/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.587775]

1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

[Anonymous No.587781]

How not to write?

[Anonymous No.587794]

wow, orwell discovered common sense.

[Anonymous No.587797]

>4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

So it sounds like I'm fucking Frank Miller writing a graphic novel?

[Anonymous No.587799]

>>587781
nope, how *to* write

>>587794
>implying most writers follow these simple rules

[Anonymous No.587801]

>>587797
protip: writing a bunch of expository bullshit with "was was was was was" is not good writing

[Anonymous No.587804]

>>587801
It could be, but not necessarily.

[Anonymous No.587805]

>>587804
no

it is never good

ever

[Anonymous No.587807]

1. SUBTLETY IS EVIL. NEVER CONSIDER IT.

2. BIGWORDS NO.

3. <this space intentionally left blank>

4. PASSIVE BAD. ACTIVE GOOD.

5. CREATIVITY FORBIDDEN. ENGLISH ONLY. FINAL DESTINATION.

[Anonymous No.587809]

>>587781
What?! This is great advice. Unless you prefer long-winded, cliché writing with a lot of unnecessary obfuscation.

[Anonymous No.587813]

>>587809
Yes, I enjoy proper literature. What do you read?

[Anonymous No.587815]

>>587813
hey snooty person i don't like u

[Anonymous No.587817]

>>587807
>implying cliches are subtle
>implying brevity obscures meaning
>implying books need to be very long
>implying telling > showing
>implying foreign language = instacreativity

[Anonymous No.587819]

>>587813
why do you fucking faggot trolls have to derail discussion on a semi-serious board, every fucking time?

god dammit

yes, I mad

[Anonymous No.587820]

>>587807
1. DON'T COPY.

Fix'd.

[Anonymous No.587822]

>>587775
Following this advice would mean writing in newspeak.

[Anonymous No.587825]

>>587807
yo is so dumb lolol

[Anonymous No.587826]

>>587822
thatsthejoke.jpg

[Anonymous No.587827]

>>587822

I wouldn't call doubleplusgood an everyday english equivalent of anything.

[Anonymous No.587828]

Trying to set up rules for writing is so fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.587829]

>>587822
being this poster could result in tasting foreskins

[Anonymous No.587830]

>>587819
I thought
>>587799
>>587775
>>587809
were the trolls here.

[Anonymous No.587831]

>>587807
Taking advice as law? Then simplifying it in a stupid tone to be satirical? My, aren't you smart.

[Anonymous No.587832]

>>587831
Responding to obvious trolling to look smart? My, aren't u mad?

[Anonymous No.587834]

>>587828
it's called craft, and any writer who doesn't know it is bound to make every single newfag writer mistake known to man

ergo

will write boring, unenlightening horseshit

[Anonymous No.587836]

>>587775

In a nutshell:

>Try to appeal to the lowest common denominator all the time.

[Anonymous No.587837]

>>587834
I'd say boring, unenlightening horseshit will happen no matter what you try if you have no talent.

[Anonymous No.587842]

>>587836
yeah, because only deep intellectual literati can understand the greatness of cliched, drawn out, expository fiction

>>587837
part of talent is an aptitude for craft, understanding how to use the points of knowledge developed over centuries of trial and error

you can't just wake up one day and win the nobel prize because you're just that fucking good

[Anonymous No.587846]

>>587842
>implying the point of writing is to win prizes

The point is to tell a fucking story.

[Anonymous No.587847]

>>587846
>The point is to tell a fucking story.

What the lowest common denominator actually believes.

[Anonymous No.587849]

>>587847
In before a million deluded faggots disagree

[Anonymous No.587850]

>>587847
>telling a story is not the point of telling a story

What people who've never written anything in their lives actually believe.

[Anonymous No.587852]

>2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
>5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

This would only cater to idiots who can't handle writing unless it is simplified.

[Anonymous No.587854]

>>587850
Writing is not about telling a story. Writing is about primarily the use of language. You can use it to tell stories, you can make experiments with form, you can use it to express emotions, what-fucking-ever, but neither of these are THE POINT of it.

