/lit/ - Literature

the moral dilemma of not being boring.

The dilemma of how he can best utilize these qualities. Is he going to dedicate his life to astrophysics and for the most part ignore his other qualities? If so - what about astrophysics will make sure he makes a positive difference in the world?

>>1790116
what if there is a situation where he gets crushed?
where he suffer a great impact on his massive ego?
what kind of situation could it be?

>>1790124
only one i can see. someone bests in him all the fields he excels.

but still - i see no plot, or anything that would make the reader relate with your character who is a hyper intelligent egomaniac.

Upon finally finding someone he enjoys enough to want to spend his life with, he thinks about it logically and comes to the conclusion that its best if he doesn't date her (not sure what the reason is). He has to decide between his logical thinking and his romantic passion. Possibly in some way he comes to terms with both and have them work dually. Maybe this relationship even leads to ideas that he didn't fully grasp when he was single.

Not sure if you even wanted to take this character in a love direction, but just an idea.

>>1790152
chick-lit. gtfo.

Also - OP - if you need other people to tell you the plot of the novel, find another art to fuck up, instead of projecting your wild dreams and desires into a character you can never be. I mean, the overcompensating in your post is more obscene than a 50 year old in a fancy sportscar. Jesus Christ.

>>1790124

He gets crushed when he realizes that all the time he has spent destroying people in arguments, reading books etc. has only inflated his ego and lead to a permanent feeling of superiority. His friends and family have long since abandoned him - or maybe he abandoned them for not being challenging enough?

He then realizes that the true meaning of life is not to try to be best at everything, but love. Love which he has been too emotionally distant to experience.

He then goes on a search for love, but is unable to find it.

foreveralone.jpg

>>1790158
You just described D+E.

>>1790158
sappy and cliche. but what can you do with a shit character like the one in OP's post.

OP here
character is good.
dont suffer from Forers effect because he is like this.
it is only a character and the idea IS for him to be hated.

>>1790152
could be a side story.
he abandons a pretty sweet girl only because he dont find her compeling to give birth to his children.

>>1790166

So - when you say "it is only a character" you mean a secondary character?

>>1790173
fictional/non existing

>>1790175
Ok then it sucks as a main character. Let's skip over the fact taht he seems almost superhuman ( I mean you even described his voice... seriously..)

People won't relate to him on almost any level. Nobody will go "awww" when he breaks down, or root for him at any point because he seems to be a douche ( even if, according to your description it's a justified douche a la Beethoven). But unlike Beethoven he seems bland and boring, almost robotic.

Beethoven was a tempestuous cunt, coleric and prone to violent mood swings which made him interesting. And most other geniuses described in books are interesting in a way. Your character seems interesting in no particular way, except that he`s something every teenager imagines themselves to be for 5 minutes, before coming back to the real world.

>>1790179

Exactly.

>>1790179
I see your point. Thank you, I will save him as a side character then until I get enough inspiration to actually write something down.
>Beethoven was a tempestuous cunt, coleric and prone to violent mood swings which made him interesting.
This will be also added to his temper.
Thanks anon!

>>1790193
oh, and btw what do you think about this:
if he was seen by main character as I wrote in OP, but he is actually not like that?

>>1790104
Fuck off of /lit/ you cancerous faggot.

>>1790203
jelly fish?

>>1790196

So he is just a misunderstood genius? You are getting more off track by the minute.

>>1790206
and you are raging more by the minute.
you are probably into pulp fictional novels then in real literature and that is why you do not get this.
if you don't have a constructive idea then dont post in this thread, i asked for your help and opinion not for your questions

The moral dilemma of hopelessly antagonistic threads.

>>1790196
The only real advice I can give you, is the one every writer (not implying I'm one) can ultimately give without being called a pompous dickhole who presumes to know something about writing.

Read a lot. Write a lot (regardless if it's good or not) and talk to yourself a lot.

Stare like a retard out the window and think, daydream.

Imagine it, imagine everything as if it was a movie.

If you like what you see in your head that you can't live without writing it - go for it. Even if it's shit, it's yours.

If you have talent it'll be good, if you don't it won't. (Not going to get into an argument about what is good or not - let's just said it'll be read and liked by a good amount of people. If you're just doing it as a hobby, you shouldn't worry about that though.) Talent can't be earned.

Never ask other people about your characters or your plot or anything. Only after you`re done. But then again, I don't believe in criticism when it comes to art. The best you can do it make it yours.

That's what all those idiots who say "be yourself" don't mention. The extent.

tl;dr : Read a lot. Write a lot. Don't ask for advice on crucial things like characters and plot. Those are the things that mainly make you a writer.

