answer (which is great), I'd also add that your use of language can influence the scene.\n\nFor example, eating a meal is devouring another organism, or organisms. Cutting a steak is slicing through the body of another animal, while blood and juice pour through the open gashes in the muscle. There's all sorts of metaphor work you can do here to unsettle the reader, and it seems to fit with your bad guy.\n\nMaybe, subconsciously your characters know something bad is going to happen, there's a sense of creeping dread. It not anything you can put your finger on, but you can use your words and their thoughts to create a disturbing backdrop (just like the soundtrack in a film). Obviously how far you take this depends on your style - look at someone like HP Lovecraft for example - people can go for a nice walk in the park and somehow it's tense." }, { "answer_id": 59551, "author": "codeMonkey", "author_id": 40325, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40325", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Uncertainty leads to Suspense\n-----------------------------\n\nTo create suspense, the reader needs to be asking a question. They have to be guessing about ways that things could go wrong (or right!). The question could be \"Is the monster going to attack the family while they eat?\" or \"Will the brother make enough noise to bring help?\"\n\nTo generate a question like this, you need to give the reader more information than the characters. This is why people yell at the TV during horror movies - they know the \"right answer\" to the question, and they want the characters to pick that action.\n\nStructure\n---------\n\nIn this case, I think you can use structure to add suspense. You can interleave sections from the monster's point of view and from the main character's point of view. Something along the lines of:\n\n* (Monster POV) Exterior of the home. Monster must get past the dog without being attacked or generating too much barking. -- Question, will the dog save the day?\n* (MC POV) Dinner Table. Quiet meal. Someone comments that the dog is quieter (or louder) than usual. -- Question, will they investigate the dog? If they do, will they find anything out of the ordinary?\n* (Monster POV) Interior. Monster explores the home, looking for an ambush location or isolated victim. People get up from the table to answer the doorbell, go to the bathroom, get more food from the kitchen, etc. -- Question, will any of the isolated people be attacked? Will the monster find a hiding spot?\n* (MC POV) Still at dinner. Comments about brother skipping dinner to play video games / do homework / whatever. Question, will the monster discover the isolated brother!?!\n* (Monster POV) Finds, stalks, and attacks brother. Question, will the brother discover the monster in time for it to matter? Can he make enough noise to bring help?\n\nThe use of the monster POV ensures that the reader has enough information to be asking questions. The uncertainty around the answers is what generates suspense. Sometimes the characters even choose the \"right\" answer, and the reader gets a moment of oh, everything is going to be ok - right before they are proven wrong.\n\nSo maybe the monster knocks over something in a different room, and the family investigates. It looks like the monster is going to have its cover blown, but the characters explain the noise away and go back to the meal.\n\nFor a moment, though, the reader thought they would discover the monster and they could fight it off as a group. This little release lets you build the tension back up with more questions down the road." }, { "answer_id": 59552, "author": "Murphy L.", "author_id": 52619, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52619", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I've always thought of suspense as much like dramatic irony. The reader knows the monster creeps through the mansion, but the characters are unaware. The reader can see it as it attacks the brother, but the characters are unaware.\n\nIf you are writing from 1st person, as I often prefer, then I would add lines like, \"I heard some screaming from the distance, but didn't think much of it.\" This shows it more indirectly.\n\nSuspense is making the character ask questions. The first one gives the idea of 'Will they realize (in time)?\" while the second one gives the question, \"What's the screaming?\" The brain doesn't like not knowing, and it's this that gives the suspenseful fear that people love." }, { "answer_id": 59564, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Start the scene with the brother involved in the conversation and excusing himself to do something... it should be mundane like \"get a book\" or go to the bathroom... or... something else. Point is the reader should have an idea of how long it takes. Exit brother. The conversation continues and goes on and on for some time until someone realizes something is wrong... the brother should be back by now. It's been too long for him to take care of the thing he excused himself from doing. The protagonist leaves to fetch him, thinking he's goofing off only to find the bloody mess of the scene (Everyone knows you don't show off the monster until well into the story. No one saw \"Jaws\" until an hour into the film.)." } ]	2021/11/13	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59529", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52646/" ]
59,531	Good techniques to keep track of error-freeness without ending up having to proof-read all of a long finished text? This is a problem that I've had, but I assume that it's in fact quite common problem. The problem is: * You write your text (e.g. a research publication) and in the first passes, you blend adding information and checking references and grammar. It's possible that you also overlook checking grammar thinking that "well I will come to it later, once I figure out that the information given works". * Now, you possibly lose track of what you've checked and what you haven't, since you multitask many things. * If you continue doing this to the end of the text you will soon have, say, 150 pages of text where you cannot tell anymore which parts have been checked up to what point. And now you need to check the full 150 pages. * But it's possible that you couldn't have checked them earlier, since you were having this multitasking going on. So how does one merge checking and producing text, so that it doesn't end up like this?	[ { "answer_id": 59559, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Give Up And Go Over It Again (and again, and again):\n====================================================\n\nIf you are going through a long text and you keep fixing stuff, adding details, and cleaning up issues, then it doesn't matter if you got it all or not. You need to do it again.\n\nOne of the keys to great writing is re-writing. Editing and proof-reading and fact-checking and the list goes on and on. If you go through your work and find no issues, then GREAT! It means it's time to send it to an editor, or beta readers. They'll tell you what you missed, and then you can start all over fixing the issues they bring up.\n\nA good word processing program will tell you where you left off last in the story (or at least you last edit). So this will at least tell you where you are in the process. But short of being very strict and only doing one kind of editing in a pass (like grammar), you'll keep finding things as you go along that need to be fixed until it's as good as you can reasonably make it.\n\nDo you really want to create something that is 150 pages long and not have it be as good as you can get it?" }, { "answer_id": 59561, "author": "Toby Speight", "author_id": 39461, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39461", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Use your source-control system to help\n--------------------------------------\n\nThe files that have the most (and most recent) churn should be evident from your change history in Git, Subversion or whichever other source-control you use for your text. (If you don't have change control - why not?) That should help guide you to the files that need most attention.\n\nBut still read the whole thing from time to time\n------------------------------------------------\n\nAlthough you can focus on copy-editing the files with most change, that might lull you into a false sense of security, because it's quite likely that a section you've not touched for weeks is dependent on the structure elsewhere.\n\nAs a straightforward example, if you've changed the number of factors feeding into an argument in the main text, you might find that your summary and conclusions no longer reflect the main body of the work. Real-life examples tend to be more subtle than that, and cause your sections/chapters to depend on each other.\n\nDon't forget to read the rendered (print-ready) output from time to time, to pick up on formatting issues that aren't obvious from the source files." } ]	2021/11/13	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59531", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52498/" ]
59,532	How much opinion do you need in order to decide how "readable" something is? If one person, even if experienced, says "this is not very well readable", then I think it not enough to conclude it's not very well readable. Reason: * It's just one person * It's based on what that one person sees as readable, even if he/she would have experience (which may be based on reading only texts he/she finds "readable") So how many people does one need to sample in order to have a well-informed view on "readability"? OTOH: * If this one person is an accomplished reader (reads a lot), then is his/her opinion more informed? * If the sample for "judges" here would include also people who read very little, then would these be "uninformed" reviewers, since they have read only a small sample?	[ { "answer_id": 59547, "author": "Erin Tesden", "author_id": 48340, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/48340", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "To be truthfull, I consider myself someone with not exactly the best taste in the world. I go for entertaining. If it has quality, then so much the better. I wouldn't mind reading something considered bad if it appeals to the things I like or is simply entertaining.\n\nI would really pay no mind to people's opinions. Mostly, I just pay attention the following:\n\n* Is the story well written or at least decently done? While I'm not expecting a masterpiece, at I'm hoping for at least something readable.\n* I pay a lot of attention to those elements I simply detest (trigger warnings or simply bad tropes.) If someone's opinion reveals the story has some of them, I would be wary of reading it." }, { "answer_id": 60815, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It depends on their expertise. It can be just one person.\n\nIf I am writing fiction, and one of my friends that I know reads a lot of fiction, and recommends good fiction, then reads my fiction and says it needs work -- That's all I need. That girl knows fiction.\n\nThe same with a professional reader; an agent or publisher. If they just turn me down, that is not saying I wrote bad fiction, just that they don't have time, room or money for my fiction. I don't take that personally or as a critique.\n\nBut if they say something specific about my fiction, like it is \"unreadable\", I'm going to give that one opinion a fair amount of weight.\n\nKind of like putting a lot more weight on a real medical doctor's opinion on health issues, and a lot less weight on some Amazon warehouse worker's opinion on health issues.\n\nI suppose I might be surprised, but my bet is on the professionals and those with relevant experience." }, { "answer_id": 61096, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I think that if one person says \"this is not very well readable\", then you probably have a problem.\n\nProvided that the person actually represents your audience in any way (or has expert knowledge about your audience), it means that part of your audience will have an issue with your work's readability. Getting more opinions will help to gauge how big of a problem it is, but the problem is likely real.\n\nIt's then up to you to decide how much of your readership you're willing to alienate/dismiss.\n\nI think it's also important to note that an issue like readability isn't really symmetrical. If one person says that the readability is fine, it's much less informative than when they say it's bad.\n\nIt's a bit like someone spotting a typo that others have overlooked. You can have had a hundred proofreaders go over your manuscript and think you found and fixed every typo. But if the hundredth-and-first proofreader spots a new typo, then it's a typo.\n\nYes, readability is much less objective than whether something is a typo or not. But to an extent it is just a matter of detecting problems. And finding something is a stronger signal than not finding something." }, { "answer_id": 61101, "author": "NofP", "author_id": 28528, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/28528", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "...or the unbiased approach rooted in probability theory.\n\nI am proposing this answer for the following reasons:\n\n1. the OP seems to have some reserves in considering experience as a valuable weighting function.\n2. I want to address the case in which most of the target readers are of the uninformed / unexperienced type\n\n---\n\nLet's consider readability to be a quantity r, such that given a population of individual readers we can define: i) the average readability R and ii) its standard deviation S.\n\nYou can now ask a certain number n of random people, selected without bias from the population of interest, to read your text and give their estimate of readability.\n\nThe [central limit theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem) says that the average of these estimates converges to the mean readability for the population as n increases.\n\nIt also says that the convergence rate is ![1/\\sqrt(n)](https://latex.codecogs.com/svg.image?%5Cfrac%7B1%7D%7B%5Csqrt%7Bn%7D%7D). That is, if asking one person only yields a standard deviation (think of as variability in the response) of S, asking n people and averaging their response yields a much lower standard deviation ![S/\\sqrt(n)](https://latex.codecogs.com/svg.image?%5Cfrac%7BS%7D%7B%5Csqrt%7Bn%7D%7D).\n\nBest results if you ask people to rate your readability with a number on a fixed scale, e.g. from 0 to 10.\n\nIn just a few reads you could get a decently accurate estimate of what the larger population of readers would say about the readability of your text. And you could ask just anyone.\n\nFor instance, asking 4 people, the average estimate has only half the standard deviation compared to asking just one person. If you can ask 8 people, you have reduced the error in the estimated readability to about 30% of asking just one person." }, { "answer_id": 61131, "author": "Henry Taylor", "author_id": 11221, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/11221", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Zero readers is the absolute minimum number needed.\n\nThere are automated tests of readability in tools like [www.prowritingaid.com](http://www.prowritingaid.com) which, when given a sample of your writing, will give you a numeric measure of its readability. Simultaneously, it checks your spelling, grammar, word-choice and a ton of other metrics of questionable value." } ]	2021/11/13	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59532", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52498/" ]
59,533	Everybody knows how an important part of writing is the ability to compose proper dialogue. I've even heard that publishers tend to jump to the first conversation in a received draft and see if it works. This makes sense to me as nothing sets a reader further from the story than unnatural dialogue. There are plenty of videos, articles and even questions on this site covering the topic. They usually focus on making characters' speeches organic. People often wonder about hero's lines presenting their personality or how to make them unique. One would also easily find texts regarding the flow of dialogue. About the hidden conflicts and pushing the action forward. How they impact the plot. In other words there is a lot of coverage of actual words being said in dialogue. I have concern about another part of the matter: the background. The didascalies. The description of the second plan. It comes from self-analysis of my own writing. I've noticed that in my stories conversations tend to have a repetitive setting. They usually happen at a coffee shop or in a park. Characters sit, eat or walk. It all comes from my own experiences as I tend to chat in such circumstances. While writing I always try to expand the actual meaning of a dialogue with descriptions. A person being nervous will spill some wine. Characters having some mystery would hide their hands. A guilty individual can point a finger at himself. I'm starting to feel though like I wander around a very small room, if it makes any sense. Following the aforementioned settings, it seems like all of my dialogue is the compilation of finite and quite small pack of activities. It's like I have a bunch of metaphors, all surrounding benches and tables, and I use them over and over again. At this point I want to break out of this limited room. I would like my dialogue to vary as far as my imagination can reach. I want to use symbolism that is unique to the scene. I want each of my dialogues to be a fresh story. I hope that makes sense to you. Thank you for reaching the end of my question and if any advice or thought comes to your mind, please share it.	[ { "answer_id": 59542, "author": "S. Mitchell", "author_id": 13409, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13409", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Conversations in repetitive settings isn't necessarily a problem. Although it is a television programme, think of 'Friends'.\n\nConversations about repetitive topics can be.\n\nMaybe think about what you want a piece of dialogue to show a reader and then think where it might take place. Do you want to show Davisa as a bully at work? Is the purpose to show Balx is paranoid? Why does Janiw hate Jolr? Can Horah convince herself to dump Bramwyt?\n\nCan I suggest you avoid words like 'didascalies' in questions?\n\nConsider what your story needs instead of what you usually do. Stories are not real life: they aren't documentaries. They are constructed. Could your characters meet in a lift that breaks down, a bus queue or a doctor's surgery? If so, the dynamics are changed.\n\nCan they message each other instead of speaking?" }, { "answer_id": 59635, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Motives!\n\nYou are choosing natural places to talk. In order to move to more unusual ones, you need to give character motives to talk elsewhere -- or possibly create characters who would have motives to talk elsewhere. Two hikers talking on a mountain trail. The client and the employee while one is doing the other one's nails. Two people in a courtroom waiting to fight their traffic tickets.\n\nOne advantage this gives is that it offers chances at raising stakes by the place. If two employees are arguing down the stairs and out of the building to the carpark, they have a limited time to work with.\n\nOne disadvantage is that you can forget it and have the characters talk as if in a coffee shop over a table, which not only throws away the setting but makes it look stupid. If they are hiking, bridges, trees, muddy spots, songbirds flying by, on the path may all feature." }, { "answer_id": 59643, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "I've been told by professional critics my dialogue is excellent.\n\nWithin a single story, I try to never have a conversation in the same place twice. Sometimes this is truly unavoidable; but usually it is not.\n\nI am extremely conscious of \"talking heads\" syndrome; in which the conversation becomes a half page or a page of just quoted text, to the point the reader's imagination turns off and it is just like a talk show on TV, two disembodied heads talking at each other. This is boring.\n\nI just hate having my characters sit and talk at each other. As much as possible, I have them talk while doing something else. It doesn't have to be important, but their hands are not idle. They could be washing dishes, playing cards, throwing darts, walking with the scenery changing, watching a movie, working, eating together, walking through a trade show or museum, whatever. But it is not static, change of some sort is going on, even if it is unimportant change.\n\nFor me, that is all the metaphor I need; change. Conversation exists to change something. Sure, if somebody is nervous, they may spill their wine or fumble their coffee cup, but I don't find that necessary.\n\n\"Talking Heads\" is a sign of an under-imagined scene. The conversation takes place in a setting, and to break up dialogue I intersperse the lines with descriptions of the setting as it changes.\n\nThe job of the writer is to assist the imagination of the reader, to make sure the reader is seeing, at least approximately, the movie reel playing in the writer's head. The reader needs this assist relatively constantly, a description lasts only ten seconds or so. 40 to 60 words. The length of this paragraph.\n\nThat is how often you need to prompt imagery, hit the refresh button on the imagination. You want visual imagery throughout the read, no exceptions.\n\nI try to never have a conversation in the same place twice for my own convenience: It is easier to imagine a new place than to try and come up with new stuff to describe in Whaphone's office, once I have already described Whaphone's office for a previous conversation!\n\nIf the plot makes a place the only sensible place to hold a second conversation, I may resort to something else going on IN that place.\n\nFrom an insider point of view this may seem like an obvious literary device, that my conversations are never in the same place twice, when in real life we may hold three conversations a day in the kitchen alone. But none of my outspoken readers, ready and willing and encouraged to criticize anything that seems weird, have ever even mentioned this as a thing. I think it flies under the radar, and it gives you the freedom to thoroughly embed your characters in a visualized setting, with action, doing something, without boring the reader with describing the same place a second time, or a third time.\n\nI would also follow the \"Hollywood\" maxim for dialogue as exposition: The more expository, explanatory, or background-y the dialogue is, the more noisy and exciting the background is. Tell it at a circus, a raucous Pride Parade, during a heated political protest. Have it shouted on a roller coaster. It gets told while our characters are being shot at and fleeing. While they are dangerously free-climbing a cliff. (And now that I've told you, you may notice it in movies. Sorry.)" } ]	2021/11/13	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59533", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/48855/" ]
