/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2203561]

What separates an amateur writer from a professional writer (i.e, someone who writes stuff that people actually want to read)? Let's start a list.

An amateur writer...

>Uses too many adverbs.
>Thinks "said" is a boring word, so they make every attempt to avoid using it.
>Uses too many exclamation points.
>Starts their stories with descriptions of weather or dialogue

[Anonymous No.2203562]

>posts on /lit/

[Anonymous No.2203570]

>>2203562
This.

[Anonymous No.2203571]

>>2203561
>Starts their stories with descriptions of weather or dialogue

I agreed with you until we got here. Now I have to wonder if you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.2203574]

>>2203561
The only thing that separates an amateur writer from a professional one is that the professional is paid for his work and the amateur is not. (That's actually literally what the words "amateur" and "professional" mean.)

Beyond that, your generalities are useless. The breadth of different kinds of writing is so wild and varied that to try to define what separates the amateur from the professional is pointless.

An editor somewhere liked the professional's work enough to pay for it. That's all.

This discussion would be better to focus on what separated good writing from bad writing. Because naturally, there are plenty of brilliant amateurs and plenty of shitsucking professionals.

[Anonymous No.2203578]

>>2203574

>focus on what separated good writing from bad writing

Opinions.

[Anonymous No.2203585]

>focus on what separated good writing from bad writing

The Elements of Styleby Strunk.

[Anonymous No.2203588]

>>2203578
>Facts

Fix'd that for you

[Anonymous No.2203598]

There are a huge number of professional writers whose works you'll never read, and aren't even credited for their work.

I'm not sure where you're trying to make a distinction. You need a better clarification between 'amateur' and 'professional' than "what people want to read." At the very least, what people want to read is based on specific need.

>>2203574 goes literal with the "unpaid" vs "paid" argument, but in those cases you get to lump in every ghostwriter and technical writer, not to mention journalist.

This entire topic is screwed from the start based on OP's lack of concise division in his "compare'contrast" essay topic. Back to sophmore comp class.

[Anonymous No.2203606]

>>2203585
Bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2203615]

>>2203606
Book is standard in all colleges...

Standard over 100 years.

You sure it's bull shit?

[Anonymous No.2203625]

>>2203622
Name one.

[Anonymous No.2203623]

>>2203578
>>2203606
Fucking subjectivists all up in this.

[Anonymous No.2203622]

>>2203615
Yes. There are better style guides. That one in particular is full of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2203626]

you fuckwits, what do you think I mean when I say "amateur vs. professional"? Of course I mean good vs. bad. If you couldn't tell that from the OP then I pity you.

[Anonymous No.2203627]

>>2203625
Chicago.

[Anonymous No.2203628]

>>2203623
Hard to be objective on human qualities. If not impossible.

[Anonymous No.2203629]

>>2203627
Last I checked that was a city. Not a book on style.

[Anonymous No.2203632]

I think of the difference between and amateur and a pro is the approach.

The pro does it every day like its a job and is completely dedicated
whereas the amatuer does it as a hobby.

[Anonymous No.2203633]

>>2203629
The Chicago Manual of Style you thick fuck.

[Anonymous No.2203639]

>>2203629
I like it best for writing papers, it looks really nice and streamlined unlike MLA derpin' about.

[Anonymous No.2203638]

>>2203633
Cuz typing a single ambiguous word gives you the ability to call me thick.

Didn't bother to use clear concrete language to avoid confusion for the reader.

Strunk and White would fail you.

[Anonymous No.2203637]

>>2203626
It's your fault for not making yourself understood. An amateur is not someone who writes badly, nor is he someone who writes things that people don't want to read.

Choose your words more carefully and write what you mean next time.

[Anonymous No.2203641]

>>2203638
>Cuz typing a single ambiguous word gives you the ability to call me thick.

No, my hands do that, you thick fuck.

>Didn't bother to use clear concrete language to avoid confusion for the reader.

Excuse me for assuming you know shit about the topic at hand.

>Strunk and White would fail you.

Obviously, since it's full of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2203644]

>>2203641
You sound really butthurt about this topic.

A professor fail you for not using it?

[Anonymous No.2203645]

What exactly is wrong with starting with dialogue?

[Anonymous No.2203652]

>>2203644
You sound really evasive of the topic at hand, are you an idiot?

Also, english degrees are for baristas

[Anonymous No.2203658]

>>2203652
You autistic man?

Who even started talking about English degree's?

[Anonymous No.2203661]

>>2203658
In what other degree would a professor fail me for not using it?

[Anonymous No.2203665]

>>2203661
You got issues man.

good luck with that professor.

[Anonymous No.2203668]

>>2203665
What professor, you retard?

Good luck writing like that asshole Strunk because you saw it on a reading list for a college course.

[Anonymous No.2203689]

>>2203668
LOL!
>Thinks I saw it on a college course list
LOL!

[Anonymous No.2203701]

>>2203668
Why exactly don't you like the Elements of Style?

[Anonymous No.2203709]

>>2203645

It's just cliche.

You ever see big name authors like King doing that?

Your manuscript is guaranteed to be rejected if you do that.

[Anonymous No.2203710]

>>2203701
Because people always recommend it and never look into alternatives. Read some criticism of it.

[Anonymous No.2203714]

>>2203710
So basically you don't like it because it's too mainstream?

I'm not going to do research to support YOUR position.

[Anonymous No.2203717]

>>2203710
So your whole reason for not liking it is because it overshadows other books...

You're fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.2203718]

>>2203709
So, we're supposed to base our definition of good writing on what King does? GTFO.