[Anonymous No.587857]

Following rule number 3:

>1. Never use metaphor/simile/other figure of speech often seen in print

>2. Never use long word where short one will do.

>3. If possible to cut word, always cut.

>4. Never use passive where can use active.

>5. Never use foreign phrase/scientific/word/jargon word if can think of everyday English equivalent.

A REVOLUTION IN LITERATURE

>trying to shoehorn your writing into a set of vague universal rules
>pic related

[Anonymous No.587859]

>>587854
u just mad because you can't write anything good.

[Anonymous No.587860]

>>587854

You think Moby Dick is a classic, don't you?

[Anonymous No.587862]

>>587852
Let's see what happens if we disobey these rules:

>Jim walked to his car and got inside.
>Jim perambulated to the automobile of his possesion and gained entrance to it

[Anonymous No.587863]

you're now aware that dan brown follows those rules perfectly.

[Anonymous No.587865]

>>587862
Nobody wants to read about Jim and his car. The second option is at least interesting to read because you have to think about what it means.

[Anonymous No.587866]

>>587862
>I think I'll make an oversimplified version of his argument
>done
>now wheres my stephen king book?

[Anonymous No.587867]

>>587860

Actually, I haven't even read it. Also, being a classic has nothing to do with quality, it just has to do with it people remembering it.

I'm sorry that you are wrong. :(

[Anonymous No.587868]

>>587854
>writing is not about telling a story

oh good lord what the fuck am I reading

do you *really* believe that the reason writers write is to show how clever they can be with their language?

do ho ho ho

>>587852
>can't handle
>can't

it's not about can't, it's about want

remind me why the fuck I would want to read some convoluted bullshit when I would be more entertained by a direct, efficient, artistic line of prose

>/lit/ - where efficiency, entertainment, and understanding are bad things

[Anonymous No.587869]

>>587830
Everyone regularly posting on 4chan is basically a troll. However, sometimes they post accidentally something useful; those are the posts 4chan is famous for.

[Anonymous No.587870]

>>587867
Bullshit. You were forced to read it in school like everyone else. Unless you were homeschooled. In which case, you are clearly an idiot and have no right to talk to us about literature.

[Anonymous No.587871]

Customer: Good Morning.
Owner: Good morning, Sir. Welcome to the National Cheese Emporium!
Customer: Ah, thank you, my good man.
Owner: What can I do for you, Sir?
C: Well, I was, uh, sitting in the public library on Thurmon Street
just now skimming through "Rogue Herrys" by Hugh Walpole, and I
suddenly came over all peckish.
O: Peckish, sir?
C: Esuriant.
O: Eh?
C: 'Ee, Ah wor 'ungry-loike!
O: Ah, hungry!
C: In a nutshell. And I thought to myself, "a little fermented curd
will do the trick," so I curtailed my Walpoling activites, sallied
forth, and infiltrated your place of purveyance to negotiate the
vending of some cheesy comestibles!
O: Come again?
C: I want to buy some cheese.
O: Oh, I thought you were complaining about the bazouki player!
C: Oh, heaven forbid: I am one who delights in all manifestations of the
Terpsichorean muse!

[Anonymous No.587873]

>>587866
Stephen King is shit.
Why do you think I read Stephen King?

[Anonymous No.587877]

>>587871
As opposed to
"Give cheese."
"Yes." *gives cheese*

[Anonymous No.587878]

>>587865
but Jim is still doing the same fucking thing, I just had my time wasted by some unnecessary words

I'd much prefer thinking about interesting characters, plots, morality, etc. than a bunch of extra words that could be done away with

it makes me sad to think that people *actually* believe longer sentences make better fiction. is this why literature is so shit these days? have you faggots ever read a book on craft or at least literary criticism?

[Anonymous No.587881]

>>587868
>do you *really* believe that the reason writers write is to show how clever they can be with their language?

Oh, way not to get the point.