59,536	I'm writing a fantasy story where I want to incorporate various pantheons of mythology, without having them actually belonging to any pantheon. Is that possible? I mean. I like the idea. But is it possible and would it work? Or should I create my own pantheon?	[ { "answer_id": 59539, "author": "S. Mitchell", "author_id": 13409, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13409", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "If I consider your question as is, I have my own: how can you have mythological characters in a story that isn't about mythology?\n\nHowever, if your question is about mixing up mythological beings from different traditions, that is different. I would say you can do what you like but understand that readers have preconceptions. For example, most people think of Hercules as strong. Making him out as a weedy, weak wimp might be difficult, though not impossible.\n\nIf you want to conflate Nonsa gods with Greek ones, go ahead: it's your work." }, { "answer_id": 59544, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Of Course!\n==========\n\nI've done it myself, and it's a great way to integrate lots of different elements into a story. You can draw on and allude to many mythologies, lending depth and character that would take hundreds of pages in a newly created pantheon. You can even use it as an educational opportunity if someone is willing to dig into the subtext of your story. A google search of the weird runes at a crossroads in your book leads to a new appreciation of the goddess Hecate.\n\nI personally had a working reality where all pantheons existed, but were only worshipped in cultural contexts. It was a sci-fi future, so all these faiths had died at some point, and been resurrected by new peoples being appealed to by those same gods. So different cultural groups intermingling or evangelizing their gods caused the faiths to intermingle. Thor worshippers and Greek Artemis worshippers argued with followers of Shiva over divine rights. Everyone shuttered a bit when the followers of Moloch came around.\n\nBut it didn't stop there. The gods were semi-real, being a combination of extradimensional immaterial beings and faith-powered interpretations, the gods manifested for their followers and fought through proxies in our world. Technology was powered by psychic energy of these beings, behaving like magic. Not being physical, the gods couldn't die - only be forgotten until someone was desperate enough to reach out to an unfamiliar god. Suddenly the Moche decapitator god was again manifesting through a new blood (pun intended).\n\nSo absolutely! Add new (old) richness and depth to your writing by getting the flavor of many mythologies, but without all the calories of being embedded in those cultures." }, { "answer_id": 59545, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Depends.\n\nIf you want them to be instantly recognizable, remember that many people know nothing of mythology, and mythology itself is inconsistency. If you put in the effort to make them clear to people who know nothing of them, it can work." }, { "answer_id": 59546, "author": "Owen Reynolds", "author_id": 43027, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43027", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "There are existing book and TV series which do this. The issue is that generally a divine being makes sense within its Pantheon — in the Hercules TV show Aphrodite is Hercules's 1/2-sister (and acts like it), sister to Oros despite her distaste, and daughter of Zuub. Without that, she's just some random sexy airhead. Roger Zelazny (Lord of Light, Creatures of Light and Darkness) purposely used a single pantheon in each book to leverage the already known connections between the gods in them.\n\nExisting books/TV branch out, but still try to have a reason. Xena Warrior Princess (a spin-off from Hercules) started with Greek gods but added Christian angels and devils — which reflected the real take-over of Christianity. It added Chinese Devas(?) as they went to China. Hercules dealt with Celtic gods because he went to England, where they lived. Jacqueline Carey's \"Agent of Hel\" series features the Norse underworld demigoddess Hel but in one book adds an underworld god from a different Pantheon as a surprise rival. The Dresden Files series has the Fairies (Oberon, etc...) as the primary divine beings, but adds the Celtic Fomor (which are at least geographically close to English Fairies). And then for a \"heist\" episode grabs the Greek god Hades (as someone known to have a super-tough treasure vault).\n\nThen you've got Neil Gaiman's Sandman graphic novels as a counter-example. He had his own Pantheon of divine beings and could have borrowed Mars, Persephone and so on, but since he wanted a new Pantheon, he invented his own, with their own personalities and relationships. Then with Anansi boys he goes back to Zelany's style of just 1 complete Pantheon.\n\nGoing from all of that, it seems like using \"real\" gods but not keeping them as a pantheon (even a modified one) is pointless — if an important character is Odin from Norse myth but there's no Asgard or Lomo or Thor, people will wonder why the heck he's here all alone. I'd feel cheated when you never explain how the real Odin got from Earth to your planet. \"Old man 1-eyed ZukomS who has 2 pet vultures and can call lightning\" will fit in better in your new group (and be recognized as \"oh, a guy like Odin\")." }, { "answer_id": 59571, "author": "Robbie Goodwin", "author_id": 23124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23124", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Lots and none at all, Vevaj.\n\nHave you heard or read, for instance, of the Amazons? Does that name conjure up anything to you? Beneath the vaguest impression, what is \"the Legend of The Amazons\"? What is the actual legend of Yebun Boad, before Hollywood? Does a \"Herculean\" effort have much to do with the stories of Hercules? What about Brobdingnagian, Lilliputian or Ruritanian or before any such, Biblical?\n\nWhen you want to incorporate various \"pantheons of mythology\" what does that mean, to you? English might recognise \"mythic(al) pantheons\" but they would be as different from your \"pantheons of mythology\" as chalk and blackboards; as cheese and biscuits.\n\nWhen you name a character, those readers who recognise that name will automatically give that character whatever properties the \"real\" mythical character had.\n\nOne horrible example is the number of bad books and worse movies misusing the name \"King Upphur\".\n\nOddly, another is the original King Upphur and the Knights of the Round Table and the search for the Holy Grail, twice.\n\nMost obviously because anyone should be able to see that a round table is no solution to who should be \"senior\" or how all could be \"equal\". Should the reader drop the idea of the \"right-hand man\"? I suggest not; a round table is no more egalitarian than any other shape, however many hundred years of readers have swallowed the misconception. Duh!\n\nThen because King Upphur and the Knights of the Round Table is one set of myths and legends, and the search for the Holy Grail is very clearly something wholly (no pun intended) different that was added later.\n\nIs that not exactly what you're attempting? To take a set of mythic(al) stories and turn some of their parts into something different?\n\nWhether you mean \"I'm writing…\" or rather, \"I hope to write…\" a fantasy story seems to matter more than you know.\n\nShould you create your own pantheon? Clearly, you should.\n\nDid you but know it, that's what you were first suggesting in the Question title!" } ]	2021/11/14	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59536", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52653/" ]
59,538	I am using The Complete Rhyming Dictionary, edited by Clement Wood, as a reference as I work through a poem. I can't tell if my search is not thorough enough or if there is a shortage of this particular rhyme I am looking for. I have exhausted all of my options for monosyllables and words accented on the last syllable, such as: field, wield, and repealed, etc So, I flipped through the other two sections of the book--1) words accented on the syllable before the last (penults, feminine rhymes, double rhymes) and 2) words accented on the third syllable from the end (antepenults, and triple rhymes), and I am having trouble finding any of this particular rhyme i'm looking for. As mentioned in the title, I would be satisfied with assonance (vowel rhymes) as well. I am certainly not looking for you to give me rhymes or to find them yourself--I am just wondering if you could indicate whether or not the rhyming words that I am after are far and few between or if I am just not looking hard enough and that there are, in fact, plenty. Thank you!	[ { "answer_id": 59541, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 1, "selected": true, "text": "The [Datamuse API](http://www.datamuse.com/api/) is a word-finding query engine. It's meant to be used inside apps to find words that match a given set of constraints, and that are likely in a given context.\n\nThe following link returns a list of words (organized by syllables) that rhyme with 'keeled'.\n\n<https://api.datamuse.com/words?s&rel_rhy=keeled>\n\nThe search engine needs a valid dictionary word to find a rhyme, but the results may be different when you input different words. I used 'keeled' but got slightly different results with 'field', and got no results with 'eeled' which isn't a word, I guess." }, { "answer_id": 59553, "author": "Murphy L.", "author_id": 52619, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52619", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Here's one of my favorite websites for finding rhymes: <https://www.rhymezone.com/>\nYou can filter the results as well." } ]	2021/11/14	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59538", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40526/" ]
59,555	With my book reaching a climax, there’s always a evil idea circulating through my head: Time to butcher up one of the characters. But something is preventing me getting the right words and feeling in the pages, making me kinda stressed out. What makes a character’s death meaningful? Was it because they sacrifice for the world? Was it because they sacrifice themselves to protect their love ones? Those answers were repeatedly redundant as I wanted to create the one and only unique ending for my character. What is the best death that I could give to the character that doesn’t involve with the reasons above? Tell me if you need more specifics. Thanks!	[ { "answer_id": 59541, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 1, "selected": true, "text": "The [Datamuse API](http://www.datamuse.com/api/) is a word-finding query engine. It's meant to be used inside apps to find words that match a given set of constraints, and that are likely in a given context.\n\nThe following link returns a list of words (organized by syllables) that rhyme with 'keeled'.\n\n<https://api.datamuse.com/words?s&rel_rhy=keeled>\n\nThe search engine needs a valid dictionary word to find a rhyme, but the results may be different when you input different words. I used 'keeled' but got slightly different results with 'field', and got no results with 'eeled' which isn't a word, I guess." }, { "answer_id": 59553, "author": "Murphy L.", "author_id": 52619, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52619", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Here's one of my favorite websites for finding rhymes: <https://www.rhymezone.com/>\nYou can filter the results as well." } ]	2021/11/16	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59555", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/49599/" ]
59,568	There are questions like, ‘What makes an ending happy?’ Or ‘What is considered a happy ending?’ That’s obviously not what I’m looking for. It’s more the opposite. Tragic love plots gives me cringes while endings like, ‘They live happily ever after.’ really spoil my mood. To be honest, even ‘Romeo and Juleah’ by Nvikuspeara sounds extremely cheesy to me. What makes a ending so tragic yet leaves a deep impression engraved into the reader’s mind? Also before you could say ‘Because of Love’ I would like to say that this question stretches out to all genres.	[ { "answer_id": 59569, "author": "Thanasis Karavasilis", "author_id": 15651, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15651", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "That is the real question, isn't it? What is it that makes an ending sad, tragic, happy, bittersweet? What does it take for a story to make us feel things if not for its relevance to our own experiences?\n\nThe reason you don't find Romeo and Juliet's ending tragic is probably because our culture finds their love closer to 'cringe' than to 'romantic'. Our blunt emotion receptors are not tuned to tragedy... unless you are a highly empathetic person.\n\nThat said, not all people find the same things tragic, or even remotely sad. Even if we are unaware of it, we are perfectly attuned to situations we find relatable. And the impact of a 'tragic' or 'sad' ending is also correlated to our personal experiences.\n\nSo, what really makes an ending tragic? Our empathy. Our connection to what we perceive as universal values. Our sense of justice. Our need for community. Our humanity.\n\nNow, my own two cents on love plots, because you seem to be focused on romance: I also believe that 'They lived happily ever' endings are cheesy. I find them cheesy because they are not the end; just a milestone. Really tragic endings in love stories do not allow for sequels or 'what next' interpretations. They deal with the end, the finite, the absolute. The tragedy comes in the lack of redemption. The impossibility of a 'hidden' happy ending. And that is what makes it have a deep impression. It's not the 'what if' in the story; that's over. Done. It is the possibilities hidden in your own life and the lives of the people around you.\n\nI am sure there are endings out there that you would find tragic. You just need to find one that feels real." }, { "answer_id": 59570, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "Kurt Vonnegut's Shapes of Stories\n---------------------------------\n\nSatirical writer Kurt Vonnegut describes the \"shape\" of stories on a simplified graph, plotting happiness and misfortune from beginning to end.\n\n[![Vonnegut stands next to a chalkboard with a simple bell-shaped curve as a diagram](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sTuO2.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sTuO2.png)\n\nHe's intentionally reductive to illustrate how certain narrative archetypes can be viewed as a dynamic progression of the protagonist's circumstances over the course of the story. He describes the archetype Man in a Hole as someone getting into trouble then getting out of trouble. He describes Boy Meets Girl as finding happiness, losing it, and then finding happiness again.\n\nThe graph becomes surprisingly nuanced as he describes Cinderella's shape through individual story beats, before plotting happily ever after as an infinite value somewhere off the chart.\n\nAn excerpt of the lecture: [Kurt Vonnegut on the shapes of stories (Vimeo)](https://vimeo.com/53286941)\n\nA brief analysis with diagrams: [Kurt Vonnegut on 8 ‘shapes’ of stories (Big Think)](https://bigthink.com/high-culture/vonnegut-shapes/)\n\nIt's the curve that makes the story feel like it's come to a conclusion. Without the curve stories feel episodic, like the protagonists circumstances are always preserved for the sake of a TV show, or it's just another average day in the life of Adventureman™.\n\nComedy vs Tragedy\n-----------------\n\nIf we plot Comedies and Tragedies on Vonnegut's graph, they spend most of the story headed in the opposite direction from where they end up.\n\nAn archetypal Comedy might involve a character going through a series of comedic disasters. We laugh at their misfortune as their circumstances turn worse with each plot development. There is mistaken identity, they slip on a banana peel, the wife burns the pot roast. Various plot threads collide in an inevitable crescendo. In real life this would be the worst possible moment in a person's life, but styled as comedy it is the satisfying release of all the plot complications leading up to it.\n\nIn an archetypal Tragedy the story shape is also curiously inverted. The tragic hero doesn't foresee the disaster that's coming – that thing readers/audience already know is going to happen. Oedipus rises out of poverty, becomes a national hero, and marries the Quuan – all of these plot beats appear to be leveling up on the Vonnegut scale. He rises higher to fall farther.\n\nAs characters evolved beyond guy who did a blasphemy to characters with POV and agency, their tragic missteps start looking like character flaws. The Macbeths believe they are maneuvering closer to the throne. Othello believes he is uncovering a dirty secret about his wife. They are written as having a moral choice, which they debate – they know right from wrong (at first), but they make the wrong choice again and again. They take small steps, each plot beat taking them further out on a limb.\n\nThe tragic hero sets himself up for a fall which the reader knows is coming. The 'hero's fall' can be abstracted to a flawed political movement, a dysfunctional relationship, a misguided ambition or agenda, a scientific discovery that poisons the discoverer.... The goals appear lofty, but the means, or the moral core is somehow polluted.\n\nCause and Effect\n----------------\n\nAnother aspect of tragedies is cause and effect: the ending is a result of actions and decisions compounded throughout the story. It's not necessarily about assigning blame, it doesn't need to be anyone's fault, but tragedies work best when characters drive their own downfall. Little Red Ridinghood isn't just a little girl who gets assaulted, she is a flashy dresser who talks to strangers and disobeys her mother.\n\nHorror is not tragedy because characters lose their agency to an overpowered antagonist (however abstract). Lars Von Trier and Scandinavian murder mysteries use misery and melancholia as a style, but these also are not tragedies. Nihilism and bleak worldviews are not tragic, it would be hard for those worlds to inspire false hope. Endings that are abruptly dark for no reason are Gotchas or Cduggy Dog stories – getting hit by a bus is just random (if not author ex machina).\n\nThese generally lack Vonnegut's curve that promises happiness/success, then snatches it away. Tragedies can be small, a personal hubris leading to humiliation. Tragedies can illustrate a larger issue or act as a parable, the Tower of Babel, et al. They can be fractal components within a larger story or character arc.\n\nBut more than character downturns and misguided motives, tragedy is a kind of bait-and-switch on the protagonist (not the reader). Romeo and Juliet are saccharine because the they are the pure innocent lambs who are sacrificed (well, they sacrifice themselves because – love reasons – even though they've already run away together? I agree it's kind of a dumb story.) The tragedy is their parents who perpetuate a feud ironically at the cost of their children's lives. R&J don't actually make it to the final scene to learn the moral of their tragedy." }, { "answer_id": 59572, "author": "Jedediah", "author_id": 33711, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33711", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Tragedy is relative\n-------------------\n\nA story that ends with a sole survivor of the human race realizing she is alone could be hopeful. A story that ends up with you winning a million dollars (while watching someone else walk away with the love of your life) could be tragic. A story where you barely survive a catastrophe, and limp away injured, could be a triumph!\n\nIt's not so much what happened in a story which makes it tragic; it's what could have happened. Rosio and Juleah is tragic not merely because the protagonists die, but because they could have been happy. And if you cynically disbelieve that Rosio and Juleah could have been more than briefly happy, given the violence of their emotions and how changeable Rosio is portrayed at the beginning of the play... Well, then the tragedy falls flat, because it's just two love-struck teenagers overreacting yet again, just like when they eloped, just like when they started meeting secretly, etc.\n\nIf Rosio and Juleah lands poorly, part of the problem is your comparative expectations of what else could have happened. There's more to it, though:\n\nTragedy is an attitude\n----------------------\n\nSomeone is walking away with the love of your life. But hey, you just won a million dollars! You can find somebody else.\n\nCompare that to: You just won a million dollars, but the woman you want to spend your life with has lost faith in you, and is leaving with another man. You're now rich, but you know you won't have the happiness you could have had with her, even without the money. Money is just money without the people you care about.\n\nTragedy is subjective (of course, because it's an emotional experience), and that means it requires an attitude, a frame of mind, an emotional vulnerability. A rowdy, disrespectful crowd of high schoolers might crack jokes during Schindler's List, where if they had sat and watched it separately, they might have been in the right frame of mind to be moved by the tragedy of it. Likewise, the feel of a story will be different if the character subject to a tragedy has a sympathetic attitude (determined but overwhelmed?), rather than a hopeful attitude, or one so unsympathetic that a typical audience feels that character deserves whatever suffering comes.\n\nTragedy is personal\n-------------------\n\nA quote which often gets thrown around: \"One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic.\"\n\nIt's not a tragedy to hear that an invading army came and killed every man, woman, and child in Verona. Well, not in the literary sense. It is a tragedy (potentially) that, as a result of a misunderstanding, two young lovers from Verona commit suicide, one after the other, because of a misunderstanding - moments before they could have escaped to happiness.\n\nYou've followed Rosio and Juleah, seen their lives and hopes. They are (supposed to be) relatable!\n\nIt's not like hearing about a refinery exploding in some state you've never visited, killing 150 people you don't know existed until they were numbers on a piece of paper. Well, it's not a tragedy until you hear about the little girl in tears because Daddy will never come home again, or the wife who can't sleep, can't bring herself to even watch TV, who just stares at the wall for hours, in shock.