TrashKnight
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:17:08 +0000
This will be my attempt on making a longer post in Writer's Forum after hanging out here for some time, hopefully it will be useful to some readers out there in a way or another.
Beginning
We live in a time where ideas for how to do things correctly can be easily conveyed through books that sell like ice cream in summer, sites that shows the true way and media in form of television telling us consumers not to eat/ or eat certain products due to recent research points at that.
This can be applied to writing aswell as I on my journey in this post contradict myself not following the "Do it every time or die!"-way and hopefully can add useful tidbits from you users, for or against what I type from my experiences.
When you read a rant, guide or anything else that tells how you should do a thing, always keep in mind that you should approach to follow each rule with care.
Look at different sources to get a better grasp of the subject, some might forget or bake in parts. You can spot this quite often on new, whether it is text-tele, tevenews, Internet and newspapers to mention a few.
Everyone isn't comfortable with using a certain rule to the edge, because you will otherwise be hanged by zealots and later burnt on a stake, as they(the rules) can contradict each other.
The ideal way is walking somewhere in-between by compromising with your own experiences(past, present and future) and all flourishing oceans of advices. It doesn't have to be 50:50, it might aswell be 30:70 if it is your cup of tea. Otherwise it can go like in this tale
Miller, son and the donkey, how not to do.
What does the fairy tale (that was only one of the many variations of it) tell us? Simply put: Take heed of others' advices, but don't try to obey everyone of them, as you can't hunt two rabbits at the same time and expect to catch both of them. Just try to follow what can be useful with the "None 50:50/ 100:00".
We can say the same about critisism on works, from my experience it was better to read the critics' words and then drop them until personal emotions had submerged before I took on a objective approach on them. If I deal with the critics point of view at the earlier stage, I only used my own experience and didn't try to look from the ir point of view.
Old and new ideals.
As you encounter new things, some of old experiences you possess must be abandoned or adapated to fit at a way you understand or uses.
For instance I recall my first encounter as a writer with the term "Adverb" christmas 2005 in Stephen King's book "On writing". I followed his rule about not using adverbs as they were weed, yet later I find myself using some as they still filled a purpose even if they were "demons". By not using them my work became stiff at places, by using them I was condemed.
I added new sources on "adverbs" on the Internet, including Strunk, which also said to not use them. Just this morning when I was looking through Endrael's linklist I found a rant about adverbs. One of the debators had a different view corresponding to "Hate adverbs!"; there was nothing wrong with the adverbs themselves, rather how they were used.
At the same time when it comes to critisism I have to say that you can't possibly ignore all sources on your way, by full ignoration, you will only grow weak since without new ideas, no new blood in your writing. Too many new ideas, same result: Chaos.
Showing versus telling
This have been an eternal debate on how to do, which one is best? If you ask me none of them are superior, it is about finding that path you think is the best.
Sometimes it is better to just to tell what happens instead of showing, few of the novells I read tells to-dot what mister Manfred does from he rises from bed to when he goes to sleep again, unless there is something intresting happening, which allows you to summarise the essential none-important stuff. (Note: Slice of life stories is an exception.)
I tried last year to write a prologue of a story by telling everything the girl did. Results? It wasn't very intresting to me, or my critics. I re-wrote the story and summarised paragraph-scenes to a few sentences, changed the appearence and relocalised some scenes of certain key events and presto it felt a bit better for a beta-novel on thirty pages.
By doing the opposite and show everything, your story will become longer, some like it others not and here comes the question: Is everything that happened important, can it be cut down and I still feel good about it when others says yes and no? Only you can decide.
To sum everything up on my point:
- Listen to others, but don't take everything for granted.
- Don't try to follow all the tips, it won't work in the long run.
- Follow what you think is useful, with experience it will be reinforced or adapted to something more (hopefully) beneficial.
- Your story, you write, don't give the readers/critics exactly what they want.
- Everyone can't understand and use all rules the same way.
Others' points:
Rules:
* Please don't quote the first post, small parts are fine, but don't take the whole thing.
