/lit/ - Literature

>>21016536
Im not denying that it cant help you, Ive certainly learned at least a little from analysing the works of artists I admire.
I think its different with writing. I realise Im arrogant, but Im generally quite good at it (when I try)
Its a bit like musicians, lots of the greatest were self taught. However not even a majority of the greatest were self taught.

The story also relies heavily on the story itself if it makes sense, so creative writing tricks/ideas are less relevant to begin with.

When I did read the main thing I always noticed was how overly descriptive lots of popular authors tend to be. Maybe its because the average person needs a detailed description to see it infront of them, for example:
>the woods had tall pine trees, lots of low vegetation and the occasional fern sticking out. By the height of these trees and the low vegetation you could tell its an old forest with few new vegetation, and it smelled of dead rotten wood.
versus
>They entered an old pine forest with dead trees
(not a great example, just focus on the compactness)

Personally I like shorter descriptions because I will form my own picture anyway, whilst descriptive artists will describe details that I dont care about or are entirely irrelevant or even conflict with the image I imagined.