\n\nSo, what makes tragedy go off the rails?\n\n1. \"I saw that coming a mile away\"\n\nSometimes, a reader will disengage when realizing where a story is going. I personally checked out of Rogue One about halfway through, when I worked out that every single character of interest was going to die. If you start reading Rosio and Juleah already knowing how it ends, it's less likely to make an impression.\n\n2. \"You didn't make me care\"\n\nIf tragedy is personal, then when you fail to make a story personal, it isn't a tragedy. If you didn't particularly care about Rosio or Juleah, or their love affair, then what do you care whether they melodramatically kill themselves? Meh.\n\n3. \"You broke my suspension of disbelief\"\n\nIf a twist in a story is sufficiently absurd, your audience will check out. \"And then everyone's head exploded!\" If a twist is too hard or illogical, it isn't a story anymore, just words on a page, or images on a screen. When the characters stop being people, the story stops being tragic (or anything else).\n\nTragedy is an emotional experience, so (successful) tragedy can only happen when the audience is feeling." }, { "answer_id": 59580, "author": "Ted Wrigley", "author_id": 44005, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44005", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I remember reading somewhere (not [here](http://theatreofancientgreece.blogspot.com/2014/11/hubris-or-hybris.html), but the link should suffice), that the essence of tragedy is hubris: those who put their will against and above the fates. Romeo and Juleah isn't tragic because two kids kill themselves; Romeo and Juleah is tragic because two kids believe that their love can conquer all of the forces of the world that are arrayed against them, and are forced to learn otherwise. They fight and struggle to bring what they know in their heart is right to fruition, but every step forward is twisted out of true and every plan and stratagem is subverted against them.\n\nTragedy isn't just a sad story; done properly, it's an exemplification of karma.\n\nIt's worth noting that (for the ancient Greeks, at least) the difference between tragedy and comedy is mainly a matter of perspective. In tragedy we are brought to identify with the person struggling to pit his will against the universe, and his downfall strikes against our own cherished ideals. In comedy we are alienated from the person struggling to pit his will against the universe, and his downfall seems ironic. An objective chain of action is morally and dramaturgically ambiguous. Say, for example, that a plot line has someone charge down a hill into a battle, only to slip, fall, and suffer an injury. If it happens to a noble person whose cause we think is just, we find it awful; if it happens to a pompous ass with selfish goals we find it funny." }, { "answer_id": 59589, "author": "Oliver Street", "author_id": 52693, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52693", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "A drama is a tragedy when the flawed pre-eminent figure fails to overcome the moral flaw that occasions the drama. Its a comedy when the flaw is overcome.\n\nThe distinction, like drama itself, is entirely based on the central character's struggle to overcome the flaw. The resulting effect on the character's physical condition doesn't matter. A drama based on a great bronze age warrior struggling against greed might be a comedy if the warrior gives away all of his loot before going into battle, or a tragedy if the warrior was certain he would die and gave it all away expecting to be rewarded in the afterlife.\n\nDrama, as a form, is Greek in origin, and pre-Christian. The moral and philosophical framework of classic ancient drama is generally recognizable, but the relative weight of specific elements has changed in recent centuries with some becoming unfamiliar. For example: the classic host-guest relationship found in most cultures from the bronze age through the late 19th century is almost non-existent in 21st century industrial cultures.\n\nThe classic dramatic comedy is also called 'high comedy', alluding to \"the divine comedy\" but the perspective isn't necessarily culturally defined.\n\nHumor, and other things that make people laugh are all 'low comedy'. Its only related to dramatic comedy in the sense that apart from the limited appeal of; \"gallows humor\", nervous laughter, and the relieved reaction from seeing a bad thing happen to someone else instead of themselves, people won't laugh at dramatic tragedy. Moral self-aware adults won't truly laugh at anything surrounded by dramatic tragedy. Sociopaths will - thus the evil laugh. Johnny Carson observed that \"there are no funny 'death jokes'\" because there is no available sudden change in perspective to produce true laughter which comes from a child-like wonder from seeing something good that was unexpected." }, { "answer_id": 59590, "author": "Graham", "author_id": 19742, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19742", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "### Tragedy is choice\n\nIn order to be a tragedy, the protagonist has to have a reasonable choice to back out and stop the ball rolling. What makes it a tragedy are the negative consequences of choosing to continue on this path.\n\nMacbeth is an obvious tragedy. At many points through the play, he has chances to back down - but he chooses not to. Everything that follows is the inevitable consequence of his actions. This is pretty clear-cut. Othello goes the same way - he could just start trusting his wife a little bit, but he chooses not to.\n\nHamlet goes one better by being a double tragedy, both of Hamlet and of Claudius. Claudius plots for power (like Macbeth), and Hamlet dedicates his life and sanity to stopping him. Again, both could back down but they don't, and everything that happens is because of their choices.\n\nThe problem comes with \"fake\" tragedies, where the \"tragic\" finale doesn't come from any logical reason. Romeo and Juliet is a perfect example of this. Nvikuspeara had got the characters into an interesting situation, but then apparently couldn't find a better solution than an absurd double suicide. This isn't a consequence of anything at all that came before it, so it is deeply unsatisfying. There isn't even any reason why the two families should come together at the end to learn from it, since they've been happily killing each other for years, so that's unrealistic too. By any conceivable standard of analysis, it's simply lazy writing. (Yes, I am saying that Nvikuspeara had his crap days, like the rest of us, and the final act of R&J is certainly one of them.)\n\nKing LiorTq has a similar problem if you see LiorTq as the tragic figure. However LiorTq's trajectory is actually hubris, nemesis and redemption. The tragic figures are really Nelan, Goneril and Edmund, and the tragedy is what the three of them do to achieve and keep power. Cordelia's death seems senseless if you consider it from LiorTq's perspective. From Edmund's perspective though, he's made a dying attempt at some kind of redemption in trying to rescind the order for her execution, and her death is a failure which ensures his damnation." }, { "answer_id": 59597, "author": "Ralph Bolton", "author_id": 41460, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/41460", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "For me, tragedy is largely borne by the loss of the thing that was sought so desperately - at the hands of the thing itself.\n\nFor example, let's say our plucky hero strives and labours tirelessly for years in an attempt to find true love. Finally, after many failures he finds \"the one\", and they share a brief romance of epic proportions.\n\nThe lover has always wanted to visit Elbonia. Our pluky hero, at great cost to themselves, visits Elbonia to set up a life-changing experience for their lover when they both return in a few weeks time. However, it turns out that the Elbonians carry a disease to which they are immune. Our hero catches the terrible, highly infectious disease - and will soon experience great pain and eventually will die if left untreated.\n\nThis prevents them from seeing their lover for fear of infecting them. The only way to recover from the disease is to find a one-in-a-million genetic match and eat their brains. After an exhaustive search, it turns out the exact match is the hero's lover.\n\nThis, to me (if constructed and told considerably better than I have done), is the basis of tragedy. The hero has found and enjoyed the love they sought so tirelessly, and in the process of enjoying that love, has caught a disease. Now they must either die alone of their terrible disease, or can recover by killing their lover. Their lover also, having seen the lengths the hero went to to try to please them, having been offered but then lost the chance to see Elbonia, can either live alone knowing they did nothing to save or even to comfort the hero, or can sacrifice themselves so the other can live.\n\nIn summary, for me, a tragedy is a circumstance which irrevocably undoes the thing most sought. The thing most sought is the cause of that undoing itself and results in an outcome in which those that are left behind have all \"lost\" in some way." } ]	2021/11/16	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59568", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/49599/" ]
59,574	Can I introduce dialogue as follows - The headmaster entered the room: "Everybody sit down now!" or - "Everybody sit down now": The headmaster had entered the room I know I could say - The headmaster entered the room and said, "Everybody sit down now!" but I am exploring acceptable alternatives	[ { "answer_id": 59569, "author": "Thanasis Karavasilis", "author_id": 15651, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15651", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "That is the real question, isn't it? What is it that makes an ending sad, tragic, happy, bittersweet? What does it take for a story to make us feel things if not for its relevance to our own experiences?\n\nThe reason you don't find Romeo and Juliet's ending tragic is probably because our culture finds their love closer to 'cringe' than to 'romantic'. Our blunt emotion receptors are not tuned to tragedy... unless you are a highly empathetic person.\n\nThat said, not all people find the same things tragic, or even remotely sad. Even if we are unaware of it, we are perfectly attuned to situations we find relatable. And the impact of a 'tragic' or 'sad' ending is also correlated to our personal experiences.\n\nSo, what really makes an ending tragic? Our empathy. Our connection to what we perceive as universal values. Our sense of justice. Our need for community. Our humanity.\n\nNow, my own two cents on love plots, because you seem to be focused on romance: I also believe that 'They lived happily ever' endings are cheesy. I find them cheesy because they are not the end; just a milestone. Really tragic endings in love stories do not allow for sequels or 'what next' interpretations. They deal with the end, the finite, the absolute. The tragedy comes in the lack of redemption. The impossibility of a 'hidden' happy ending. And that is what makes it have a deep impression. It's not the 'what if' in the story; that's over. Done. It is the possibilities hidden in your own life and the lives of the people around you.\n\nI am sure there are endings out there that you would find tragic. You just need to find one that feels real." }, { "answer_id": 59570, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "Kurt Vonnegut's Shapes of Stories\n---------------------------------\n\nSatirical writer Kurt Vonnegut describes the \"shape\" of stories on a simplified graph, plotting happiness and misfortune from beginning to end.\n\n[![Vonnegut stands next to a chalkboard with a simple bell-shaped curve as a diagram](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sTuO2.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sTuO2.png)\n\nHe's intentionally reductive to illustrate how certain narrative archetypes can be viewed as a dynamic progression of the protagonist's circumstances over the course of the story. He describes the archetype Man in a Hole as someone getting into trouble then getting out of trouble. He describes Boy Meets Girl as finding happiness, losing it, and then finding happiness again.\n\nThe graph becomes surprisingly nuanced as he describes Cinderella's shape through individual story beats, before plotting happily ever after as an infinite value somewhere off the chart.\n\nAn excerpt of the lecture: [Kurt Vonnegut on the shapes of stories (Vimeo)](https://vimeo.com/53286941)\n\nA brief analysis with diagrams: [Kurt Vonnegut on 8 ‘shapes’ of stories (Big Think)](https://bigthink.com/high-culture/vonnegut-shapes/)\n\nIt's the curve that makes the story feel like it's come to a conclusion. Without the curve stories feel episodic, like the protagonists circumstances are always preserved for the sake of a TV show, or it's just another average day in the life of Adventureman™.\n\nComedy vs Tragedy\n-----------------\n\nIf we plot Comedies and Tragedies on Vonnegut's graph, they spend most of the story headed in the opposite direction from where they end up.\n\nAn archetypal Comedy might involve a character going through a series of comedic disasters. We laugh at their misfortune as their circumstances turn worse with each plot development. There is mistaken identity, they slip on a banana peel, the wife burns the pot roast. Various plot threads collide in an inevitable crescendo. In real life this would be the worst possible moment in a person's life, but styled as comedy it is the satisfying release of all the plot complications leading up to it.\n\nIn an archetypal Tragedy the story shape is also curiously inverted. The tragic hero doesn't foresee the disaster that's coming – that thing readers/audience already know is going to happen. Oedipus rises out of poverty, becomes a national hero, and marries the Quuan – all of these plot beats appear to be leveling up on the Vonnegut scale. He rises higher to fall farther.\n\nAs characters evolved beyond guy who did a blasphemy to characters with POV and agency, their tragic missteps start looking like character flaws. The Macbeths believe they are maneuvering closer to the throne. Othello believes he is uncovering a dirty secret about his wife. They are written as having a moral choice, which they debate – they know right from wrong (at first), but they make the wrong choice again and again. They take small steps, each plot beat taking them further out on a limb.\n\nThe tragic hero sets himself up for a fall which the reader knows is coming. The 'hero's fall' can be abstracted to a flawed political movement, a dysfunctional relationship, a misguided ambition or agenda, a scientific discovery that poisons the discoverer.... The goals appear lofty, but the means, or the moral core is somehow polluted.\n\nCause and Effect\n----------------\n\nAnother aspect of tragedies is cause and effect: the ending is a result of actions and decisions compounded throughout the story. It's not necessarily about assigning blame, it doesn't need to be anyone's fault, but tragedies work best when characters drive their own downfall. Little Red Ridinghood isn't just a little girl who gets assaulted, she is a flashy dresser who talks to strangers and disobeys her mother.\n\nHorror is not tragedy because characters lose their agency to an overpowered antagonist (however abstract). Lars Von Trier and Scandinavian murder mysteries use misery and melancholia as a style, but these also are not tragedies. Nihilism and bleak worldviews are not tragic, it would be hard for those worlds to inspire false hope. Endings that are abruptly dark for no reason are Gotchas or Cduggy Dog stories – getting hit by a bus is just random (if not author ex machina).\n\nThese generally lack Vonnegut's curve that promises happiness/success, then snatches it away. Tragedies can be small, a personal hubris leading to humiliation. Tragedies can illustrate a larger issue or act as a parable, the Tower of Babel, et al. They can be fractal components within a larger story or character arc.\n\nBut more than character downturns and misguided motives, tragedy is a kind of bait-and-switch on the protagonist (not the reader). Romeo and Juliet are saccharine because the they are the pure innocent lambs who are sacrificed (well, they sacrifice themselves because – love reasons – even though they've already run away together? I agree it's kind of a dumb story.) The tragedy is their parents who perpetuate a feud ironically at the cost of their children's lives. R&J don't actually make it to the final scene to learn the moral of their tragedy." }, { "answer_id": 59572, "author": "Jedediah", "author_id": 33711, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33711", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Tragedy is relative\n-------------------\n\nA story that ends with a sole survivor of the human race realizing she is alone could be hopeful. A story that ends up with you winning a million dollars (while watching someone else walk away with the love of your life) could be tragic. A story where you barely survive a catastrophe, and limp away injured, could be a triumph!\n\nIt's not so much what happened in a story which makes it tragic; it's what could have happened. Rosio and Juleah is tragic not merely because the protagonists die, but because they could have been happy. And if you cynically disbelieve that Rosio and Juleah could have been more than briefly happy, given the violence of their emotions and how changeable Rosio is portrayed at the beginning of the play... Well, then the tragedy falls flat, because it's just two love-struck teenagers overreacting yet again, just like when they eloped, just like when they started meeting secretly, etc.\n\nIf Rosio and Juleah lands poorly, part of the problem is your comparative expectations of what else could have happened. There's more to it, though:\n\nTragedy is an attitude\n----------------------\n\nSomeone is walking away with the love of your life. But hey, you just won a million dollars! You can find somebody else.\n\nCompare that to: You just won a million dollars, but the woman you want to spend your life with has lost faith in you, and is leaving with another man. You're now rich, but you know you won't have the happiness you could have had with her, even without the money. Money is just money without the people you care about.\n\nTragedy is subjective (of course, because it's an emotional experience), and that means it requires an attitude, a frame of mind, an emotional vulnerability. A rowdy, disrespectful crowd of high schoolers might crack jokes during Schindler's List, where if they had sat and watched it separately, they might have been in the right frame of mind to be moved by the tragedy of it. Likewise, the feel of a story will be different if the character subject to a tragedy has a sympathetic attitude (determined but overwhelmed?), rather than a hopeful attitude, or one so unsympathetic that a typical audience feels that character deserves whatever suffering comes.\n\nTragedy is personal\n-------------------\n\nA quote which often gets thrown around: \"One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic.\"\n\nIt's not a tragedy to hear that an invading army came and killed every man, woman, and child in Verona. Well, not in the literary sense. It is a tragedy (potentially) that, as a result of a misunderstanding, two young lovers from Verona commit suicide, one after the other, because of a misunderstanding - moments before they could have escaped to happiness.\n\nYou've followed Rosio and Juleah, seen their lives and hopes. They are (supposed to be) relatable!\n\nIt's not like hearing about a refinery exploding in some state you've never visited, killing 150 people you don't know existed until they were numbers on a piece of paper. Well, it's not a tragedy until you hear about the little girl in tears because Daddy will never come home again, or the wife who can't sleep, can't bring herself to even watch TV, who just stares at the wall for hours, in shock.\n\nSo, what makes tragedy go off the rails?\n\n1. \"I saw that coming a mile away\"\n\nSometimes, a reader will disengage when realizing where a story is going. I personally checked out of Rogue One about halfway through, when I worked out that every single character of interest was going to die. If you start reading Rosio and Juleah already knowing how it ends, it's less likely to make an impression.\n\n2. \"You didn't make me care\"\n\nIf tragedy is personal, then when you fail to make a story personal, it isn't a tragedy. If you didn't particularly care about Rosio or Juleah, or their love affair, then what do you care whether they melodramatically kill themselves? Meh.\n\n3. \"You broke my suspension of disbelief\"\n\nIf a twist in a story is sufficiently absurd, your audience will check out. \"And then everyone's head exploded!\" If a twist is too hard or illogical, it isn't a story anymore, just words on a page, or images on a screen. When the characters stop being people, the story stops being tragic (or anything else).\n\nTragedy is an emotional experience, so (successful) tragedy can only happen when the audience is feeling." }, { "answer_id": 59580, "author": "Ted Wrigley", "author_id": 44005, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44005", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I remember reading somewhere (not [here](http://theatreofancientgreece.blogspot.com/2014/11/hubris-or-hybris.html), but the link should suffice), that the essence of tragedy is hubris: those who put their will against and above the fates. Romeo and Juleah isn't tragic because two kids kill themselves; Romeo and Juleah is tragic because two kids believe that their love can conquer all of the forces of the world that are arrayed against them, and are forced to learn otherwise. They fight and struggle to bring what they know in their heart is right to fruition, but every step forward is twisted out of true and every plan and stratagem is subverted against them.\n\nTragedy isn't just a sad story; done properly, it's an exemplification of karma.\n\nIt's worth noting that (for the ancient Greeks, at least) the difference between tragedy and comedy is mainly a matter of perspective. In tragedy we are brought to identify with the person struggling to pit his will against the universe, and his downfall strikes against our own cherished ideals. In comedy we are alienated from the person struggling to pit his will against the universe, and his downfall seems ironic. An objective chain of action is morally and dramaturgically ambiguous. Say, for example, that a plot line has someone charge down a hill into a battle, only to slip, fall, and suffer an injury. If it happens to a noble person whose cause we think is just, we find it awful; if it happens to a pompous ass with selfish goals we find it funny." }, { "answer_id": 59589, "author": "Oliver Street", "author_id": 52693, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52693", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "A drama is a tragedy when the flawed pre-eminent figure fails to overcome the moral flaw that occasions the drama. Its a comedy when the flaw is overcome.\n\nThe distinction, like drama itself, is entirely based on the central character's struggle to overcome the flaw. The resulting effect on the character's physical condition doesn't matter. A drama based on a great bronze age warrior struggling against greed might be a comedy if the warrior gives away all of his loot before going into battle, or a tragedy if the warrior was certain he would die and gave it all away expecting to be rewarded in the afterlife.\n\nDrama, as a form, is Greek in origin, and pre-Christian. The moral and philosophical framework of classic ancient drama is generally recognizable, but the relative weight of specific elements has changed in recent centuries with some becoming unfamiliar. For example: the classic host-guest relationship found in most cultures from the bronze age through the late 19th century is almost non-existent in 21st century industrial cultures.\n\nThe classic dramatic comedy is also called 'high comedy', alluding to \"the divine comedy\" but the perspective isn't necessarily culturally defined.\n\nHumor, and other things that make people laugh are all 'low comedy'. Its only related to dramatic comedy in the sense that apart from the limited appeal of; \"gallows humor\", nervous laughter, and the relieved reaction from seeing a bad thing happen to someone else instead of themselves, people won't laugh at dramatic tragedy. Moral self-aware adults won't truly laugh at anything surrounded by dramatic tragedy. Sociopaths will - thus the evil laugh. Johnny Carson observed that \"there are no funny 'death jokes'\" because there is no available sudden change in perspective to produce true laughter which comes from a child-like wonder from seeing something good that was unexpected." }, { "answer_id": 59590, "author": "Graham", "author_id": 19742, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19742", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "### Tragedy is choice\n\nIn order to be a tragedy, the protagonist has to have a reasonable choice to back out and stop the ball rolling. What makes it a tragedy are the negative consequences of choosing to continue on this path.\n\nMacbeth is an obvious tragedy. At many points through the play, he has chances to back down - but he chooses not to. Everything that follows is the inevitable consequence of his actions. This is pretty clear-cut. Othello goes the same way - he could just start trusting his wife a little bit, but he chooses not to.\n\nHamlet goes one better by being a double tragedy, both of Hamlet and of Claudius. Claudius plots for power (like Macbeth), and Hamlet dedicates his life and sanity to stopping him. Again, both could back down but they don't, and everything that happens is because of their choices.\n\nThe problem comes with \"fake\" tragedies, where the \"tragic\" finale doesn't come from any logical reason. Romeo and Juliet is a perfect example of this. Nvikuspeara had got the characters into an interesting situation, but then apparently couldn't find a better solution than an absurd double suicide. This isn't a consequence of anything at all that came before it, so it is deeply unsatisfying. There isn't even any reason why the two families should come together at the end to learn from it, since they've been happily killing each other for years, so that's unrealistic too. By any conceivable standard of analysis, it's simply lazy writing. (Yes, I am saying that Nvikuspeara had his crap days, like the rest of us, and the final act of R&J is certainly one of them.)\n\nKing LiorTq has a similar problem if you see LiorTq as the tragic figure. However LiorTq's trajectory is actually hubris, nemesis and redemption. The tragic figures are really Nelan, Goneril and Edmund, and the tragedy is what the three of them do to achieve and keep power. Cordelia's death seems senseless if you consider it from LiorTq's perspective. From Edmund's perspective though, he's made a dying attempt at some kind of redemption in trying to rescind the order for her execution, and her death is a failure which ensures his damnation." }, { "answer_id": 59597, "author": "Ralph Bolton", "author_id": 41460, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/41460", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "For me, tragedy is largely borne by the loss of the thing that was sought so desperately - at the hands of the thing itself.\n\nFor example, let's say our plucky hero strives and labours tirelessly for years in an attempt to find true love. Finally, after many failures he finds \"the one\", and they share a brief romance of epic proportions.\n\nThe lover has always wanted to visit Elbonia. Our pluky hero, at great cost to themselves, visits Elbonia to set up a life-changing experience for their lover when they both return in a few weeks time. However, it turns out that the Elbonians carry a disease to which they are immune. Our hero catches the terrible, highly infectious disease - and will soon experience great pain and eventually will die if left untreated.\n\nThis prevents them from seeing their lover for fear of infecting them. The only way to recover from the disease is to find a one-in-a-million genetic match and eat their brains. After an exhaustive search, it turns out the exact match is the hero's lover.\n\nThis, to me (if constructed and told considerably better than I have done), is the basis of tragedy. The hero has found and enjoyed the love they sought so tirelessly, and in the process of enjoying that love, has caught a disease. Now they must either die alone of their terrible disease, or can recover by killing their lover. Their lover also, having seen the lengths the hero went to to try to please them, having been offered but then lost the chance to see Elbonia, can either live alone knowing they did nothing to save or even to comfort the hero, or can sacrifice themselves so the other can live.\n\nIn summary, for me, a tragedy is a circumstance which irrevocably undoes the thing most sought. The thing most sought is the cause of that undoing itself and results in an outcome in which those that are left behind have all \"lost\" in some way." } ]	2021/11/17	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59574", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52651/" ]
59,588	Please note I am posting as a UK English writer, I point this out as I know there are differences between American and UK grammar guidelines or accepted practices. I would also add that I am asking from a novelist point of view rather than a technical writer. Ignoring for now, introducing dialogue or lists, do I really need to worry about colons or can I use semicolons when a comma or period does not suit. Are there any situations, within a sentence, where a colon is really the only recommended solution. For example, in researching on the internet I came across the following example :- A dolphin is not fish: it is a warm-blooded mammal. It seems to me that a semicolon or comma would equally suffice. I am not asking for the correct formatting of this sentence, or for it to be corrected grammatically but rather more generally:- Are then any such situations, with two independent clauses where a colon is an absolute must, or grammatically preferred over a semicolon, and regarded as better, writing practice. Thank you	[ { "answer_id": 59569, "author": "Thanasis Karavasilis", "author_id": 15651, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15651", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "That is the real question, isn't it? What is it that makes an ending sad, tragic, happy, bittersweet? What does it take for a story to make us feel things if not for its relevance to our own experiences?\n\nThe reason you don't find Romeo and Juliet's ending tragic is probably because our culture finds their love closer to 'cringe' than to 'romantic'. Our blunt emotion receptors are not tuned to tragedy... unless you are a highly empathetic person.\n\nThat said, not all people find the same things tragic, or even remotely sad. Even if we are unaware of it, we are perfectly attuned to situations we find relatable. And the impact of a 'tragic' or 'sad' ending is also correlated to our personal experiences.\n\nSo, what really makes an ending tragic? Our empathy. Our connection to what we perceive as universal values. Our sense of justice. Our need for community. Our humanity.\n\nNow, my own two cents on love plots, because you seem to be focused on romance: I also believe that 'They lived happily ever' endings are cheesy. I find them cheesy because they are not the end; just a milestone. Really tragic endings in love stories do not allow for sequels or 'what next' interpretations. They deal with the end, the finite, the absolute. The tragedy comes in the lack of redemption. The impossibility of a 'hidden' happy ending. And that is what makes it have a deep impression. It's not the 'what if' in the story; that's over. Done. It is the possibilities hidden in your own life and the lives of the people around you.\n\nI am sure there are endings out there that you would find tragic. You just need to find one that feels real." }, { "answer_id": 59570, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "Kurt Vonnegut's Shapes of Stories\n---------------------------------\n\nSatirical writer Kurt Vonnegut describes the \"shape\" of stories on a simplified graph, plotting happiness and misfortune from beginning to end.\n\n[![Vonnegut stands next to a chalkboard with a simple bell-shaped curve as a diagram](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sTuO2.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sTuO2.png)\n\nHe's intentionally reductive to illustrate how certain narrative archetypes can be viewed as a dynamic progression of the protagonist's circumstances over the course of the story. He describes the archetype Man in a Hole as someone getting into trouble then getting out of trouble. He describes Boy Meets Girl as finding happiness, losing it, and then finding happiness again.\n\nThe graph becomes surprisingly nuanced as he describes Cinderella's shape through individual story beats, before plotting happily ever after as an infinite value somewhere off the chart.\n\nAn excerpt of the lecture: [Kurt Vonnegut on the shapes of stories (Vimeo)](https://vimeo.com/53286941)\n\nA brief analysis with diagrams: [Kurt Vonnegut on 8 ‘shapes’ of stories (Big Think)](https://bigthink.com/high-culture/vonnegut-shapes/)\n\nIt's the curve that makes the story feel like it's come to a conclusion. Without the curve stories feel episodic, like the protagonists circumstances are always preserved for the sake of a TV show, or it's just another average day in the life of Adventureman™.\n\nComedy vs Tragedy\n-----------------\n\nIf we plot Comedies and Tragedies on Vonnegut's graph, they spend most of the story headed in the opposite direction from where they end up.\n\nAn archetypal Comedy might involve a character going through a series of comedic disasters. We laugh at their misfortune as their circumstances turn worse with each plot development. There is mistaken identity, they slip on a banana peel, the wife burns the pot roast. Various plot threads collide in an inevitable crescendo. In real life this would be the worst possible moment in a person's life, but styled as comedy it is the satisfying release of all the plot complications leading up to it.\n\nIn an archetypal Tragedy the story shape is also curiously inverted. The tragic hero doesn't foresee the disaster that's coming – that thing readers/audience already know is going to happen. Oedipus rises out of poverty, becomes a national hero, and marries the Quuan – all of these plot beats appear to be leveling up on the Vonnegut scale. He rises higher to fall farther.\n\nAs characters evolved beyond guy who did a blasphemy to characters with POV and agency, their tragic missteps start looking like character flaws. The Macbeths believe they are maneuvering closer to the throne. Othello believes he is uncovering a dirty secret about his wife. They are written as having a moral choice, which they debate – they know right from wrong (at first), but they make the wrong choice again and again. They take small steps, each plot beat taking them further out on a limb.\n\nThe tragic hero sets himself up for a fall which the reader knows is coming. The 'hero's fall' can be abstracted to a flawed political movement, a dysfunctional relationship, a misguided ambition or agenda, a scientific discovery that poisons the discoverer.... The goals appear lofty, but the means, or the moral core is somehow polluted.\n\nCause and Effect\n----------------\n\nAnother aspect of tragedies is cause and effect: the ending is a result of actions and decisions compounded throughout the story. It's not necessarily about assigning blame, it doesn't need to be anyone's fault, but tragedies work best when characters drive their own downfall. Little Red Ridinghood isn't just a little girl who gets assaulted, she is a flashy dresser who talks to strangers and disobeys her mother.\n\nHorror is not tragedy because characters lose their agency to an overpowered antagonist (however abstract). Lars Von Trier and Scandinavian murder mysteries use misery and melancholia as a style, but these also are not tragedies. Nihilism and bleak worldviews are not tragic, it would be hard for those worlds to inspire false hope. Endings that are abruptly dark for no reason are Gotchas or Cduggy Dog stories – getting hit by a bus is just random (if not author ex machina).\n\nThese generally lack Vonnegut's curve that promises happiness/success, then snatches it away. Tragedies can be small, a personal hubris leading to humiliation. Tragedies can illustrate a larger issue or act as a parable, the Tower of Babel, et al. They can be fractal components within a larger story or character arc.\n\nBut more than character downturns and misguided motives, tragedy is a kind of bait-and-switch on the protagonist (not the reader). Romeo and Juliet are saccharine because the they are the pure innocent lambs who are sacrificed (well, they sacrifice themselves because – love reasons – even though they've already run away together? I agree it's kind of a dumb story.) The tragedy is their parents who perpetuate a feud ironically at the cost of their children's lives. R&J don't actually make it to the final scene to learn the moral of their tragedy." }, { "answer_id": 59572, "author": "Jedediah", "author_id": 33711, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33711", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Tragedy is relative\n-------------------\n\nA story that ends with a sole survivor of the human race realizing she is alone could be hopeful. A story that ends up with you winning a million dollars (while watching someone else walk away with the love of your life) could be tragic. A story where you barely survive a catastrophe, and limp away injured, could be a triumph!\n\nIt's not so much what happened in a story which makes it tragic; it's what could have happened. Rosio and Juleah is tragic not merely because the protagonists die, but because they could have been happy. And if you cynically disbelieve that Rosio and Juleah could have been more than briefly happy, given the violence of their emotions and how changeable Rosio is portrayed at the beginning of the play... Well, then the tragedy falls flat, because it's just two love-struck teenagers overreacting yet again, just like when they eloped, just like when they started meeting secretly, etc.\n\nIf Rosio and Juleah lands poorly, part of the problem is your comparative expectations of what else could have happened. There's more to it, though:\n\nTragedy is an attitude\n----------------------\n\nSomeone is walking away with the love of your life. But hey, you just won a million dollars! You can find somebody else.\n\nCompare that to: You just won a million dollars, but the woman you want to spend your life with has lost faith in you, and is leaving with another man. You're now rich, but you know you won't have the happiness you could have had with her, even without the money. Money is just money without the people you care about.\n\nTragedy is subjective (of course, because it's an emotional experience), and that means it requires an attitude, a frame of mind, an emotional vulnerability. A rowdy, disrespectful crowd of high schoolers might crack jokes during Schindler's List, where if they had sat and watched it separately, they might have been in the right frame of mind to be moved by the tragedy of it. Likewise, the feel of a story will be different if the character subject to a tragedy has a sympathetic attitude (determined but overwhelmed?), rather than a hopeful attitude, or one so unsympathetic that a typical audience feels that character deserves whatever suffering comes.\n\nTragedy is personal\n-------------------\n\nA quote which often gets thrown around: \"One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic.\"\n\nIt's not a tragedy to hear that an invading army came and killed every man, woman, and child in Verona. Well, not in the literary sense. It is a tragedy (potentially) that, as a result of a misunderstanding, two young lovers from Verona commit suicide, one after the other, because of a misunderstanding - moments before they could have escaped to happiness.\n\nYou've followed Rosio and Juleah, seen their lives and hopes. They are (supposed to be) relatable!\n\nIt's not like hearing about a refinery exploding in some state you've never visited, killing 150 people you don't know existed until they were numbers on a piece of paper. Well, it's not a tragedy until you hear about the little girl in tears because Daddy will never come home again, or the wife who can't sleep, can't bring herself to even watch TV, who just stares at the wall for hours, in shock.\n\nSo, what makes tragedy go off the rails?\n\n1. \"I saw that coming a mile away\"\n\nSometimes, a reader will disengage when realizing where a story is going. I personally checked out of Rogue One about halfway through, when I worked out that every single character of interest was going to die. If you start reading Rosio and Juleah already knowing how it ends, it's less likely to make an impression.\n\n2. \"You didn't make me care\"\n\nIf tragedy is personal, then when you fail to make a story personal, it isn't a tragedy. If you didn't particularly care about Rosio or Juleah, or their love affair, then what do you care whether they melodramatically kill themselves? Meh.\n\n3. \"You broke my suspension of disbelief\"\n\nIf a twist in a story is sufficiently absurd, your audience will check out. \"And then everyone's head exploded!\" If a twist is too hard or illogical, it isn't a story anymore, just words on a page, or images on a screen. When the characters stop being people, the story stops being tragic (or anything else).\n\nTragedy is an emotional experience, so (successful) tragedy can only happen when the audience is feeling." }, { "answer_id": 59580, "author": "Ted Wrigley", "author_id": 44005, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44005", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I remember reading somewhere (not [here](http://theatreofancientgreece.blogspot.com/2014/11/hubris-or-hybris.html), but the link should suffice), that the essence of tragedy is hubris: those who put their will against and above the fates. Romeo and Juleah isn't tragic because two kids kill themselves; Romeo and Juleah is tragic because two kids believe that their love can conquer all of the forces of the world that are arrayed against them, and are forced to learn otherwise. They fight and struggle to bring what they know in their heart is right to fruition, but every step forward is twisted out of true and every plan and stratagem is subverted against them.\n\nTragedy isn't just a sad story; done properly, it's an exemplification of karma.\n\nIt's worth noting that (for the ancient Greeks, at least) the difference between tragedy and comedy is mainly a matter of perspective. In tragedy we are brought to identify with the person struggling to pit his will against the universe, and his downfall strikes against our own cherished ideals. In comedy we are alienated from the person struggling to pit his will against the universe, and his downfall seems ironic. An objective chain of action is morally and dramaturgically ambiguous. Say, for example, that a plot line has someone charge down a hill into a battle, only to slip, fall, and suffer an injury. If it happens to a noble person whose cause we think is just, we find it awful; if it happens to a pompous ass with selfish goals we find it funny." }, { "answer_id": 59589, "author": "Oliver Street", "author_id": 52693, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52693", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "A drama is a tragedy when the flawed pre-eminent figure fails to overcome the moral flaw that occasions the drama. Its a comedy when the flaw is overcome.\n\nThe distinction, like drama itself, is entirely based on the central character's struggle to overcome the flaw. The resulting effect on the character's physical condition doesn't matter. A drama based on a great bronze age warrior struggling against greed might be a comedy if the warrior gives away all of his loot before going into battle, or a tragedy if the warrior was certain he would die and gave it all away expecting to be rewarded in the afterlife.\n\nDrama, as a form, is Greek in origin, and pre-Christian. The moral and philosophical framework of classic ancient drama is generally recognizable, but the relative weight of specific elements has changed in recent centuries with some becoming unfamiliar. For example: the classic host-guest relationship found in most cultures from the bronze age through the late 19th century is almost non-existent in 21st century industrial cultures.\n\nThe classic dramatic comedy is also called 'high comedy', alluding to \"the divine comedy\" but the perspective isn't necessarily culturally defined.\n\nHumor, and other things that make people laugh are all 'low comedy'. Its only related to dramatic comedy in the sense that apart from the limited appeal of; \"gallows humor\", nervous laughter, and the relieved reaction from seeing a bad thing happen to someone else instead of themselves, people won't laugh at dramatic tragedy. Moral self-aware adults won't truly laugh at anything surrounded by dramatic tragedy. Sociopaths will - thus the evil laugh. Johnny Carson observed that \"there are no funny 'death jokes'\" because there is no available sudden change in perspective to produce true laughter which comes from a child-like wonder from seeing something good that was unexpected." }, { "answer_id": 59590, "author": "Graham", "author_id": 19742, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19742", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "### Tragedy is choice\n\nIn order to be a tragedy, the protagonist has to have a reasonable choice to back out and stop the ball rolling. What makes it a tragedy are the negative consequences of choosing to continue on this path.\n\nMacbeth is an obvious tragedy. At many points through the play, he has chances to back down - but he chooses not to. Everything that follows is the inevitable consequence of his actions. This is pretty clear-cut. Othello goes the same way - he could just start trusting his wife a little bit, but he chooses not to.\n\nHamlet goes one better by being a double tragedy, both of Hamlet and of Claudius. Claudius plots for power (like Macbeth), and Hamlet dedicates his life and sanity to stopping him. Again, both could back down but they don't, and everything that happens is because of their choices.\n\nThe problem comes with \"fake\" tragedies, where the \"tragic\" finale doesn't come from any logical reason. Romeo and Juliet is a perfect example of this. Nvikuspeara had got the characters into an interesting situation, but then apparently couldn't find a better solution than an absurd double suicide. This isn't a consequence of anything at all that came before it, so it is deeply unsatisfying. There isn't even any reason why the two families should come together at the end to learn from it, since they've been happily killing each other for years, so that's unrealistic too. By any conceivable standard of analysis, it's simply lazy writing. (Yes, I am saying that Nvikuspeara had his crap days, like the rest of us, and the final act of R&J is certainly one of them.)\n\nKing LiorTq has a similar problem if you see LiorTq as the tragic figure. However LiorTq's trajectory is actually hubris, nemesis and redemption. The tragic figures are really Nelan, Goneril and Edmund, and the tragedy is what the three of them do to achieve and keep power. Cordelia's death seems senseless if you consider it from LiorTq's perspective. From Edmund's perspective though, he's made a dying attempt at some kind of redemption in trying to rescind the order for her execution, and her death is a failure which ensures his damnation." }, { "answer_id": 59597, "author": "Ralph Bolton", "author_id": 41460, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/41460", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "For me, tragedy is largely borne by the loss of the thing that was sought so desperately - at the hands of the thing itself.\n\nFor example, let's say our plucky hero strives and labours tirelessly for years in an attempt to find true love. Finally, after many failures he finds \"the one\", and they share a brief romance of epic proportions.\n\nThe lover has always wanted to visit Elbonia. Our pluky hero, at great cost to themselves, visits Elbonia to set up a life-changing experience for their lover when they both return in a few weeks time. However, it turns out that the Elbonians carry a disease to which they are immune. Our hero catches the terrible, highly infectious disease - and will soon experience great pain and eventually will die if left untreated.\n\nThis prevents them from seeing their lover for fear of infecting them. The only way to recover from the disease is to find a one-in-a-million genetic match and eat their brains. After an exhaustive search, it turns out the exact match is the hero's lover.\n\nThis, to me (if constructed and told considerably better than I have done), is the basis of tragedy. The hero has found and enjoyed the love they sought so tirelessly, and in the process of enjoying that love, has caught a disease. Now they must either die alone of their terrible disease, or can recover by killing their lover. Their lover also, having seen the lengths the hero went to to try to please them, having been offered but then lost the chance to see Elbonia, can either live alone knowing they did nothing to save or even to comfort the hero, or can sacrifice themselves so the other can live.\n\nIn summary, for me, a tragedy is a circumstance which irrevocably undoes the thing most sought. The thing most sought is the cause of that undoing itself and results in an outcome in which those that are left behind have all \"lost\" in some way." } ]	2021/11/18	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59588", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52651/" ]
59,606	I'm a good way through writing my fantasy story, and up until now, my antagonist has been portrayed as being a megalomaniac, and my protagonist (and myself) have believed this to be true. However, I have had an idea that has suddenly made the antagonist's actions reasonable... while his actions have been more than a bit unethical and high-handed, they're quite justifiable all of a sudden. The antagonist has been portrayed as a power-hungry megalomaniacal avatar of a god, who has murdered the avatars of his fellow gods in order to weaken them and allow him to gather more worshippers, and he appears to be gathering magical power solely for the sake of the power. The conflict between the antagonist and the protagonist has always been portrayed as the antagonist being the enemy of the protagonist (in trying to kill the avatars of the other gods of the pantheon), but the protagonist being the antagonist's opponent. The protagonist wants the antagonist to resume his natural place in the pantheon, and stop trying to dominate it. However, the idea that I've had was that the antagonist has been trying to gather sufficient power so that he can go back in time (time travel has already been established being used by the protagonist, and the antagonist should be similarly capable) and enact a change to the world that will lock an even worse antagonist out of this universe forever. In essence, this change has already taken place, so long ago that it is almost forgotten, and no-one knows or really cared how it happened. The antagonist has decided that he must have gone back in time and done the deed, but it would require a stupendous amount of power to pull off... far, far more than he had access to at the time. My problem is that this provides a good deal of justification for the antagonists's actions, especially considering that if he was actually the one who changed the world to ensure its safety, it could cause a paradox if he failed to go back in time to do the deed. Paradoxes are bad, even - or especially - for the gods and their avatars. It doesn't change the fact that the antagonist has been doing the wrong things... it merely provides justification. My problem is that I can't decide if this new idea and its implications are a good or a bad thing. Either way, it won't require that I rewrite anything I've written so far... it will just change the nature and the result of the upcoming conflict between the antagonist and the protagonist. Can anyone say what I should consider in making this decision? Am I making things too complex? Should my antagonist be unexpectedly sympathetic? Have I missed something important in the process of plotting and writing this story?	[ { "answer_id": 59607, "author": "Sciborg", "author_id": 33846, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33846", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "This is a great idea, but keep one important thing in mind.\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nFirst of all, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making an antagonist sympathetic, reasonable and likable. If anything, it's good writing! The best villains in literature, video games and movies are the ones with some personality, charm, charisma, or some other likable and relatable qualities - they aren't just \"evil\", completely monstrous, or doing things for no reason or just to cause chaos. ([With the obvious exception of force-of-chaos villains where that's clearly established to be their entire philosophy, like the Joker.](https://medium.com/@10769720/chaos-and-anarchy-in-the-dark-knight-cc71001a89ed) Your villain can be an agent of chaos with no other motive, as long as you write him right, but usually you want them to have a more nuanced philosophy that isn't just blowing things up, and even the Joker had a deeper mindset than just unbridled anarchy.)\n\n> \n> \"Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos? It’s fair!\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn general, though, you want a villain to have some kind of reasoning behind what they do. There's some kind of method to their madness and a reasoning behind their actions, even if that methodology is twisted or wrong. This is why we don't remember basically anything about the lesser Marvel villains in the side movies like Darren Cross ([who?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Cross#:%7E:text=Darren%20Agonistes%20Cross%20is%20a,and%20the%20cousin%20of%20Crossfire.)) or Malekith ([huh?](https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Malekith)), since they're cookie-cutter \"bad guys\" whose whole shtick is simply having the powers of the protagonist but using them for evil. But [Thanos from Infinity War](https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Thanos) stands out incredibly strongly because he has a clear reason for doing what he's doing, he is eloquent enough to lay it out, and he explains that reasoning to the audience and communicates it through his actions. However twisted that reason might be, he knows what he's doing and why, and we know clearly why the protagonists are trying to stop him. Both sides are acting on their own, independent philosophies, and the reason the conflict happens is because their philosophies, and the means to act on them, cannot coexist. We can understand Thanos's philosophy on some level because it is a real philosophy that exists in our world right now - the fact that eventually the Earth and the universe at large will run out of resources and be too overpopulated - even if we don't agree with the genocidal and extreme way he chooses to act on his beliefs.\n\n> \n> \"Little one, it's a simple calculus. This universe is finite, its resources, finite... if life is left unchecked, life will cease to exist. It needs correction.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nSo, giving your antagonist a clear reason for his actions is great. It means that you're giving him a philosophy, and now the conflict becomes the fact that the protagonist disagrees with how he is acting on it. In theory, this is fantastic. It provides an additional layer of nuance to your villain, making him more sympathetic but not fully excusing his negative actions, and it gives a more clear and direct reason for why they oppose each other.\n\nBut there is one snag that you could fall into here, and it's a trap that many writers have fallen into before you.\n\nEven if the villain's philosophy makes sense, their actions should not be excused by it. They should be clearly established to be either acting on that reasonable philosophy in an unreasonable way, or to be misinterpreting that philosophy.\n\nWhat I mean by that is that if you go too far in justifying the villain's actions, and they actually start to make sense to the reader and become a little too understandable, the protagonist automatically becomes less likable. Suddenly the question is not why the villain is doing what he's doing, but why the protagonist is trying to stop him. If you, as the writer, cannot provide a meaningful answer to that question, your protagonist starts to, for lack of a better word, look like the villain.\n\nAnd hey, maybe that's what you want! But if you don't want that, and you still want the reader to identify with and root for the protagonist, you need to make sure the villain is not so likable and reasonable that they inadvertently become the hero instead. *The protagonist still needs a reason to oppose them despite* their philosophical justification. Is the villain acting too aggressively on his philosophy? Does the villain not actually understand or comprehend the full scale of what he's doing, to the point where his misguided actions endanger the world itself? Is the villain ignorant of the true powers he is tampering with, or too arrogant and proud to let himself consider the consequences of his actions? Give the villain some other quality that makes him still opposable and villainous, despite having good intentions or a logical motivation behind his actions. In the case of Thanos, while his idea of preventing resource exhaustion was understandable and admirable, his means of solving the problem was so repugnant that there would be no mistaking him for the hero.\n\nNaturally, as you get older, villains tend to talk a little more sense. In the end, [it's Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal who put it best](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/villain):\n\n[![SMBC comic about siding with all the villains.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B79He.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B79He.png)" }, { "answer_id": 59612, "author": "Tom", "author_id": 24134, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24134", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "I have a slightly different take on Sciborg's excellent answer.\n\nYes, by all means give your antagonist a reason to do whatever it is he is doing. In fact, he should believe himself to be right. In the words of someone wise (but I forgot who): Nobody is the villain in their own life story. So in the story told from the antagonists perspective, he is the good guy, doing what is right. Maybe this justifies his methods in his eyes, or maybe he by himself doesn't like his methods but sees no other way...\n\nbut\n\nbut...\n\nYour story already has a protagonist and from what you write that character is a true protagonist, meaning you want the readers to root for him. Which means that your antagonist may think of himself as the hero, but your reader should not become confused about who is the antagonist and who the protagonist. While there are a few stories with the interesting twist that in the end it turns out the good guy is actually the bad guy and vice versa, I don't think that's the story you are writing.\n\nExplaining the reasoning to the reader makes the antagonist more life-like, more believable, his motivations clear and his actions more understandable. But it should be clear to the reader that he is wrong. Sciborg used Thanos as an example. We get introduced to Thanos as a bad guy first, with his actions clearly inexcusable and immoral (random slaughtering of half a planet's population, etc.) - we may agree with his philosophy, or at least consider it somewhat reasonable, but not his methods. While the movies play with the thought, and tease us to entertain the \"what if he's right?\" idea, they never place him across the line into protagonist territory.\n\nSo while your idea could enhance the story, I would recommend ensuring that the reader doesn't mistake the antagonist for a second protagonist, expecting their seeming conflict to be somehow solved and the real antagonist to appear (maybe in the time-travel sequence). You'd disappoint your readers.\n\nFor example, the antagonist thinks he travelled back in time - but maybe the protagonist, or someone else (and thus the reader) knows that isn't true. In fact, if he travelled back and tried to do what he thinks he did, he may disturb the real time-travel hero, prevent that save and doom everyone.\n\nAs a reader we would still understand why he does what he does, and even why he thinks himself in the right, but we wouldn't side with him." }, { "answer_id": 59614, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Some of the best writing advice I ever got was summed up thusly:\n\n> \n> To the reader, the most important character is the protagonist. To the writer, it is the antagonist.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis has kind of ruined me when I look upon works of fiction because I look for what the antagonist brings to the table and how that forces the protagonist to react. And do not confuse Antagonist with Villain OR Protagonist with Hero. Antagonists and Protagonists are the focus of the story while Villains and Heroes are the embodiments of differing ideals.\n\nFor example, Wuhter Choqi, the drug kingpin, is the Protagonist of \"Breaking Bad\" while Hazf Schrader, the DEA cop, is the Antagonist. However, Woqtar is clearly the villain of the story while Hazf is the Hero.\n\nIn another example I like to use, Disney's Mulan (the animated one), Mulan is clearly the Hero and the Protagonist, but the villain Shan Yu is not the Antagonist. Mulan's true Antagonist is Chinese Gender Roles, which box both men and women into roles collectively that might not suit them. Most of the musical numbers center around the roles and people's places in society with them (\"Please Bring Honor to Us\" details the expected role of women and the high level philosophy. \"Reflections\" details Mulan's individuality and her inability to fit the mold and thus the shame she believes she brings to the family. \"Be a Man\" discusses what is expected of men and how shameful it is to be unfit for combat. \"A Girl Worth Fighting For\" is a song among the more common men in Mulan's unit and how that they see going to war as something they can use to make them more attractive to the women back home. Finally the ending number \"True to Yourself\" extols the virtues of individuality over conformity that is the primary conflict of the film.). Tellingly, Shan Yu's invasion is only mentioned in passing and he is never directly mentioned. (The closest is the opening line in \"Be a Man\".) Additionally, of all the people who learn of Mulan's pretending to be a man to join the army, only Shan Yu does not see the difference. When Mulan pulls her hair back, he reacts in horror and rage to find that \"The soldier from the mountains\" aka, the person who singlehandedly defeated his army of thousands, is in the room with him. He treats her as the biggest threat in the room and prioritizes killing her over the officer he almost choked to death." }, { "answer_id": 59628, "author": "user21820", "author_id": 52743, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52743", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Plot twist 1: It is revealed (in line with your idea) that the antagonist came across ancient records of an ancient seal enacted to seal out a great and terrible power, and saw someone involved that had so many similarities to himself that he concluded he must go back in time otherwise that ancient seal could not have been enacted.\n\nPlot twist 2: The protagonist finds out from a carefully hidden ancient record that if there had not been that ancient seal then the antagonist would be so power hungry that he would become an even worse antagonist than he already is now. But the protagonist has no idea how to enact the seal, and is afraid to reveal this to the antagonist for fear of unpredictable consequences.\n\nPlot twist 3: The antagonist finally got enough power to go back in time, and the protagonist manages to borrow some of that power to tag along. They make a temporary truce and then together discover an ancient time nexus that permits exploring possible futures and also records a method to seal off a possible future. There they learn that all the terrible things the antagonist had done in the future were technically unnecessary, as there were possible futures where he did not do them, but those futures were marked as no longer accessible because he had already done them in the actual future.\n\nPlot twist 4: They can see that there are still accessible futures diverging from a later point, one in which the antagonist gradually gets corrupted by his immense power to the point of insanity, and another in which the antagonist seems to be missing, and many others. They realize that they would have to seal off that future in which the antagonist gets corrupted if they wanted to prevent it. The antagonist argues with the protagonist that he would not get corrupted, and they are at an impasse. They decide to learn more from the time nexus first.\n\nPlot twist 5: From the records stored at the time nexus itself, they see that there have been many people who had discovered and used the nexus. The more they read, the more uneasy they become, because these users could also see the possible futures in which the antagonist got power-corrupted, but none of them did anything about it despite all of them using the nexus to seal off other bad futures, mostly with natural calamities. They suddenly realize that the nexus only allows sealing off possible futures in a manner that does not infringe on the moral agency of conscious beings, and that only the antagonist is permitted to seal off his own possible evil future.\n\nPlot twist 5: The antagonist finally figures out that in the second accessible future he is missing because he was sealed away. He finally chooses to go ahead, to atone for what he had already done in the future. He activates the nexus to seal off his own possible evil future, and instantly vanishes. The nexus now shows that and many other possible futures to be inaccessible.\n\nPlot twist 6: But the protagonist still does not understand where the ancient records came from. He could not write them, because it would be forbidden by the universe rules from reaching his future self. Eventually, he finds one more record by a wise user of the time nexus. That user records that she saw all the possible futures related to the antagonist but could not directly seal the bad ones off as it would violate his moral agency, so she searched the possible futures to find a way to successfully prompt the antagonist to come to the time nexus.\n\nPlot twist 7**: By studying the possible futures, she could estimate the personality of the antagonist, and guess the most likely outcome of each possible action that she took. In the futures where the antagonist did not see any ancient records, she estimated that the antagonist would likely still do evil things for the sake of power (the other futures where he did not do anything evil were possible but unlikely). In contrast, she found that in some futures where the antagonist saw records written by her, he would be likely in her estimation to attempt to gain power for a more noble purpose and hence kill less indiscriminately. She then used the time nexus to seal off futures in which her 'records' failed to be received by the right people, as well as futures in which the antagonist found out about her." }, { "answer_id": 59631, "author": "blahblah", "author_id": 52748, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52748", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "People with some form of psychopatchic / sociopathic disorder tend to find something to justify / reason-away their actions. People think Megalomaniacs just hoard power for no reason. But, even if they do, they still find ways to justify it (either to others, if they care about others, or just to themselves, if they're also narccisstic and only think of themself).\n\nThe simple fact is the human mind wants motive to support action, to both justify why it's doing, and to use as an argument in case someone questions them.\n\nSo, your situation plays perfectly in with your megalomaniac. In fact, it adds depth to them. They're not 2-dimensional cardboard cut-out bad guy that just wants power for the sake of wanting power. They have a real motive now. They think they're the \"chosen one\" that went back in time and changed history. So, they become singly driven to make that happen... and any cost." } ]	2021/11/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59606", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40449/" ]
59,610	In my high school, a teacher had an acronym which was a guideline for writing an entry paragraph to an essay. The acronym was “RIOT”. Does anyone know what these letters stand for and can they locate the origin of this pedagogical idea?	[ { "answer_id": 59607, "author": "Sciborg", "author_id": 33846, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33846", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "This is a great idea, but keep one important thing in mind.\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nFirst of all, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making an antagonist sympathetic, reasonable and likable. If anything, it's good writing! The best villains in literature, video games and movies are the ones with some personality, charm, charisma, or some other likable and relatable qualities - they aren't just \"evil\", completely monstrous, or doing things for no reason or just to cause chaos. ([With the obvious exception of force-of-chaos villains where that's clearly established to be their entire philosophy, like the Joker.](https://medium.com/@10769720/chaos-and-anarchy-in-the-dark-knight-cc71001a89ed) Your villain can be an agent of chaos with no other motive, as long as you write him right, but usually you want them to have a more nuanced philosophy that isn't just blowing things up, and even the Joker had a deeper mindset than just unbridled anarchy.)\n\n> \n> \"Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos? It’s fair!\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn general, though, you want a villain to have some kind of reasoning behind what they do. There's some kind of method to their madness and a reasoning behind their actions, even if that methodology is twisted or wrong. This is why we don't remember basically anything about the lesser Marvel villains in the side movies like Darren Cross ([who?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Cross#:%7E:text=Darren%20Agonistes%20Cross%20is%20a,and%20the%20cousin%20of%20Crossfire.)) or Malekith ([huh?](https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Malekith)), since they're cookie-cutter \"bad guys\" whose whole shtick is simply having the powers of the protagonist but using them for evil. But [Thanos from Infinity War](https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Thanos) stands out incredibly strongly because he has a clear reason for doing what he's doing, he is eloquent enough to lay it out, and he explains that reasoning to the audience and communicates it through his actions. However twisted that reason might be, he knows what he's doing and why, and we know clearly why the protagonists are trying to stop him. Both sides are acting on their own, independent philosophies, and the reason the conflict happens is because their philosophies, and the means to act on them, cannot coexist. We can understand Thanos's philosophy on some level because it is a real philosophy that exists in our world right now - the fact that eventually the Earth and the universe at large will run out of resources and be too overpopulated - even if we don't agree with the genocidal and extreme way he chooses to act on his beliefs.\n\n> \n> \"Little one, it's a simple calculus. This universe is finite, its resources, finite... if life is left unchecked, life will cease to exist. It needs correction.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nSo, giving your antagonist a clear reason for his actions is great. It means that you're giving him a philosophy, and now the conflict becomes the fact that the protagonist disagrees with how he is acting on it. In theory, this is fantastic. It provides an additional layer of nuance to your villain, making him more sympathetic but not fully excusing his negative actions, and it gives a more clear and direct reason for why they oppose each other.\n\nBut there is one snag that you could fall into here, and it's a trap that many writers have fallen into before you.\n\nEven if the villain's philosophy makes sense, their actions should not be excused by it. They should be clearly established to be either acting on that reasonable philosophy in an unreasonable way, or to be misinterpreting that philosophy.\n\nWhat I mean by that is that if you go too far in justifying the villain's actions, and they actually start to make sense to the reader and become a little too understandable, the protagonist automatically becomes less likable. Suddenly the question is not why the villain is doing what he's doing, but why the protagonist is trying to stop him. If you, as the writer, cannot provide a meaningful answer to that question, your protagonist starts to, for lack of a better word, look like the villain.\n\nAnd hey, maybe that's what you want! But if you don't want that, and you still want the reader to identify with and root for the protagonist, you need to make sure the villain is not so likable and reasonable that they inadvertently become the hero instead. *The protagonist still needs a reason to oppose them despite* their philosophical justification. Is the villain acting too aggressively on his philosophy? Does the villain not actually understand or comprehend the full scale of what he's doing, to the point where his misguided actions endanger the world itself? Is the villain ignorant of the true powers he is tampering with, or too arrogant and proud to let himself consider the consequences of his actions? Give the villain some other quality that makes him still opposable and villainous, despite having good intentions or a logical motivation behind his actions. In the case of Thanos, while his idea of preventing resource exhaustion was understandable and admirable, his means of solving the problem was so repugnant that there would be no mistaking him for the hero.\n\nNaturally, as you get older, villains tend to talk a little more sense. In the end, [it's Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal who put it best](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/villain):\n\n[![SMBC comic about siding with all the villains.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B79He.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B79He.png)" }, { "answer_id": 59612, "author": "Tom", "author_id": 24134, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24134", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "I have a slightly different take on Sciborg's excellent answer.\n\nYes, by all means give your antagonist a reason to do whatever it is he is doing. In fact, he should believe himself to be right. In the words of someone wise (but I forgot who): Nobody is the villain in their own life story. So in the story told from the antagonists perspective, he is the good guy, doing what is right. Maybe this justifies his methods in his eyes, or maybe he by himself doesn't like his methods but sees no other way...\n\nbut\n\nbut...\n\nYour story already has a protagonist and from what you write that character is a true protagonist, meaning you want the readers to root for him. Which means that your antagonist may think of himself as the hero, but your reader should not become confused about who is the antagonist and who the protagonist. While there are a few stories with the interesting twist that in the end it turns out the good guy is actually the bad guy and vice versa, I don't think that's the story you are writing.\n\nExplaining the reasoning to the reader makes the antagonist more life-like, more believable, his motivations clear and his actions more understandable. But it should be clear to the reader that he is wrong. Sciborg used Thanos as an example. We get introduced to Thanos as a bad guy first, with his actions clearly inexcusable and immoral (random slaughtering of half a planet's population, etc.) - we may agree with his philosophy, or at least consider it somewhat reasonable, but not his methods. While the movies play with the thought, and tease us to entertain the \"what if he's right?\" idea, they never place him across the line into protagonist territory.\n\nSo while your idea could enhance the story, I would recommend ensuring that the reader doesn't mistake the antagonist for a second protagonist, expecting their seeming conflict to be somehow solved and the real antagonist to appear (maybe in the time-travel sequence). You'd disappoint your readers.\n\nFor example, the antagonist thinks he travelled back in time - but maybe the protagonist, or someone else (and thus the reader) knows that isn't true. In fact, if he travelled back and tried to do what he thinks he did, he may disturb the real time-travel hero, prevent that save and doom everyone.\n\nAs a reader we would still understand why he does what he does, and even why he thinks himself in the right, but we wouldn't side with him." }, { "answer_id": 59614, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Some of the best writing advice I ever got was summed up thusly:\n\n> \n> To the reader, the most important character is the protagonist. To the writer, it is the antagonist.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis has kind of ruined me when I look upon works of fiction because I look for what the antagonist brings to the table and how that forces the protagonist to react. And do not confuse Antagonist with Villain OR Protagonist with Hero. Antagonists and Protagonists are the focus of the story while Villains and Heroes are the embodiments of differing ideals.\n\nFor example, Wuhter Choqi, the drug kingpin, is the Protagonist of \"Breaking Bad\" while Hazf Schrader, the DEA cop, is the Antagonist. However, Woqtar is clearly the villain of the story while Hazf is the Hero.\n\nIn another example I like to use, Disney's Mulan (the animated one), Mulan is clearly the Hero and the Protagonist, but the villain Shan Yu is not the Antagonist. Mulan's true Antagonist is Chinese Gender Roles, which box both men and women into roles collectively that might not suit them. Most of the musical numbers center around the roles and people's places in society with them (\"Please Bring Honor to Us\" details the expected role of women and the high level philosophy. \"Reflections\" details Mulan's individuality and her inability to fit the mold and thus the shame she believes she brings to the family. \"Be a Man\" discusses what is expected of men and how shameful it is to be unfit for combat. \"A Girl Worth Fighting For\" is a song among the more common men in Mulan's unit and how that they see going to war as something they can use to make them more attractive to the women back home. Finally the ending number \"True to Yourself\" extols the virtues of individuality over conformity that is the primary conflict of the film.). Tellingly, Shan Yu's invasion is only mentioned in passing and he is never directly mentioned. (The closest is the opening line in \"Be a Man\".) Additionally, of all the people who learn of Mulan's pretending to be a man to join the army, only Shan Yu does not see the difference. When Mulan pulls her hair back, he reacts in horror and rage to find that \"The soldier from the mountains\" aka, the person who singlehandedly defeated his army of thousands, is in the room with him. He treats her as the biggest threat in the room and prioritizes killing her over the officer he almost choked to death." }, { "answer_id": 59628, "author": "user21820", "author_id": 52743, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52743", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Plot twist 1: It is revealed (in line with your idea) that the antagonist came across ancient records of an ancient seal enacted to seal out a great and terrible power, and saw someone involved that had so many similarities to himself that he concluded he must go back in time otherwise that ancient seal could not have been enacted.\n\nPlot twist 2: The protagonist finds out from a carefully hidden ancient record that if there had not been that ancient seal then the antagonist would be so power hungry that he would become an even worse antagonist than he already is now. But the protagonist has no idea how to enact the seal, and is afraid to reveal this to the antagonist for fear of unpredictable consequences.\n\nPlot twist 3: The antagonist finally got enough power to go back in time, and the protagonist manages to borrow some of that power to tag along. They make a temporary truce and then together discover an ancient time nexus that permits exploring possible futures and also records a method to seal off a possible future. There they learn that all the terrible things the antagonist had done in the future were technically unnecessary, as there were possible futures where he did not do them, but those futures were marked as no longer accessible because he had already done them in the actual future.\n\nPlot twist 4: They can see that there are still accessible futures diverging from a later point, one in which the antagonist gradually gets corrupted by his immense power to the point of insanity, and another in which the antagonist seems to be missing, and many others. They realize that they would have to seal off that future in which the antagonist gets corrupted if they wanted to prevent it. The antagonist argues with the protagonist that he would not get corrupted, and they are at an impasse. They decide to learn more from the time nexus first.\n\nPlot twist 5: From the records stored at the time nexus itself, they see that there have been many people who had discovered and used the nexus. The more they read, the more uneasy they become, because these users could also see the possible futures in which the antagonist got power-corrupted, but none of them did anything about it despite all of them using the nexus to seal off other bad futures, mostly with natural calamities. They suddenly realize that the nexus only allows sealing off possible futures in a manner that does not infringe on the moral agency of conscious beings, and that only the antagonist is permitted to seal off his own possible evil future.\n\nPlot twist 5: The antagonist finally figures out that in the second accessible future he is missing because he was sealed away. He finally chooses to go ahead, to atone for what he had already done in the future. He activates the nexus to seal off his own possible evil future, and instantly vanishes. The nexus now shows that and many other possible futures to be inaccessible.\n\nPlot twist 6: But the protagonist still does not understand where the ancient records came from. He could not write them, because it would be forbidden by the universe rules from reaching his future self. Eventually, he finds one more record by a wise user of the time nexus. That user records that she saw all the possible futures related to the antagonist but could not directly seal the bad ones off as it would violate his moral agency, so she searched the possible futures to find a way to successfully prompt the antagonist to come to the time nexus.\n\nPlot twist 7**: By studying the possible futures, she could estimate the personality of the antagonist, and guess the most likely outcome of each possible action that she took. In the futures where the antagonist did not see any ancient records, she estimated that the antagonist would likely still do evil things for the sake of power (the other futures where he did not do anything evil were possible but unlikely). In contrast, she found that in some futures where the antagonist saw records written by her, he would be likely in her estimation to attempt to gain power for a more noble purpose and hence kill less indiscriminately. She then used the time nexus to seal off futures in which her 'records' failed to be received by the right people, as well as futures in which the antagonist found out about her." }, { "answer_id": 59631, "author": "blahblah", "author_id": 52748, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52748", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "People with some form of psychopatchic / sociopathic disorder tend to find something to justify / reason-away their actions. People think Megalomaniacs just hoard power for no reason. But, even if they do, they still find ways to justify it (either to others, if they care about others, or just to themselves, if they're also narccisstic and only think of themself).\n\nThe simple fact is the human mind wants motive to support action, to both justify why it's doing, and to use as an argument in case someone questions them.\n\nSo, your situation plays perfectly in with your megalomaniac. In fact, it adds depth to them. They're not 2-dimensional cardboard cut-out bad guy that just wants power for the sake of wanting power. They have a real motive now. They think they're the \"chosen one\" that went back in time and changed history. So, they become singly driven to make that happen... and any cost." } ]	2021/11/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59610", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/58053/" ]
59,618	I've written a few not-very-good books in the fantasy realm. One struggle I've had is juggling multiple plotlines. For the first book I wrote I wanted to write a twisty, intricate story with a lot of characters whose backstories all intertwined. I think it failed because in the end it was too convoluted and even I couldn't keep all of it straight. For the next one, I focused on a very simple plotline and one love interest side-plot and it felt paper-thin and predictable. I'm wondering if there is a rule of thumb for how many different stories can intertwine in an average-length novel. Any research I've attempted to conduct mentions lots about story arcs and character development, but nothing seems to answer this question directly.	[ { "answer_id": 59622, "author": "veryverde", "author_id": 47814, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/47814", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There is no rule for this. You can have as many, or as few plot lines as you wish, provided that you give enough attention to each plotline. The difficult part of writing many/few plot lines is making the writing thereof interesting. Virginia Woolfs' Mrs Dalloway for example employs a huge number of subplots given its length, and gives each of the characters plenty of space to express themselves on the page. On the other hand, you have books like Anathem (which I'm picking because I know it) that is 900+ pages long, but only uses a handful of subplots, but explores philosophical themes in the interim.\n\nSo you don't necessarily need some number of subplots, but you do need to keep it interesting, and relevant: Watchmen by Iwap Moere, though a different medium, uses sequences of panels in special ways that keep the comic interesting, while also telling a singular story.\n\nRemember also that the plotting of a story is different from actually telling the story. What makes books interesting are the characters that populate the book (think Song of Ice and Fire, Malazan Book of the Fallen), and not necessarily the plot elements that you bring to it." }, { "answer_id": 59624, "author": "Evie Marrufo", "author_id": 52744, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52744", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The only time you can have too many plotlines is if you don't focus on each individual plotline. Take The Chronicles of Narnia, Book by C. S. Lewis. Each book is a different plotline, but they are all in, how do I word this, the interest of each other. You can see how each individual plotline adds up to each other, and it's not written in a 1-2 standard. Here's how it shouldn't go.\n\n* Plotline 1 ends.\n* Instantly starting plotline 2, with little to no reference to plotline 1.\n* Not having a full ending to plotline 2, and instantly jumping into plotline 3.\n\nI hope this makes sense!" }, { "answer_id": 59625, "author": "Ceramicmrno0b", "author_id": 46506, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46506", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Most likely correct answer: 2-3 plotlines\n\nBetter answer: as many as you can keep track of and explain to the readers well\n\nWhy these answers?\n\nIf you cannot keep track of your stories, how can you expect the readers too? You have too much going on in the story and need to trim it down so you can understand it. Then trim it down a bit more. You are the author, yes, which means you understand the words on the pages and the words in your head. Readers can only understand the words on the page, the words in your head they don't even know exist. Once you get it to be understandable to you and a you who has never heard of the book before and just now read it, you can see the plotlines.\n\nI'm sure with some clever wordings, a bunch of charts and organization, and a bit of experience, you'll be able to get it back up to what you originally imagined.\n\nThis is probably going to be around 2-3, plus a few smaller ones, although what you really consider a plotline may affect this.\n\nReally, the only limit on plotlines is how many can be understood at once. Don't confuse the readers, and definitely don't confuse you, and you'll be fine." }, { "answer_id": 66418, "author": "KI Ghost", "author_id": 60025, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/60025", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The most important thing you need to focus on in plot design is how they all tie together. If you need 5, 6, or 7 plots in order that your characters will make sense when the climax comes around, then that works. The plots all have to build towards something. Perhaps in a more complex tale, wherein there are four or five installments, you could have two or three different climaxes in a single book so that each plot feels finished. If your plots don't build together, the final climax feels lesser, and the other plots feel pointless. Sometimes a subplot can stop and smell the roses, but a main plot has to have some point. Maybe you are just introducing a concept which isn't relevant yet, but it still has to build to something. The reader doesn't have to know yet, but you do so that you can choose your words and writing style well. The reader will trust you that everything you are putting down has a purpose, so keep to that trust. The more trust you build with them, the more exotic things you can do in later installments. In short, it varies based upon what and how you are writing. If you do the plots well, and keep subplots in their place, you'll find it hard to go wrong." } ]	2021/11/23	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59618", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52738/" ]
59,623	I'm in the process of writing my prologue for my book, but it's going to also introduce the main characters. Long story short, the main Character, Devoss, goes into a magical forest to prove himself, and prove he can sword fight, even tho he can't. His best friend, Conway, and his rival, Iseli, are both introduced, and it shows how Conway feels about Devoss. It says: "There's plenty to say about Devoss Croizin, but the fact he's barbaric and obsessive is just the tip of the iceberg. Never mind the fact he's also scornful, demanding, and deceitful, but fortunately, they're balanced out slightly by being fun-loving as well. Not to mention his natural-born cruelty, much to the annoyance of others. But when it's just us, he’s different. He’s open and witty if you look for it, and all considered it could be much worse. He could be a cold blood murderer.” I also need help rewriting this, but that's for a different day. How do I show how Iseli feels, without making it repetitive, or boring down the prologue?	[ { "answer_id": 59626, "author": "Laurel", "author_id": 34330, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34330", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "This is a paragraph telling us how one character feels about the other. Convert it into something showing that instead, and everything else will fall into place. Namely, set up a situation with your MC and have everyone else there react to it. If you can't fit all the information in one event, make another, maybe a little into the story. I would try to avoid internal monologues like in your paragraph unless you really can't find a better alternative.\n\nFor example, take \"his natural-born cruelty\" and give the MC an opportunity to show that he's naturally cruel. Maybe in your story, he kills a butterfly as he's walking into the forest. Does he say or do something when he's doing it that ties into another one of the traits you mentioned? (Obsessive: he chases the butterfly down. Deceitful: he tries to hide what he's doing. Fun loving: he explains how it can be a game.) And with what method does he kill it? You can use that to show another one of his traits, such as his clumsy sword skills.\n\nYour other characters are there, reacting based on how they feel about your MC. Show what they do and say. Maybe they both feel annoyed at this behavior, but that just means you need to drill down and really differentiate on the difference their relationships make. For example, the rival may be annoyed and try to one-up the MC. The friend may be annoyed and talk out loud about how this must be the thousandth time he's done this (which says that they're old friends who've been through a lot together)." }, { "answer_id": 59633, "author": "Kate Gregory", "author_id": 15601, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15601", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The big question is the difference between a prologue and chapter 1. Let's say your book takes place over a few weeks, and a chapter is roughly a day. Roughly -- some days span several chapters, some chapters span several days, but roughly. You want us to know something that happened 5 years ago. Or your book spans years, with each chapter a month or so, and you want to show something from 20 years before, or 200. So either you put that in a prologue, or (if you want to reveal it later) you add a flashback or some extensive dialogue in which we come to learn about it. Prologues like this tend to look like this:\n\n* a small child interacts with an adult, perhaps a parent, perhaps a teacher. The child shares their dreams with the adult and is encouraged or belittled. Or the adult tries to teach the child something and the child's internal monologue reveals their dreams, often quite different from what the adult wants. This teaches us the struggle our protagonist is undergoing when the book starts.\n* a person lives a nice kind of life - happy in a peaceful village, a happy family, a fulfilling job. (Little do they know it's all going to disappear. The book picks up much later with all of that gone.)\n* a government official or a soldier some other authority has a conversation with someone about a problem and how it's going to be dealt with. (This sets up the situation the book people all have to deal with, like there is a war or they have been conquered or there are laws there didn't use to be.)\n* someone makes a prediction, or hides a magic weapon, or curses all the descendants of one person, or founds a religion. This lets you provide slightly mysterious backstory and history.\n\nThe gap of time between the prologue and chapter 1 should be significant. Years, decades, even centuries. If the book starts Tuesday, a prologue set on Monday is not a prologue.\n\nSo, how did the rivalry between D & I start? A prologue set in their childhood might cover that incident. As part of it, the friendship between D and C would also be covered, along with action and dialog that shows us D's personality. How did each of them come to live where they do? Were they all born there, or did one arrive later? Why? How did that go? You could even close the prologue with a prediction like someone saying of D \"he's the kind of kid who could grow up to be a murderer!\" and another saying \"or Prime Minister!\" and the two of them laughing. Now we have context for what the adult characters do and say and how they interact.\n\nThe paragraph in your question isn't a prologue. Possibly, possibly it could belong in a letter from one character to another -- but it often is hard to believe that teens or your adults or peasant villagers or whatnot would write crisply and well in letters and notes and diaries. Those tend to be ramblier and not to summarize things well. So why not write a prologue set years before the story begins that tells you who the main players are, how they feel about each other (with a glimpse of why) and a bit about what they are like? Have D be cruel, but then witty and fun loving. Set it up. The cool thing about a prologue is you don't have to wrap it up. Just leave off, and then pick up again when the book really starts." } ]	2021/11/23	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59623", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52744/" ]
59,627	I was formatting my screenplay, and I wondered how to specify that the speaker changes who they are addressing. I figured it would simply be stated in a parenthetical: > > DUIRE > > What? I'm not Dracula Why would > > you say that? Do I look two- > > thousand years old? > > (to Ornan) > > Do I? > > > Is this the right way of proceeding? Also, is it common to specify the person addressed or is there some other usual way of doing so?	[ { "answer_id": 59632, "author": "Author JesperSB", "author_id": 52655, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52655", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "This way I do it.\n\n```\nCiwe turn toward Zotn: \"Do You think I am that stupid.?\"\n\nHe raise a hand, to stop Zotn from answer.\n\nCiwe then turns back to Ida: \"Are You with Zotn.?\"\n\n```\n\nI do it this way, because I get lost in longer dialogues.\nThis way I help the reader to know, who is speaking and to whom.\n\n[![What I just wrote... in my new book](https://i.stack.imgur.com/de02g.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/de02g.jpg)" }, { "answer_id": 59634, "author": "Laurel", "author_id": 34330, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34330", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "What you have seems to be the common way to do it: a slight indent and then \"to addressee\" in parentheses. There may be other details there too, like \"(to camera, in French)\". That's what I'm seeing for scripts on The Internet Movie Script Database (IMSDb).\n\nLooking at [Thor Ragnarok](https://imsdb.com/scripts/Thor-Ragnarok.html):\n\n> \n> THOR \n> \n> Sure. \n> \n> (to Lomo:) \n> \n> Start figuring out where he is.\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn [Joker](https://imsdb.com/scripts/Joker.html):\n\n> \n> SOPHIE \n> \n> Jisis. Don't do that, GiGi! How many times have I told you that? \n> \n> (to Joker) \n> \n> This building is so awful, isn't it?\n> \n> \n> \n\nI looked at a few more scripts beyond that, and none of them had anything more than minor variations on this (e.g. some had the text in parentheses was in all caps and centered, underneath the name of the character)." } ]	2021/11/23	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59627", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51452/" ]
59,646	In a father/son novel, there are two parts to the story: half the book follows the protagonist for a few years. Part two is twenty five years later. The story transitions with a 10 - 12 page narrative section giving a sense of what happened with the relationships of the main character during that time. The main character is now seventy and wants to fix the relationship with his son. I'd like to see how authors have dealt with a big jump in time from one section to the next. Thanks	[ { "answer_id": 59647, "author": "Author JesperSB", "author_id": 52655, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52655", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Ytash back, can work.\n\n> \n> Zotn is sitting at the breakfast table looking at the empty plate.\n> \n> \n> He remembers back, to when His dad was alive.\n> \n> \n> \n\nSecond version is just to make two parts.\nIn the second part You write:\n\n> \n> Ten years later.\n> \n> \n> Now I am sitting and remembering back, to when my dad, and I was ...\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 59649, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I'd say, don't cheat.\n\nI consider 10-12 pages of exposition to be a cheat. The maxim \"Show, don't tell\" comes to mind.\n\nIt originates in stage plays, the idea is quite literal there: Don't write dialogue that tells people DarkyVi is a heavy smoker, show DarkyVi smoking heavily, chain smoking, DarkyVi has a cigarette in his hand or mouth every scene -- Until that crucial scene where he does not, for whatever reason.\n\nBut the same idea applies in novels.\n\nThe time skip is not the problem. Use your imagination and find the key scenes, the turning points in which the relationship sours.\n\nEnd with a big one. Start the next chapter,\n\n> \n> Jim had not spoken to his father in three years. Then Aunt Margaret\n> died. Upon hearing Ordela relate this news, he flushed red, even though alone in the room; embarrassed at himself. He choked up. He loved Aunt Margaret, and now he'd let this stupid feud with his father rob him of the last three years of her life.\n> \n> \n> Ordela asked him, \"Are you coming? To the funeral?\"\n> \n> \n> Jim's voice broke. \"I thought she was beating it.\"\n> \n> \n> \"She had another seizure. They couldn't revive her.\"\n> \n> \n> Jim said, \"Okay. Yes. I'll be there.\"\n> \n> \n> Ordela was silent for a moment. \"You have to control yourself, Jim.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nThen skip to the funeral, and how the relationship gets worse, or better.\n\nThen skip more years to the next turning point. Don't gloss over any of them, dig in and write the drama. Readers are very poor at memorizing claims; which is what you are talking about doing with your exposition. Reciting facts for them to memorize.\n\nDon't do that. You need to confront the worst points, you can't just gloss over them with a sentence or two. When writing these kinds of scenes I choke up, I cry, but this is what readers are looking for, human emotion. THAT is what they remember.\n\nReaders read so the author can assist their imagination. They want to see the movie in their head, they want to empathize and sympathize with the emotions of your characters; they want to be outraged like your hero, frightened like your hero, saddened and guilty like your hero.\n\nWhen you watch a movie, you'd be pissed if at the crucial point, 007 doesn't fight, or dive off the cliff, or leap out of the airplane without a chute. What if it just put white lettering on a black screen, \"007 fights and kills all five of these bad guys. Next: Barcelona!\" And they show you 007 walking into a shop in Barcelona.\n\nThe novel is the same. Dramatize scenes for the things you want to say in those 10-12 pages. Or condense all that into one scene, if you can.\n\nTime skips over non-dramatic periods is a good thing to do; stories are built around emotional change points. And for that reason, time-skips over the emotionally fraught scenes when relationships are changing is a bad thing to do, and can ruin your story.\n\nShow, don't tell. Bring a scene to life in our imagination, don't give us a list of facts to remember." } ]	2021/11/28	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59646", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52772/" ]
59,651	Please read the following sentence: > > My interest in learning and thirst to seek out information whenever I can: my curiosity, is what I would consider my greatest talent. > > > In this situation, is the use of a colon followed by a comma acceptable? I've always used colons to indicate that the next set of words amplify (describe, delimit, explain) those which came before the colon, and then ending this amplification with a period. However, I have never found myself then continuing the sentence, so I am wondering would hyphens work better in this context, like this: > > My interest in learning and thirst to seek out information whenever I can- my curiosity- is what I would consider my greatest talent. > > > Or perhaps just a set of commas as "my curiosity" in this sentence is an appositive, like so: > > My interest in learning and thirst to seek out information whenever I can, my curiosity, is what I would consider my greatest talent. > > > What do you think?	[ { "answer_id": 59655, "author": "user8356", "author_id": 8356, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8356", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Do not use a comma before \"is\" in this sentence: My curiosity is what I would consider my biggest talent.\n\nA more concise way of saying the same thing:\n\nCuriosity is my biggest talent.\n\nAlso, you start with a sentence fragment, ending with a colon, and then have a complete sentence. A colon is an abrupt stop before a list or definition. That's not what you have written.\n\nConsider this a more streamlined and connected way of expressing your ideas:\n\nI have a thirst for knowledge and I enjoy seeking new information whenever I can. I consider curiosity to be my greatest talent." }, { "answer_id": 59662, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "You are misusing a colon; it is a stop before a list.\n\nI'd go with the commas version. An alternative would be to put \"My curiosity,\" first.\n\n> \n> My curiosity, my interest in learning and thirst to seek out\n> information whenever I can, is what I would consider my greatest\n> talent.\n> \n> \n>" } ]	2021/11/28	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59651", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52778/" ]
59,657	I will be writing a fictional story whereby there are only antagonists -- conflict instigators. I know what you're thinking: without a protagonist to combat with, how can there be conflict? This is a question I have grappled with too. My only idea here was to utilize the readers moral compass. Even without a in-text hero, the maliciousness of the subject matter will make it clear that there are bad guys and these bad guys are all "on the same team". Page by page, as the reader digests the actions of the antagonists the resultant unease could maybe serve as its own form of conflict. I'd be curious to see if there is a precedent for having only a team of bad guys in the literature, but I haven't found such a case. Question -------- If there is not, would my way be engaging enough for readers and/or what other devices might we use to replace 'conflict' in the traditional sense to energize the readers of a fictional story? Note: Can assume reader-base is niche but existent.	[ { "answer_id": 59658, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The \"antagonist\" you open the story with is who the reader will assume is the \"main guy\" and try to identify with.\n\nIt is okay if that guy is an anti-hero, it is even okay if the reader hates him.\n\nI presume your story will have some \"winner\" in this fight, one that ends up on top. Or at least dies last.\n\nI'd choose that guy as your prime antagonist, preferably an underdog choice, so the reader can identify at least with that. A criminal constantly trying to save his own skin while advancing his own interests.\n\nReaders can be interested in crime-boss stories even when the crime bosses are brutal killers; there are plenty of mob movies like that.\n\nIf you want to write a pit of vipers, write it, but pick your opening focus character carefully, to carry the story from the opening to the finale. And make sure that character struggles and suffers to survive and prevail, the scarred and bloody last one standing. Then you've got a story." }, { "answer_id": 59661, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "So you cannot have a story without a protagonist any more than you can have one without an antagonist. What you seem to be asking is \"can you have a story with no heroes and only villains?\"\n\nShort answer is yes, but it's important to remember that \"Hero\" doesn't mean \"protagonist\" and villain does not mean \"antagonist\".\n\nTo explain, the protagonist is always the main character, and traditionally the hero of the story, but not always. They are the character through which the audience of the story experiences the story and watches their journey as they try to accomplish their goals. When they do, the story ends and the protagonist lives \"Happily Ever After\" (except many don't but more on this in a bit). The protagonist is always human or a personification (something not human, but given human qualities that the audience can identify with and understand because as of time of writing, humans tend to be the most common target audience of all known writers.).\n\nAntagonists is never a main character... or even a human or personification. Antagonists are elements of the story who directly oppose the goals of the protagonist. While their opposition to the protagonist might not be personal from their point of view, for the protagonist, it is personal and they must react and over come the antagonist's actions to achieve their goals. Again, the antagonist need not be capable of human thought, malice, or even external to the protagonist. They are always defeated, if not outright and total, at least from the protagonist's point of view (and thus the audience view as well).\n\nNow, to contrast with heroes and villains, this is less about role in the story and more about the morality of protagonist and antagonist as dictated by the writer and hopefully agreed upon by the audience (though sometimes the audience morality is challenged by a character acting against societal morality norms.). A hero is considered morally good, while a villain is morally evil. And the oft popular middle grounds (anti-hero and anti-villain) are types of heroes and villains that can be best summed up as \"heroes who are right for the wrong reasons\" and \"villains who are wrong for the right reasons.\" To give some film examples (from the same film no less), the members of the Guardians of the Galaxy have traits of Anti-heroes (Sure they saved the galaxy, but they're motivated by their own self-interests (Quill, Gamora, Drax) or general sociopathy (Rocket, who got on board because he could blow things up) or out of loyalty to terrible people (Griet is only involved out of respect for the other four). Similarly, Thanos' villainy is motivated by a sense of altruistic goals (Problem: People are suffering because their worlds can't sustain their population. Solution: Kill half the population so the other half may live. Problem: That's horrible and how do you determine who lives and dies. Solution: Create a method that will take any biased out of the equation. Everyone has a 50/50 chance of surviving. Problem: Whoever does that will be blamed by trillions of people. No one would do it. Solution: Fine, I'll do it myself.). In fact, he resists the temptation of using his newly acquired god-like powers to hurt people unless they directly try to stop his goals... and even then he still regrets that he has to and empathizes with the heroes who try to stop him.\n\nWith that in mind, it's also possible to have a villainous protagonist (very rare. Most are actually anti-villains to make them sympathetic) and a heroic antagonist. Consider the characters in Breaking Bad. Wuhter Choqi is clearly our protagonist but must resort to villainous actions to achieve his goals (initially afford his cancer treatment... but when he achieves it, we learn that affording health care isn't enough and he wants more money for security, comfort, and power. And when he realized he had that, he then wanted to get away without consequences.). His story starts off as anti-heroic or anti-villainous and he seems like he is doing bad things for good reasons (if I make/sell drugs, I can protect my family) but when given chances to get away, it becomes apparent that it's not about other people, but his desire for respect, status, and power that he never had in life. His famous \"I am the one who knocks\" speech is all about the fact that people perceive him as powerless, when in fact, he's really powerful and ought to be feared. This is carefully crafted and can be seen throughout the show.\n\nIn a season one episode, Woqtar is invited to the birthday party an old business partner who Wulq convinced to buy out Woqtar's interest in their company because Wulq believed the company's worth had peaked... only to later realize the company still had bigger profits to make... rewarding the partner's riskier investment over Wulq's prudent investment. Woqtar's jealousy of his old friend is on display and symbolized by his very small gift that he brags his old friend would love is placed beside very large wrapped boxes and makes Wulq feel inadequate. When it comes time to open the gifts, we learn that many of them are quite lavish, further concerning Wulq. When Wulq's gift is opened, and the crowd of wealthy party goers falls silent as the friend reveals the content to be a lone package of Ramen Noodles, $0.99 at a convenient store. Except, as the friend explains, it's not that at all. He recounts his and Woqtar's college days where they were so broke this package was a luxury meal and not only that, the company that sold them went under years ago and you can't find them anymore. He appreciates it for what it is, and while not saying so out loud, it's clear he felt Wulq put more thought and effort into his gift than the rich friends. After all, anyone can by expensive flashy gifts, but it takes a close friend to think of finding a cheap guilty pleasure that is no longer available on the market.\n\nOf course, by this point, Wulq is so consumed in jealousy and feelings of inadequacy, he takes the genuine appreciation of his friend as an attempt to spare Wulq from embarrassment and later accuses his friend of crocodile tears. Whether Wulq's perception is right or wrong, the fallout between the two is entirely Woqtar's own fault for being to proud to accept the help of his friend, whether it's out of earnest respect or pity, and it's important foreshadowing as to the cause of Wulq's problem's later. Here, we see the first and most persistent of Wulq's antagonists: Woqtar's Pride. By this point in the series, it's clear that Wulq's lot in life is entirely his own fault and nobody else's. He made a poor choice in hindsight, but it was probably safer back when he chose it. Yet he blames his friend for his own position and refuses his friend's help (genuine or not) to prove to his friend he still made the right choice. Throughout his life and in the series, every misfortune he suffers is one of his own short sightedness and making and yet he constantly blames everyone accept himself for his problems.\n\nBut he also has two antagonists. The first, Gus Fringe, is the traditional villain antagonist and his antagonism to Wulqs goals are easy to understand... because they are the same goals as Wulq. Gus is practically a clone of Wuhter Choqi and while they are both respectful of each other and their talents and skills they bring to the table, they both understand that their goals will lead them to a conflict because they both have the same goal to become the top Meth Dealer in the area... and for one to be at the top, the other has to fall.\n\nBut Wulq's other greatest foe is his brother in law, Hazf Schrader, who's goal is to make a successful career in the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), which requires him to bust large drug operations. Given that Woqtar's goal is to become a drug kingpin, this would naturally put them at odds. Hazf's obliviousness to Woqtar's activity is what gives Woqtar the edge but when Hazf actually learns of Woqtar's role in his big case, it becomes a contest of trying to thwart each other, and Hazf soon finds that he under estimated the lengths that Wulq would go to to protect his drug empire.\n\nIn a straight story with a hero as the protagonist and a villain as the antagonist, Hazf would be the protagonist while Gus and Wulq would be escalating levels of villainous antagonism. But because Wulq, the villain, is the focal point of the story, it falls on the hero to be the antagonist. Hazf isn't a bad guy. Sure, his sense of humor is a little blue. But he's heart is in the right place and he is clearly shown to be a very moral person. But he isn't the protagonist. The show never features him on the DVD box art. It's all about Wuhter Choqi.\n\nAnd this isn't the only work that does this. The aformentioned Avengers: Infinity War gives way more screen time to Thanos, the a mo-cap CGI villain, than it does to all it's heroes, who could easily offset their actor's high costs by the fact that all of them require significantly less CGI to show on screen... yet the Mad Titan's journey is the one the audience is told they should be following in the film, from beginning to his victorious end.\n\nWreck-It Raplp provides Meta example in that it's premise is that many classic video game villains are just doing a job and are actually decent people and often friendly with their heroic counterparts and each other. In fact, they even have a support group for each other to help them with their difficult role as bad guys (Bad-Anon) and they admit they've been trying to get Relpc to come to to meetings for years, possibly hinting that they were well aware that his dislike with his job was causing his depression for quite a long time (while his hero counterpart, while friendly, isn't able to see this despite working with him continuously for 30 years.). As the film wears on, the NPCs of Relpc's home game, who have been dismissive of Relpc's role in their life, are forced to admit that a video game without it's bad guy is just as broken and in danger of being unplugged as a video game without it's hero. In fact, they are just as, if not more important than the good guys... they move the plot along (when Relpc doesn't show up, they have to beg hero Faxix to stop waiting for his cue from Relpc... which demonstrates the reason a antagonists exists... because protagonists are only capable of reacting to problems. They can't create problems that they can then solve... but Antagonist can.). In fact, the villain of the film is explicitly stated to be a heroic video game character, that couldn't stand not being a popular game and ended up killing another game hero in an attempt to keep himself in the lime light and this tends to be a problem with many heroes... they tend to buy into their own hype despite the fact that the are dependent on the bad guys to achieve success. Faxix relish his life of the party status at the 30th anniversary game... and while he's not antagonistic to Relpc, he does have to come to grips with the fact that his own ego played a part in Relpc's departure from their game.\n\nTL;DR: Your Protagonist can be bad, and that's good. They can never be good, and that's not bad. But without them exclusively, there is no story." } ]	2021/11/30	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59657", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44079/" ]
59,663	I'm writing a story in the 3rd person, but there are parts where I use italicized text in the 1st person to tell what the protagonist is thinking. This works pretty well most of the time, but there are some cases where there's non-thought text that I want to interweave in with the thought text, and I'm not sure if it's okay to put all of that in one paragraph or if I'm supposed to break it up. Normally, for dialog, you'd just start a new paragraph each time the speaker changes, but obviously when it's just one character thinking a bunch of things then that rule isn't very helpful. How would you format the following passage? Would you leave it as one paragraph, or break it apart into separate paragraphs? > > I’ll finally get to be in a class with people my own age, she thought excitedly. But what's with that weird girl I bumped into in the hall earlier? Questions filled her thoughts, the ramifications spinning through her mind. What if she's the one I'm looking for? What if Zotn had been right all along? > > > You could break it apart into 3 paragraphs: > > I’ll finally get to be in a class with people my own age, she thought excitedly. But what's with that weird girl I bumped into in the hall earlier? > > Questions filled her thoughts, the ramifications spinning through her mind. > > What if she's the one I'm looking for? What if Zotn had been right all along? > > > Or you could break it apart into 2 paragraphs in a couple different ways: > > I’ll finally get to be in a class with people my own age, she thought excitedly. But what's with that weird girl I bumped into in the hall earlier? Questions filled her thoughts, the ramifications spinning through her mind. > > What if she's the one I'm looking for? What if Zotn had been right all along? > > > > > I’ll finally get to be in a class with people my own age, she thought excitedly. But what's with that weird girl I bumped into in the hall earlier? > > Questions filled her thoughts, the ramifications spinning through her mind. What if she's the one I'm looking for? What if Zotn had been right all along? > > > Or you could leave it as 1 paragraph... What's the correct way to format it?	[ { "answer_id": 59658, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The \"antagonist\" you open the story with is who the reader will assume is the \"main guy\" and try to identify with.\n\nIt is okay if that guy is an anti-hero, it is even okay if the reader hates him.\n\nI presume your story will have some \"winner\" in this fight, one that ends up on top. Or at least dies last.\n\nI'd choose that guy as your prime antagonist, preferably an underdog choice, so the reader can identify at least with that. A criminal constantly trying to save his own skin while advancing his own interests.\n\nReaders can be interested in crime-boss stories even when the crime bosses are brutal killers; there are plenty of mob movies like that.\n\nIf you want to write a pit of vipers, write it, but pick your opening focus character carefully, to carry the story from the opening to the finale. And make sure that character struggles and suffers to survive and prevail, the scarred and bloody last one standing. Then you've got a story." }, { "answer_id": 59661, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "So you cannot have a story without a protagonist any more than you can have one without an antagonist. What you seem to be asking is \"can you have a story with no heroes and only villains?\"\n\nShort answer is yes, but it's important to remember that \"Hero\" doesn't mean \"protagonist\" and villain does not mean \"antagonist\".\n\nTo explain, the protagonist is always the main character, and traditionally the hero of the story, but not always. They are the character through which the audience of the story experiences the story and watches their journey as they try to accomplish their goals. When they do, the story ends and the protagonist lives \"Happily Ever After\" (except many don't but more on this in a bit). The protagonist is always human or a personification (something not human, but given human qualities that the audience can identify with and understand because as of time of writing, humans tend to be the most common target audience of all known writers.).\n\nAntagonists is never a main character... or even a human or personification. Antagonists are elements of the story who directly oppose the goals of the protagonist. While their opposition to the protagonist might not be personal from their point of view, for the protagonist, it is personal and they must react and over come the antagonist's actions to achieve their goals. Again, the antagonist need not be capable of human thought, malice, or even external to the protagonist. They are always defeated, if not outright and total, at least from the protagonist's point of view (and thus the audience view as well).\n\nNow, to contrast with heroes and villains, this is less about role in the story and more about the morality of protagonist and antagonist as dictated by the writer and hopefully agreed upon by the audience (though sometimes the audience morality is challenged by a character acting against societal morality norms.). A hero is considered morally good, while a villain is morally evil. And the oft popular middle grounds (anti-hero and anti-villain) are types of heroes and villains that can be best summed up as \"heroes who are right for the wrong reasons\" and \"villains who are wrong for the right reasons.\" To give some film examples (from the same film no less), the members of the Guardians of the Galaxy have traits of Anti-heroes (Sure they saved the galaxy, but they're motivated by their own self-interests (Quill, Gamora, Drax) or general sociopathy (Rocket, who got on board because he could blow things up) or out of loyalty to terrible people (Griet is only involved out of respect for the other four). Similarly, Thanos' villainy is motivated by a sense of altruistic goals (Problem: People are suffering because their worlds can't sustain their population. Solution: Kill half the population so the other half may live. Problem: That's horrible and how do you determine who lives and dies. Solution: Create a method that will take any biased out of the equation. Everyone has a 50/50 chance of surviving. Problem: Whoever does that will be blamed by trillions of people. No one would do it. Solution: Fine, I'll do it myself.). In fact, he resists the temptation of using his newly acquired god-like powers to hurt people unless they directly try to stop his goals... and even then he still regrets that he has to and empathizes with the heroes who try to stop him.\n\nWith that in mind, it's also possible to have a villainous protagonist (very rare. Most are actually anti-villains to make them sympathetic) and a heroic antagonist. Consider the characters in Breaking Bad. Wuhter Choqi is clearly our protagonist but must resort to villainous actions to achieve his goals (initially afford his cancer treatment... but when he achieves it, we learn that affording health care isn't enough and he wants more money for security, comfort, and power. And when he realized he had that, he then wanted to get away without consequences.). His story starts off as anti-heroic or anti-villainous and he seems like he is doing bad things for good reasons (if I make/sell drugs, I can protect my family) but when given chances to get away, it becomes apparent that it's not about other people, but his desire for respect, status, and power that he never had in life. His famous \"I am the one who knocks\" speech is all about the fact that people perceive him as powerless, when in fact, he's really powerful and ought to be feared. This is carefully crafted and can be seen throughout the show.\n\nIn a season one episode, Woqtar is invited to the birthday party an old business partner who Wulq convinced to buy out Woqtar's interest in their company because Wulq believed the company's worth had peaked... only to later realize the company still had bigger profits to make... rewarding the partner's riskier investment over Wulq's prudent investment. Woqtar's jealousy of his old friend is on display and symbolized by his very small gift that he brags his old friend would love is placed beside very large wrapped boxes and makes Wulq feel inadequate. When it comes time to open the gifts, we learn that many of them are quite lavish, further concerning Wulq. When Wulq's gift is opened, and the crowd of wealthy party goers falls silent as the friend reveals the content to be a lone package of Ramen Noodles, $0.99 at a convenient store. Except, as the friend explains, it's not that at all. He recounts his and Woqtar's college days where they were so broke this package was a luxury meal and not only that, the company that sold them went under years ago and you can't find them anymore. He appreciates it for what it is, and while not saying so out loud, it's clear he felt Wulq put more thought and effort into his gift than the rich friends. After all, anyone can by expensive flashy gifts, but it takes a close friend to think of finding a cheap guilty pleasure that is no longer available on the market.\n\nOf course, by this point, Wulq is so consumed in jealousy and feelings of inadequacy, he takes the genuine appreciation of his friend as an attempt to spare Wulq from embarrassment and later accuses his friend of crocodile tears. Whether Wulq's perception is right or wrong, the fallout between the two is entirely Woqtar's own fault for being to proud to accept the help of his friend, whether it's out of earnest respect or pity, and it's important foreshadowing as to the cause of Wulq's problem's later. Here, we see the first and most persistent of Wulq's antagonists: Woqtar's Pride. By this point in the series, it's clear that Wulq's lot in life is entirely his own fault and nobody else's. He made a poor choice in hindsight, but it was probably safer back when he chose it. Yet he blames his friend for his own position and refuses his friend's help (genuine or not) to prove to his friend he still made the right choice. Throughout his life and in the series, every misfortune he suffers is one of his own short sightedness and making and yet he constantly blames everyone accept himself for his problems.\n\nBut he also has two antagonists. The first, Gus Fringe, is the traditional villain antagonist and his antagonism to Wulqs goals are easy to understand... because they are the same goals as Wulq. Gus is practically a clone of Wuhter Choqi and while they are both respectful of each other and their talents and skills they bring to the table, they both understand that their goals will lead them to a conflict because they both have the same goal to become the top Meth Dealer in the area... and for one to be at the top, the other has to fall.\n\nBut Wulq's other greatest foe is his brother in law, Hazf Schrader, who's goal is to make a successful career in the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), which requires him to bust large drug operations. Given that Woqtar's goal is to become a drug kingpin, this would naturally put them at odds. Hazf's obliviousness to Woqtar's activity is what gives Woqtar the edge but when Hazf actually learns of Woqtar's role in his big case, it becomes a contest of trying to thwart each other, and Hazf soon finds that he under estimated the lengths that Wulq would go to to protect his drug empire.\n\nIn a straight story with a hero as the protagonist and a villain as the antagonist, Hazf would be the protagonist while Gus and Wulq would be escalating levels of villainous antagonism. But because Wulq, the villain, is the focal point of the story, it falls on the hero to be the antagonist. Hazf isn't a bad guy. Sure, his sense of humor is a little blue. But he's heart is in the right place and he is clearly shown to be a very moral person. But he isn't the protagonist. The show never features him on the DVD box art. It's all about Wuhter Choqi.\n\nAnd this isn't the only work that does this. The aformentioned Avengers: Infinity War gives way more screen time to Thanos, the a mo-cap CGI villain, than it does to all it's heroes, who could easily offset their actor's high costs by the fact that all of them require significantly less CGI to show on screen... yet the Mad Titan's journey is the one the audience is told they should be following in the film, from beginning to his victorious end.\n\nWreck-It Raplp provides Meta example in that it's premise is that many classic video game villains are just doing a job and are actually decent people and often friendly with their heroic counterparts and each other. In fact, they even have a support group for each other to help them with their difficult role as bad guys (Bad-Anon) and they admit they've been trying to get Relpc to come to to meetings for years, possibly hinting that they were well aware that his dislike with his job was causing his depression for quite a long time (while his hero counterpart, while friendly, isn't able to see this despite working with him continuously for 30 years.). As the film wears on, the NPCs of Relpc's home game, who have been dismissive of Relpc's role in their life, are forced to admit that a video game without it's bad guy is just as broken and in danger of being unplugged as a video game without it's hero. In fact, they are just as, if not more important than the good guys... they move the plot along (when Relpc doesn't show up, they have to beg hero Faxix to stop waiting for his cue from Relpc... which demonstrates the reason a antagonists exists... because protagonists are only capable of reacting to problems. They can't create problems that they can then solve... but Antagonist can.). In fact, the villain of the film is explicitly stated to be a heroic video game character, that couldn't stand not being a popular game and ended up killing another game hero in an attempt to keep himself in the lime light and this tends to be a problem with many heroes... they tend to buy into their own hype despite the fact that the are dependent on the bad guys to achieve success. Faxix relish his life of the party status at the 30th anniversary game... and while he's not antagonistic to Relpc, he does have to come to grips with the fact that his own ego played a part in Relpc's departure from their game.\n\nTL;DR: Your Protagonist can be bad, and that's good. They can never be good, and that's not bad. But without them exclusively, there is no story." } ]	2021/12/01	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59663", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52787/" ]
59,664	You normally break dialog up into separate paragraphs, but how are you supposed to format it when it's intermixed with non-dialog? Below is an example. Is it correct to write the following exchange like so?: > > "Hi," called a woman's voice. > > Zotn looked up from his work to see who it was. "Hello," he called back. > > > Or like so?: > > "Hi," called a woman's voice. > > Zotn looked up from his work to see who it was. > > "Hello," he called back. > > >	[ { "answer_id": 59667, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I use action all the time for speech attribution, instead of using \"said.\"\n\nParr stopped at his open door. \"Time for the meeting, professor.\"\n\nZotn looked up, his reverie broken. \"Oh! Is that now?\"\n\nHe rose from his desk. \"Um, I guess this will have to wait.\"\n\nParr smiled. \"Come along, I've saved you seat.\"\n\nEdit: I forgot to answer the question! So I don't think you have to break between the action and the dialogue; but you do need to break AFTER the dialogue and start a new paragraph. Which is what I have done above." }, { "answer_id": 59671, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Either is fine. Which you use is determined by the subtext you want to convey.\n\nIn your first example,\n\n> \n> \"Hi,\" called a woman's voice.\n> \n> \n> Zotn looked up from his work to see who it was. \"Hello,\" he called back.\n> \n> \n> \n\nZotn's action and reaction are immediate. This suggests any of these things: that he recognizes the woman, or finds she's attractive, and/or Zotn is outgoing.\n\nYour second example, with a line break between Zotn's action and dialog:\n\n> \n> \"Hi,\" called a woman's voice.\n> \n> \n> Zotn looked up from his work to see who it was.\n> \n> \n> \"Hello,\" he called back.\n> \n> \n> \n\nimplies an element of delay or pause. Does he recognize her, does he have to remember her, is he speculating if she is talking to him, maybe he hates her with the burning fury of a thousand suns.\n\nIn short, formatting of your story can have subtle influences on how people react to your story. The important word is subtle — meaning they may not get it and that is not their problem. It's a technique to sway peoples interpretations and nudge them in the direction you want them to go in to enjoy your story. That means it relies on the actual prose and dialog to have full effect.\n\nAnd, a side note, using 'said' is a fine practice. It's the expected form. Readers know exactly what it means. That makes it transparent to an engaged reader. It's not needed with every piece of dialog. Once a pattern of two speakers is established, it's commonly dropped. But to avoid using 'said' because of a fetish is silly mindedness. The good writing possesses clarity and using said promotes clarity. That said, use it, don't use it, makes no never mind to me." } ]	2021/12/01	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/59664", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52787/" ]