/lit/ - Literature

>Jesus was Jewish
>half of the shit that Catholicism / Fundies deem as sin is not a sin in Judaism
>Fundies take the "Whosoever looks after a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart" as it being a sin to be sexually attracted to women
>In the original Greek it explicitly refers to obsessively wanting to fuck another dude's wife

>>5523581
>I will probably start a novel during sometime in the next few months.

No, you won't.
Open up a word processor and start typing.

People just shit on Vonnegut because he gets overly praised by people who weren't willing to move into deeper literature after him. He's accessible and straightforward and by golly, it's way better to get teens into lit through Vonnegut than pretentious and superficial YA.

Who the fuck cares OP? Give your goddamn honest thoughts and opinions and stick with them. Just be assertive and respectable about it. People will only hate you if you act like a douche.

I don't understand the attitude of "I want to be really good at something but why even bother because I'm not good at it."

Nobody ever got anywhere by saying they couldn't do something. People who get good at things are the people who enjoy the actual process and don't care about being shit.

>>5490767
Didn't read it, but I did like Old Man's War.

I got in an argument with Scalzi years ago on his blog after I called him a friendzoned faggot.

Vloggers get shitty books published all the time. Most of them only get minor copyediting because the publishers don't give a fuck about the actual quality since their dumbass subscribers will shell out the money regardless.

>>5481449

Here was another strange thing about water: it would often leave the confines of the seas and clump together as those vaporous masses we know as clouds. Of course, a good number of other things did that too, but the water variety was unique in that it became its own self-aware entity by doing so. Back then clouds weren’t as transient as they are today, so their newfound independence gave way to them creating their own society in the vast expanses of the skies.
The original inhabitants of the skies did not mind this at all, in fact the Nitrogens welcomed the first colonial clouds with open ions. Some might say that the skies were a bit too eager for some new blood, since within a relatively short time span clouds had completely overrun them. Clouds now came in every shape and size you could possibly imagine, and even more that you could not. They had their own personalities and aspirations. They formed complex relationships with each other and interacted in unique ways. They were endlessly intriguing but at the same time, to the seas they were leaving and the heavens they were settling, increasingly terrifying.

>>5481444
On Earth, things had separated themselves into three separate realms: one of land, one of sea, and one of skies.
The elements in the sky and land mostly kept to themselves. The lands gradually but unwaveringly moved about and mingled as time continued to progress. The skies on the other hand loved to clash with themselves and kept a quick pace as they went about their day to day business.

The seas operated quite differently from the other two, as their main inhabitant was a peculiar little thing called water. Instead of individual parts having their own free will and determination and acting as part of greater whole, water had a sort of collective intelligence which caused it to act much more uniformly than other entities. In fact it acted so strangely that the sheer measure of liquid water on the surface set Earth apart enough from the other planets that they’d often make jokes about it when he wasn’t listening.

cont'd

Something I started several years ago and forgot about:


Many, many years in the past, the laws of nature worked quite differently than they do today. In fact, one could argue that they weren’t laws as much as they were guidelines that were only loosely followed.

There were no constants; absurdities such as physics were scoffed at by celestial bodies that only behaved in certain ways because they felt like it. Gravity? Planets only stuck around stars to leech off the excess energy that really only served as some sort of bizarre social status. Each planet in turn had its own unique society that depended on the different elements on it. For example: places such as Jupiter had gradually grown into overcrowded metropolises due to the abundance of your two garden variety gases, hydrogen and helium, that ironically got along despite their conflicting natures (hyperactively violent and easy-goingly passive, respectively). While places like Mercury tended to be a lot more laid back thanks to the surplus solar energy they were getting.

cont'd

Hey man, Planetarian was patrician af

It's too wordy and too disjointed.

You've acknowledged that the prologue is meaningless, so I won't bother with that.

What you're doing is skimming over things that need to be elaborated on and wasting time chewing the fat about things the reader doesn't care about. You don't need a paragraph to describe each character, it's better to give a few brief words and let the reader use their imagination.

Rely less on outright exposition and more on implications and you'll have a much stronger piece of writing.

>>5472975
But it's hard to prove that made the original post if you're Anon and have a dynamic IP.

>>5471580
It has to do with publishing rights. If you post the story on a forum and then it gets published, the owners of the forum could possibly sue over copyright infringement.

It's best to just put whatever you want to share on google docs where you can easily take it down if need be.

It's better, in my opinion, to vary the sentence length as required. Short sentences mean emphasis. A long sentence, on the other hand, can be used to lead the reader along whichever narrative path you wish to follow, provided that your language is clear enough for their mind to keep up. Too many writers use overly long sentences with stuffy words hoping that it will make them sound more professional.

I think one of the big divides is the gun control debate is that people who are raised around guns see them as a regular tool just like a knife. If you grew up in a rural part of America, you're taught to use and respect guns from a very early age. Owning a gun is considered a rite of passage there because of the associated responsibility. So in the mind of somebody raised in this setting, it's the person using the gun to kill who is at fault because the gun is a tool and doesn't have any agency.

The argument coming from the pro-gun control side says that guns are a tool for violence because people in urban areas only ever see them in that context (movies, criminal, cops) and normally have less experience with things like target shooting and hunting. So that the gun merely exists is to them, reason that it should be controlled, because it has the capacity to be used violently.

>Prologue

>>5438400

Here's what I want you do to first OP:

Rewrite this in the third person. You'll be forced to give some sort of context. Then you'll need context for that context and, behold, you'll have the beginnings of a plot.

NEET who has to find a job in the next 12 days or possibly be homeless.

I lived next to a library and taught myself how to read around 3 or 4. My mom had a bunch of medical textbooks that I used to read as well. I think my first adult book was Jurassic Park which I read when I was either 8 or 9.

>>5151572
You're using the past progressive tense too much (was -ing) when you should be sticking with simple past (-ed). It improves readability substantially.

There's too much passive voice. (OVS)
You don't need to tag dialogue if it's clear who's speaking.
Sequences you use to describe things makes visualization difficult.
Too many extraneous and redundant details. You're using too many words in proportion to what you're trying to convey.

The shitty writing in that article is making me self-conscious about my own prose.

Fuck.