I said that there is no absolute, cover-all point for writing (writing is about telling a story, writing is about experimenting with language, writing is about conveying a state of mind, etc - none of these are THE point). Writing is about USING language, and language can be used for any (and any combination) of these things (and that includes, yes, telling a story).

>>587870
>Bullshit. You were forced to read it in school like everyone else.

Sorry, there are other countries in the world.

[Anonymous No.587884]

Protip: Some of the greatest novels ever written don't adhre to Orwell's rules in the slightest. Just because something isn't inanely simplistic doesn't make it purple prose.

[Anonymous No.587885]

>>587862
>>587871
You faggots are missing the point. Not every sentence has to be all purplish.

[Anonymous No.587887]

>>587878
>implying a story can have an interesting plot, characters, morality, ect when written as flatly, blandly, and uninterestingly as humanly possible

[Anonymous No.587888]

>>587868
>remind me why the fuck I would want to read some convoluted bullshit when I would be more entertained by a direct, efficient, artistic line of prose

thank you for admitting you prefer to be spoonfed.

[Anonymous No.587889]

I can see both sides.

Gatsby would be dull if it followed these rules
Orwell's stuff would be shit if it didn't, though

[Anonymous No.587890]

>>587881
>there are other countries in the world

Basically the same thing as home schooling. Your opinion is invalid.

[Anonymous No.587891]

>>587881
okay, so let's say somebody writes a novel that doesn't tell a story

what's the purpose of that novel?

I know you're just saying that there's no main reason people write, but telling a story is not a *reason* for writing, it's what happens when you write. it's inevitable. you use words to explain how something exists, or something happened, the story of the thing.

sure, some people might emphasize language or emphasize morality or some other aspect of their writing, but ultimately what they want to do is tell a good story.

[Anonymous No.587892]

>>587775
Fun Fact: thoughts like this reduce our vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.587894]

>>587892
You no good talk! BAD!

[Anonymous No.587895]

>>587892
my god
he has become everything he hated

[Anonymous No.587897]

>>587878

>I just had my time wasted by some unnecessary words

Allow me to cater to your interests a bit:

The Lord of the Rings:
There's an evil dude who makes an evil ring. A small dude takes the ring to a faraway mountain and destroys it. The end.

The Road:
A father and son walk around being hungry in a wasteland United States. The father gets sick and dies, then the son gets taken in by kind strangers. The end.

Dune:
A dude is born with the power to see the future. He trains some sand niggers to be super badass fighters and conquers a galactic empire. The end.

Now you've read all these books and didn't waste any time on "unnecessary words."

[Anonymous No.587900]

>faggots in this thread implying that simple prose = simple story that has no meaning

> lol 2 deep 4 u

[Anonymous No.587906]

>>587900
>implying simple prose is capable of having any meaning at all.

u mad?

[Anonymous No.587904]

>>587807
>1. SUBTLETY IS EVIL. NEVER CONSIDER IT.

He didn't say that you should never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech; he said, "Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print." Unless you want your writing to sound cliche, you shouldn't have any objections.

>2. BIGWORDS NO.

No. He didn't say that you should never use "big words"; he said, "Never use a long word where a short one will do." You can try to window dress bad writing with a lot of long words you looked up your thesaurus, but the quality of your writing still hasn't improved.

>4. PASSIVE BAD. ACTIVE GOOD.

He didn't say that the active voice is always preferable -- sometimes it's not -- but you should use the active voice whenever you can because it makes your writing easier to understand and more pleasant to read. Forget Orwell; almost everyone will tell you that this is good advice.

>5. CREATIVITY FORBIDDEN. ENGLISH ONLY. FINAL DESTINATION.

Once again, he didn't say to never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word; he said, "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent." And since he presumably wrote this for an English audience, he's right to suggest they shouldn't unnecessarily use a lot of foreign phrases. (By the way, how you could not realize this? Did you really think that he would suggest that foreign writers use an "everyday English equivalent?)

>>587847
>Try to appeal to the lowest common denominator all the time.

