How much time do you give a book to catch your interest?

[I_Write_Ivre]

LadyNaena

I_Write_Ivre

LadyNaena

I_Write_Ivre

No conflict whatsoever will make me ditch the story.

Ah, but how long will you allow the conflict to manifest itself? wink

First chapter or first few pages. By then we should know the motivations of the characters an the basic setting.

First chapter? Oh dear. Alright then, thanks for that.

Is your first chapter just telling the read the setting?

[LadyNaena]

I_Write_Ivre

LadyNaena

I_Write_Ivre

LadyNaena

I_Write_Ivre

No conflict whatsoever will make me ditch the story.

Ah, but how long will you allow the conflict to manifest itself? wink

First chapter or first few pages. By then we should know the motivations of the characters an the basic setting.

First chapter? Oh dear. Alright then, thanks for that.

Is your first chapter just telling the read the setting?

No, but it's not introducing the conflict either. A lot of the internal conflict in the story results from the utter decimation of the main character's view of the world. This can't be properly appreciated if the reader doesn't know what his initial view of the world was. The first chapter is introducing that worldview, the setting, characters, and cannon fodder. The true conflict doesn't start until chapter 2.

[I_Write_Ivre]

LadyNaena

I_Write_Ivre

LadyNaena

I_Write_Ivre

LadyNaena

I_Write_Ivre

No conflict whatsoever will make me ditch the story.

Ah, but how long will you allow the conflict to manifest itself? wink

First chapter or first few pages. By then we should know the motivations of the characters an the basic setting.

First chapter? Oh dear. Alright then, thanks for that.

Is your first chapter just telling the read the setting?

No, but it's not introducing the conflict either. A lot of the internal conflict in the story results from the utter decimation of the main character's view of the world. This can't be properly appreciated if the reader doesn't know what his initial view of the world was. The first chapter is introducing that worldview, the setting, characters, and cannon fodder. The true conflict doesn't start until chapter 2.

That's a good set up, but think of chapters (if you have them) like episodes. If the first episode of a show was just people being happy, what interest is there to continue?

[LadyNaena]

I_Write_Ivre

LadyNaena

I_Write_Ivre

LadyNaena

I_Write_Ivre

First chapter or first few pages. By then we should know the motivations of the characters an the basic setting.

First chapter? Oh dear. Alright then, thanks for that.

Is your first chapter just telling the read the setting?

No, but it's not introducing the conflict either. A lot of the internal conflict in the story results from the utter decimation of the main character's view of the world. This can't be properly appreciated if the reader doesn't know what his initial view of the world was. The first chapter is introducing that worldview, the setting, characters, and cannon fodder. The true conflict doesn't start until chapter 2.

That's a good set up, but think of chapters (if you have them) like episodes. If the first episode of a show was just people being happy, what interest is there to continue?

The tantalizing trailer! blaugh

[I_Write_Ivre]

LadyNaena

I_Write_Ivre

LadyNaena

I_Write_Ivre

LadyNaena

I_Write_Ivre

First chapter or first few pages. By then we should know the motivations of the characters an the basic setting.

First chapter? Oh dear. Alright then, thanks for that.

Is your first chapter just telling the read the setting?

No, but it's not introducing the conflict either. A lot of the internal conflict in the story results from the utter decimation of the main character's view of the world. This can't be properly appreciated if the reader doesn't know what his initial view of the world was. The first chapter is introducing that worldview, the setting, characters, and cannon fodder. The true conflict doesn't start until chapter 2.

That's a good set up, but think of chapters (if you have them) like episodes. If the first episode of a show was just people being happy, what interest is there to continue?

The tantalizing trailer! blaugh

But tantalizing trailers imply conflict. That's why good trailers and teasers go 's**t's happening!'

[Kairi Nightingale]

LadyNaena

Good to know, especially that last bit. Don't suppose I could trouble you to describe a character you find interesting? sweatdrop

Hmm.... ones with a strong personality. And by that I mean, that there is definitely a personality there and it feels real. I'm sorry, I seem to be having some trouble explaining myself today. sweatdrop

When their character is shown not only in the way they talk, but their actions and how they respond to different things. They act because they think of things in a particular way and it shows through what they say and do. A character is always happy because they understand that things can always be worse or strive on what they can do to make things better rather than dwelling on the bad things in life versus the character is always happy because she's just a happy person. Or a character comes off as rude to other people because he has a dismal view of society and so has no desire to share formalities when he sees everyone as corrupt versus he's just a jerk.