But that's just my opinion, and they're like assholes. They're usually shitstained and stink. And everybody has em.

>>1790179

You do rather ignore the possibility of character development, of changing circumstances within the novel, etc. You're also hopelessly confused if you think that all protagonists are supposed to be likeable.

>>1790208

jellyfish

>>1790226

Relatable =/= likeable.

And yes, every character in a novel has to be relatable.

Being boring sounds like a good dilemma. Or you could make him undergo some massively traumatic but irresistible religious conversion.

Seriously though, this characters sounds terrible. He's basically Mr. Perfect, and being so perfect makes his ego less of a flaw and more of an expected occurrence since he is, after all, better than all those religious people and the other less intelligent folk of the world. Try making him human. Make him question things. Right now, he's so smart and so self-assured that there's really nothing for him to do or any way for him to change.

>>1790224
Thanks!

well the biggest problem here is that he believes climate change came about through human impact. if he is anywhere near the intelligent and rational man you describe him to be, then he obviously would be very familiar with the issues regarding this topic. global warming as a human effect is a debated concept even by scientists - it's not just industrialists trying to make money at play here. there has been research regarding the relatively small size of human carbon dioxide output in comparison to the earth's impressive output.

>>1790224

Yes, but yours are the stinkiest of all. At least two of your gems of idiocy seem to contradict one another:

>Talent can't be earned.
>Read a lot. Write a lot

What's the point of doing both? What does this even mean? If talent can't be 'earned', does that mean it also can't be improved, or honed? How the hell are you supposed to know whether you have talent at all, especially since you also say the following:

>Write a lot (regardless if it's good or not)
>If you have talent it'll be good, if you don't it won't.

So... write a lot, regardless of whether it's good, but if you do write and it's not good, you have no talent. Interesting stuff.

>>1790224

Yes, but only if you're writing a screenplay for a movie. Otherwise you might as well imagine it (a novel, a poem, etc.) as if it were a watercolour.

Shut the fuck up.

>>1790238

Let's say you're born with an affinity to music. You're not honing the talent, you're honing your skill. Your style. The seed doesn't grow. You don't get more talented as you practice, only better.

Secondly - read and write alot to improve your skill not your talent.

I did say that "good" is subjective depending on what he wants to achieve. But in this case, when I said "whether it's good or not" I should have mentioned what HE thinks about it. The objective again is honing the skill.

Your last point is just for the sake of argument, since you're venting. It doesn't matter what he imagines it as. (Even though watercolor is just the coloring whereas a movie has characters action plot and so on)

Relax, man.

This debate doesn't change the fact that the character is so presumptuously perfect as to be about as interesting as a cardboard box.

>>1790246
One needs to write how much per day? And how does one know he has talent?

>>1790270
It's a trap! But in case it isn't:

How much to write daily? I don't have an answer to that, nobody really does. As much as you feel comfortable with. Stephen King from what I read writes about 2000 words a day currently. Again, no clear answer, whatever you're comfortable with.

Talent. Another trap but why not.

Talent in art is a murky subject. Some say it's the number of readers you have. Some say it's the TYPE of readers you have (which I agree with - see Twilight) Ultimately it's your own take on it.

Some talented people are called hacks, some hacks are called talented. It's up to you to be comfortable with what you want, even though personally I don't think the number of readers determines that, but the type of readers does.

Genius is something that touches both. Large audience, and a wide spectrum of the kinds of people it reaches. Mozart = kids/adults, idiots/intellectuals.

Getting long winded. I wish this question was asked on /sci/. The answer, then, would have been simple because talent in any science is easily detected because there it only depends on you, whereas in art, it mostly depends on others.

>>1790270
>And how does one know he has talent?

I'd like to know too. Though I think maybe you know/feel you have it - I certainly know what areas I am most talented. But does that mean I have the so-called "talent"?

>>1790289
Source on how much King writes in a day in case you wanted it:

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/stephen-king%E2%80%99s-on-writing/

>"But perhaps my greatest strength is that I know my limits. I know exactly where my knowledge ends, and my ignorance begins. I never speculate; if I don't know an answer, I admit it. And on those rare occasions when I am wrong, I say it out loud. If you ask me a question I cannot answer, I will say so."

>"I believe in evolution, and the natural origin of life.
I believe in anthropogenic climate change.
I do not believe in the afterlife.
I do not believe in god."

Contradiction right here.

The moral dilemma of whether or not to continue being a pretentious ass.