Which is you if you think that's what he meant. He's clearly not suggesting that you oversimplify your ideas; he's suggesting that, if possible (and sometimes it isn't), you should try to simplify the way in which you express them. You can write about complex subject matter in a relatively clear and concise manner.

[Anonymous No.587907]

>>587807
>1. SUBTLETY IS EVIL. NEVER CONSIDER IT.

He didn't say that you should never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech; he said, "Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print." Unless you want your writing to sound cliche, you shouldn't have any objections.

>2. BIGWORDS NO.

No. He didn't say that you should never use "big words"; he said, "Never use a long word where a short one will do." You can try to window dress bad writing with a lot of long words you looked up your thesaurus, but the quality of your writing still hasn't improved.

>4. PASSIVE BAD. ACTIVE GOOD.

He didn't say that the active voice is always preferable -- sometimes it's not -- but you should use the active voice whenever you can because it makes your writing easier to understand and more pleasant to read. Forget Orwell; almost everyone will tell you that this is good advice.

>5. CREATIVITY FORBIDDEN. ENGLISH ONLY. FINAL DESTINATION.

Once again, he didn't say to never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word; he said, "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent." And since he presumably wrote this for an English audience, he's right to suggest they shouldn't unnecessarily use a lot of foreign phrases. (By the way, how you could not realize this? Did you really think that he would suggest that foreign writers use an "everyday English equivalent?)

>>587847
>Try to appeal to the lowest common denominator all the time.

If you think that's what he was doing, you're the lowest common denominator. He's clearly not suggesting that you oversimplify your ideas; he's suggesting that, if possible (and sometimes it isn't), you should try to simplify the way in which you express them. You can write about complex subject matter in a relatively clear and concise manner.

[Anonymous No.587911]

>>587904
>implying that >>587775 doesn't amount to >>587807

[Anonymous No.587912]

>>587897
that's retarded

how does "simplistic prose is best" translate into "telling as little information as possible is best"

the point you faggots are missing is that the goal is to tell as much as possible with as few words as possible, that is the art of writing and one of the key points that any beginning writer should try to master

after that, you can explore experimental ways to enhance your fiction and wordplay, but generally, shorter is better

what usually happens with this drawn out bullshit is that the author uses a bunch of words while actually saying very little, and then the suckers who buy it think "oh look I read something that was *challenging* ZOMG I'm so deep and this book is so deep"

the simpler the prose, the more information a book can convey and they more entertaining it can be.

[Anonymous No.587913]

>1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

Bullshit. Sometimes a familiar figure of speech is just what is needed to impart the right idea, sometimes it'd be hackneyed and stale.

>2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

Bullshit. Sometimes a big word fits in well, sometimes it comes off as haughty.

>3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

Bullshit. Sometimes a longer sentence is appropriate, sometimes it's just unnecessary.

>4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

This is probably a good idea.

>5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

Bullshit. Sometimes jargon is useful, sometimes it's pretentious and distracting.

Tl;dr: Lots of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.587915]

>>587891
>what's the purpose of that novel?

What's the purpose of abstract art?

[Anonymous No.587918]

>>587912
You don't read very much, do you?

[Anonymous No.587919]

>>587891
well, every literary text needs at least some basic sense of narrative.
Even descriptions of a frame frozen in time have a narrative, although there is not actual temporal progression whatsoever, if they want to be more than just an inventory.
Since one can not take in all what is written at once, you have to structure your text, preferably in a way that makes it easy for the reader to imagine it in its head, to evoke emotion in him or just make him able to follow the reasoning. even non-fictional texts need to have such a narrative. otherwise they would be simply equivalent to phonebooks.

[Anonymous No.587921]

>>587907
>you should try to simplify the way in which you express them

or maybe they should increase their vocabulary. umberto eco's stories could very well be written with j. k. rowling's vocabulary and they wouldn't change a bit, but they aren't.

being challenging isn't bad.