[Anonymous No.2203725]

>>2203718
Most of you fags equate finnacial success to quality so the logic is sound.

And by your definition in this manner is correct.

Don't even pretend you haven't said a books worth by is sales before.

[Anonymous No.2203726]

>>2203714
I don't feel the need to change your opinion.

>>2203717
I also dislike it because it's full of bullshit, that's why I recommended to read some criticism of it.

[Anonymous No.2203728]

>>2203726
WHAT bullshit. Name one thing in there that you don't like.

Restating your opinion does not count as evidence in support of your opinion.

[Anonymous No.2203732]

>>2203725
Oh, excuse me, I didn't realize you were braindead, carry on.

[Anonymous No.2203731]

>>2203718

Open a goddamn book right now, any book, it doesn't matter, and tell me if it starts with dialogue.

It it doesn't, go fuck yourself. If it does, burn it, because it's probably your shitty, unpublished "masterpiece."

[Anonymous No.2203733]

>>2203726
Care to 'elaborate' what this bullshit is?

Be 'specific'.

[Anonymous No.2203737]

bucket of crabs itt

[Anonymous No.2203739]

>>2203709
If no one does it how is it cliché?

[Anonymous No.2203740]

>>2203725

Well if you dream of writing for a living, as most /lit/izens do, then you damn well better care about financial success or you're going to be sleeping on dirty floor mattresses and wearing knotted potato sacks for shoes for the rest of your life.

[Anonymous No.2203747]

>>2203739

Amateur (shitty) writers do it. Professional (good) writers avoid it, because they know it's cliche and a telltale sign of poor writing technique.

[Anonymous No.2203753]

>>2203733
Here's an article: http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497/

Argue with that guy. I'm bored now.

[Anonymous No.2203754]

>>2203740
The market is always open for good prose. Only hacks need to resort to compromise and pandering to succeed.

[Anonymous No.2203761]

>>2203753
>Can't present a really argument so you duck out and give us something you had to dig up.

You are a failure of a human being.

[Anonymous No.2203765]

>>2203753
i was trying to find this

[Anonymous No.2203766]

>>2203754

You need more than good prose if you want to sell your work. You need to be able to tell a good story. Most people read not for the appreciation of masterful prose, but to be swept away by an entertaining story.

[Anonymous No.2203767]

>>2203753
>can't form an argument in his own words
Pathetic. I was right when I said you hated it just because it was too mainstream.

[Anonymous No.2203773]

>>2203767
why type something out again if someone else already said it?

poor argument on your part

[Anonymous No.2203777]

>>2203747
Description of the weather and time is considered amateurish as well, and an abundance of classics do it.

And to your credit, after thumbing through some novels to refresh my memory, I only found two that started with dialogue. Satanic Verses and Hard Times.

All are exceptions to the rule, I'm sure?

[Anonymous No.2203778]

>>2203777
classics establish cliches

[Anonymous No.2203786]

>>2203767
And prefer chicago because it's so fucking unknown?

Do you people ever read what you write? I thought you'd prefer an actual scholar's criticism than mine, but fucking fine: I like adverbs, jargon, repetition, plagiarism, obfuscation and dislike brevity.

Are you content?

[Anonymous No.2203789]

>>2203773
Read it.

Columnist is just a grammar Nazi and has no clue what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.2203795]

>>2203778
Okay, then as everything other than classics are no longer allowed to start with dialogue or description, that in itself will become cliche in a generation or two. What then?

[Anonymous No.2203801]

>>2203795
print media will be extinct

[Anonymous No.2203802]

>>2203795
Then people rediscover opening a novel with dialogue, of course. And everyone treats it like it's a new thing.

[Anonymous No.2203805]

>Thinks "said" is a boring word, so they make every attempt to avoid using it.

Hey, I dunno what your native language is, but mine (it's French) frowns upon the repetitive use of a word. If an author were to repeatedly write "dit-il" (he said) in a dialogue, that would be interpreted as a lack of vocabulary, poor variation skills, monotonous speech or whatever. Some languages are okay with the same word being used over and over again, some aren't.

[Anonymous No.2203806]

>>2203789
i did read it and i have no idea what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.2203809]

>>2203805
weird because latin uses 'dixit' all the damn time

pages upon pages of 'he said, she said' is frowned upon but purposely avoiding the word 'said' because it's boring or cliche completely disregards what making things not boring and not cliche attempts to do - innovate

[Anonymous No.2203812]

>Uses too many adverbs.
>Thinks "said" is a boring word, so they make every attempt to avoid using it.

I struggle with these constantly. Curse my mediocrity.

[Anonymous No.2203816]

ITT a bunch of elitist assholes argue with each other.

[Anonymous No.2203858]

>>2203731

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy starts with dialogue.

Checkmate, cunt.

[Anonymous No.2203880]

>>2203816
Didn't you know? /lit/ posters are called e/lit/ists.

fuck everyone who uses c/lit/.

[Anonymous No.2203885]

>Starts their story with someone waking up.

[Anonymous No.2203892]

>>2203561
>Starts their stories with descriptions of weather or dialogue

Dialogue I can see, but weather? Come on now.

[Anonymous No.2203893]

>>2203858

We've already established that the classics are responsible for cliches.

And who the fuck wants to read War and Peace anyway.

[Anonymous No.2203904]

I'd just like to point out to some of the posters in this thread that cliche is a noun and not a verb or adjective

[Anonymous No.2203912]

>>2203753
Good read. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.2204085]

>>2203709

Yes because in Christine he starts with dialogue

[Anonymous No.2204683]

>>2203893
>who the fuck wants to read War and Peace anyway