Characters I can sympathize with are good, too. But not the ones who actually whine about what's going on. I like the ones who get up again and again, no matter what crap comes there way and don't concern themselves with the bad, but rather how their going to make things better. Because then I'm sympathizing with them because I like them and want them to succeed in making things better, rather than just pitying them for the mess they're in.

I hate bratty protagonists. It's like the opposite with them; the better they're written, the more I hate them. Suffice to say, if their well-deserved punch in the face or change of heart doesn't come early, I'm putting the book down. Perhaps it's unfair but I can't stand people like that in real life. Why would I want to deal with it in book form, too?

However, if introduced as an antagonist, I'd happily wait through the whole novel for them to get what they deserved.

Of course, this is all just my opinion. Not sure how much help it really was.

[Moral Gutpunch]

Another problem (I've read far to much of this in college, including required reading) was the attitude of the writer.

Most of it made it obvious that it was metaphorical (or sometimes literal) masturbation that they expected praise over. Or extreme bitching. The required reading was 'everyone's ruining the world, no one appreciates stuff anymore, the government sucks and that's why I don't' vote' plus glorying Thoreau as the only person who understands and loves nature.

What was meant (I hope) to be an essay on being inspired by a poet to appreciate natural beauty was listening to an angry 'I hate this world and everyone in it' rant.

Thankfully, the class was easy to fake my way through.

It is something to be careful about as you may be writing for open-minded readers, open-minded doesn't mean they'll keep reading when the story turns into pure hate.

[Alberic of Krufton]

Moral Gutpunch

Another problem (I've read far to much of this in college, including required reading) was the attitude of the writer.

Most of it made it obvious that it was metaphorical (or sometimes literal) masturbation that they expected praise over. Or extreme bitching. The required reading was 'everyone's ruining the world, no one appreciates stuff anymore, the government sucks and that's why I don't' vote' plus glorying Thoreau as the only person who understands and loves nature.

This is part of the reason why I dropped out of college twice. Hated that sort of nonsense and how easily it proliferated in that kind of atmosphere.

Strong plot, strong characters, no overt / obnoxious preachery and agendas... That's a good book, right there.

[Moral Gutpunch]

Alberic of Krufton

Moral Gutpunch

Another problem (I've read far to much of this in college, including required reading) was the attitude of the writer.

Most of it made it obvious that it was metaphorical (or sometimes literal) masturbation that they expected praise over. Or extreme bitching. The required reading was 'everyone's ruining the world, no one appreciates stuff anymore, the government sucks and that's why I don't' vote' plus glorying Thoreau as the only person who understands and loves nature.

This is part of the reason why I dropped out of college twice. Hated that sort of nonsense and how easily it proliferated in that kind of atmosphere.

Strong plot, strong characters, no overt / obnoxious preachery and agendas... That's a good book, right there.

It is very reassuring that this wasn't just me.

[Alberic of Krufton]

Moral Gutpunch

Alberic of Krufton

Moral Gutpunch

Another problem (I've read far to much of this in college, including required reading) was the attitude of the writer.

This is part of the reason why I dropped out of college twice. Hated that sort of nonsense and how easily it proliferated in that kind of atmosphere.

It is very reassuring that this wasn't just me.

Either you go with the flow and be a pretentious a** like all the rest, or college drives you nuts.

Someday, I aspire to write a novel that offends everyone equally because it attacks no one in particular and defends everyone at the same time.

[Moral Gutpunch]

Alberic of Krufton

Either you go with the flow and be a pretentious a** like all the rest, or college drives you nuts.

Hurt my brain being that pretentious

Alberic of Krufton

Someday, I aspire to write a novel that offends everyone equally because it attacks no one in particular and defends everyone at the same time.

Id' like to see that. Although, i may have just defeated the purpose.

[Alberic of Krufton]

Moral Gutpunch

Alberic of Krufton

Someday, I aspire to write a novel that offends everyone equally because it attacks no one in particular and defends everyone at the same time.

Id' like to see that. Although, i may have just defeated the purpose.

It may be possible to at least enjoy a book that also managed to ruffle your moral feathers.

My own view is that being a-political is the best way to go. Don't worry about pushing agendas (I have none to push,) praising the virtues of some philosophy (none are good enough,) or making people feel like s**t about things they can't control (go plant a tree if you really want to stop global warming, you hippie, and quitcher bitchin'). I write just to tell a story, and if that involves developing the characters sufficiently that you actually empathize with some scumbag abusive greedy littering this-or-that, well, that just means I actually wrote that character well. I endorse nothing.

But we'll see how my writing chops actually are before I start aspiring to such heights, heh.

[Moral Gutpunch]

Alberic of Krufton

Id' like to see that. Although, i may have just defeated the purpose.

It may be possible to at least enjoy a book that also managed to ruffle your moral feathers.

My own view is that being a-political is the best way to go. Don't worry about pushing agendas (I have none to push,) praising the virtues of some philosophy (none are good enough,) or making people feel like s**t about things they can't control (go plant a tree if you really want to stop global warming, you hippie, and quitcher bitchin'). I write just to tell a story, and if that involves developing the characters sufficiently that you actually empathize with some scumbag abusive greedy littering this-or-that, well, that just means I actually wrote that character well. I endorse nothing.

I agree that it's possible to like something that ruffles your feathers, but there's a huge difference between getting pissed someone's pushing something (or just masturbated words and gave us that) and getting something a-politcal.

[LadyNaena]

Kairi Nightingale

LadyNaena

Good to know, especially that last bit. Don't suppose I could trouble you to describe a character you find interesting? sweatdrop

Hmm.... ones with a strong personality. And by that I mean, that there is definitely a personality there and it feels real. I'm sorry, I seem to be having some trouble explaining myself today. sweatdrop

When their character is shown not only in the way they talk, but their actions and how they respond to different things. They act because they think of things in a particular way and it shows through what they say and do. A character is always happy because they understand that things can always be worse or strive on what they can do to make things better rather than dwelling on the bad things in life versus the character is always happy because she's just a happy person. Or a character comes off as rude to other people because he has a dismal view of society and so has no desire to share formalities when he sees everyone as corrupt versus he's just a jerk.

Characters I can sympathize with are good, too. But not the ones who actually whine about what's going on. I like the ones who get up again and again, no matter what crap comes there way and don't concern themselves with the bad, but rather how their going to make things better. Because then I'm sympathizing with them because I like them and want them to succeed in making things better, rather than just pitying them for the mess they're in.

I hate bratty protagonists. It's like the opposite with them; the better they're written, the more I hate them. Suffice to say, if their well-deserved punch in the face or change of heart doesn't come early, I'm putting the book down. Perhaps it's unfair but I can't stand people like that in real life. Why would I want to deal with it in book form, too?

However, if introduced as an antagonist, I'd happily wait through the whole novel for them to get what they deserved.

Of course, this is all just my opinion. Not sure how much help it really was.

No worries, your reply is much appreciated, and you gave me much to consider. Thankies smile .

[LadyNaena]

Moral Gutpunch

Another problem (I've read far to much of this in college, including required reading) was the attitude of the writer.

Most of it made it obvious that it was metaphorical (or sometimes literal) masturbation that they expected praise over. Or extreme bitching. The required reading was 'everyone's ruining the world, no one appreciates stuff anymore, the government sucks and that's why I don't' vote' plus glorying Thoreau as the only person who understands and loves nature.

What was meant (I hope) to be an essay on being inspired by a poet to appreciate natural beauty was listening to an angry 'I hate this world and everyone in it' rant.

Thankfully, the class was easy to fake my way through.

It is something to be careful about as you may be writing for open-minded readers, open-minded doesn't mean they'll keep reading when the story turns into pure hate.

Lol, I can tell you feel very strongly about this^^. Duly noted, my good sir smile . Thanks for the input.