[Anonymous No.587923]

>>587913
1) look you idiots

>which you are used to seeing in print

HE MEANS DON'T USE CLICHES THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN, HE DOESN'T SAY NEVER USE A METAPHOR

2)

>when a short one will do

he doesn't say that sometimes a long one won't do

3) >if it is possible

notice the IF there, can you even read?

4) I'm glad you understand this

5) yeah, it's useful if you can't think of/there is no english equivalent

[Anonymous No.587931]

Morons. These are HIS rules for writing well. And generally speaking, they are pretty good ones. In fact, you'll find most of them in almost any book on writing. And all of those books, by the way, will tell you (and I'm sure Orwell would agree) that these are merely guidelines, and that art cannot to any rigid set of rules.

[Anonymous No.587929]

>>587918
this is a great point and you have single-handedly refuted all of my arguments with a single ad hominem

not

[Anonymous No.587934]

>>587923
>he doesn't say that sometimes a long one won't do
>notice the IF there, can you even read?

these are still stupid. even if it is possible for a word to be taken, or for a simpler word to be used instead, it doesn't mean it SHOULD.

[Anonymous No.587935]

>>587929
>not

Is it the 90s again?

[Anonymous No.587941]

ITT: basement dwellers and college kids think they can write better than george orwell

[Anonymous No.587942]

Morons. These are HIS rules for writing well. And generally speaking, they are pretty good ones. In fact, you'll find most of them in almost any book on writing, all of which will tell you (and I'm sure Orwell would agree) that these are merely guidelines, and that art cannot adhere to any rigid set of rules.

[Anonymous No.587943]

>>587935
no it's the 80s

psyche

[Anonymous No.587945]

>>587942
>In fact, you'll find most of them in almost any book on writing

Ah, that must be why modern literature is so fucking terrible.

[Anonymous No.587949]

>>587942
This.

these rules are pretty much in every how-to/literary criticism out there, so everybody in this thread in favor of "challenging" fiction is pretty much flying in the face of every great novelist for the past few hundred years

enjoy your careers, masterful scholars

[Anonymous No.587953]

>>587945
no, it's terrible precisely because most writers don't follow the rules/practice what they preach

[Anonymous No.587955]

>>587953
>implying that overwriting is worse than underwriting

[Anonymous No.587957]

ITT: People who have never written a decent sentence bash on useful guidelines of the craft, provided by a master.

[Anonymous No.587959]

>>587957
>implying these guidelines are useful for anyone who wants to do good writing

[Anonymous No.587961]

I think that what everyone should know here is that Orwell is only relevant because of political relevance. In literary terms, his books just aren't great. See also, why nobody cares about his books other than 1984 and Animal Farm.

[Anonymous No.587966]

>>587773
ÌMPòRTÁnT ÌNFoRm@tIóN @bÓúT 4[HAN: <hRÌS+ÓPhEr p0Ól€ (ÀKà moOT ÀkÁ THE ádMÍN H€R€) Has a V3ry $erI0Ü$ mEñtÁI i|In3sS, H3 st3@IS òTHEr$' haRd Wòrk, pÙbI|$heS PRívat€ €-mÁìLs (WHI[H He mODifÍ3$) Ánd B|aTÀNTLy Ii€s tò Hì$ ÚSERS |N órdER +0 g€T +hEM óN HÌ$ $ID3. Mr, PooIE, àged 22, Iìv3S ìñ N3W yÒrk, Where H3 ÀL$O @++3ñD$ [óI|3GE, h|S hòM3 àDdRE$S Càñ bE easI|Y FOÙnd ÙSiñG án ÀDDr3$s LòÒkÜP fOR ñy, F3€| FR€E TÓ SHòw Up ÀT hÍs dòÒr W|+h A güN. tIñy.4chañ.org is An ìl|3GaL [LÒñ3 Òf wwW,ánOnTÀ|K,<0m, rEmOVE i+ ìMM€DìÁTe|Y, sTop cÓnSt@ñ+lY dDò$íng AñD spàMm|ng ÜS aND s+òP Fú[KiNG w|+h ÓÙR d0mAