/lit/ - Literature

>>17795153
hi guys, i have a question.

i'm a professional artist learning how to write a story for a webcomic/manga as a personal project; NOT necessarily for money, but more as a way to market myself as an artist and keep myself motivated to update work more consistently while giving my designs and illustrations some meaning and direction. it's also just been a childhood dream of mine.

i'm basically brand new to writing and been writing consistently for about 6 months and used brandon sanderson's lectures, pixar story telling tips, among some online resources to help me craft better stories, but i keep changing my mind about plots and all sorts of things i could barely commit to for various reasons.

this is important to me because i predict if i get this project started, i will need to commit at least a year or two to completing it; drawing the pages, concept art, making illustrations and making an art book, animating it, etc. basically i don't want to regret putting my top effort into something i will feel like is embarrassing/boring trash half way through.

so i started writing really short stories (2 pages, roughly 1000 words) that's basically a more fleshed out outline/personal notes mostly to see where this plot and characters and its themes will go, along with its ending.

the idea was that if i liked what i wrote in 2~3 pages, then i can elaborate on it and expand on this a bit more. it seemed according to brandon, it was more important to finish a story. but i'm not sure if i am writing enough to constitute any progression towards my goal.

my question is, am i wasting my time? should i be deep diving and exploring into every plot point that could potentially happen? pls no bully. i am genuinely trying to learn and understand. appreciate if you read this all.

reading marx made me change my view of history and society from an ideal one to a material one but i still disagree with many of his predictions and other ideas.
he can be summarized with this picture. his methods and analysis are like the legs of the horse. deep, scientific and intelligent but his outcome is like the head of the horse. simple, naive and shortsighted.
he tells us that the material condition is the driving force of society then he tells us that the proles will revolt (even though revolt will decrease their living standards for a while) because some dude told them to.
and guess what happened, capital (with the help of liberal democracy) negated class conflict by slightly increasing the worker's subsistence (which the worker uses to buy more consumer goods further increasing the size of the market)