* Spellchecking is more user-friendly
* Have a good day debating
Beginning
We live in a time where ideas for how to do things correctly can be easily conveyed through books that sell like ice cream in summer, sites that shows the true way and media in form of television telling us consumers not to eat/ or eat certain products due to recent research points at that.
This can be applied to writing aswell as I on my journey in this post contradict myself not following the "Do it every time or die!"-way and hopefully can add useful tidbits from you users, for or against what I type from my experiences.
When you read a rant, guide or anything else that tells how you should do a thing, always keep in mind that you should approach to follow each rule with care.
Look at different sources to get a better grasp of the subject, some might forget or bake in parts. You can spot this quite often on new, whether it is text-tele, tevenews, Internet and newspapers to mention a few.
Everyone isn't comfortable with using a certain rule to the edge, because you will otherwise be hanged by zealots and later burnt on a stake, as they(the rules) can contradict each other.
The ideal way is walking somewhere in-between by compromising with your own experiences(past, present and future) and all flourishing oceans of advices. It doesn't have to be 50:50, it might aswell be 30:70 if it is your cup of tea. Otherwise it can go like in this tale
Miller, son and the donkey, how not to do.
What does the fairy tale (that was only one of the many variations of it) tell us? Simply put: Take heed of others' advices, but don't try to obey everyone of them, as you can't hunt two rabbits at the same time and expect to catch both of them. Just try to follow what can be useful with the "None 50:50/ 100:00".
We can say the same about critisism on works, from my experience it was better to read the critics' words and then drop them until personal emotions had submerged before I took on a objective approach on them. If I deal with the critics point of view at the earlier stage, I only used my own experience and didn't try to look from the ir point of view.
Old and new ideals.
As you encounter new things, some of old experiences you possess must be abandoned or adapated to fit at a way you understand or uses.
For instance I recall my first encounter as a writer with the term "Adverb" christmas 2005 in Stephen King's book "On writing". I followed his rule about not using adverbs as they were weed, yet later I find myself using some as they still filled a purpose even if they were "demons". By not using them my work became stiff at places, by using them I was condemed.
I added new sources on "adverbs" on the Internet, including Strunk, which also said to not use them. Just this morning when I was looking through Endrael's linklist I found a rant about adverbs. One of the debators had a different view corresponding to "Hate adverbs!"; there was nothing wrong with the adverbs themselves, rather how they were used.
At the same time when it comes to critisism I have to say that you can't possibly ignore all sources on your way, by full ignoration, you will only grow weak since without new ideas, no new blood in your writing. Too many new ideas, same result: Chaos.
Showing versus telling
This have been an eternal debate on how to do, which one is best? If you ask me none of them are superior, it is about finding that path you think is the best.
Sometimes it is better to just to tell what happens instead of showing, few of the novells I read tells to-dot what mister Manfred does from he rises from bed to when he goes to sleep again, unless there is something intresting happening, which allows you to summarise the essential none-important stuff. (Note: Slice of life stories is an exception.)
I tried last year to write a prologue of a story by telling everything the girl did. Results? It wasn't very intresting to me, or my critics. I re-wrote the story and summarised paragraph-scenes to a few sentences, changed the appearence and relocalised some scenes of certain key events and presto it felt a bit better for a beta-novel on thirty pages.
By doing the opposite and show everything, your story will become longer, some like it others not and here comes the question: Is everything that happened important, can it be cut down and I still feel good about it when others says yes and no? Only you can decide.
To sum everything up on my point:
- Listen to others, but don't take everything for granted.
- Don't try to follow all the tips, it won't work in the long run.
- Follow what you think is useful, with experience it will be reinforced or adapted to something more (hopefully) beneficial.
- Your story, you write, don't give the readers/critics exactly what they want.
- Everyone can't understand and use all rules the same way.
Others' points:
Rules:
* Please don't quote the first post, small parts are fine, but don't take the whole thing.
* Spellchecking is more user-friendly
* Have a good day debating
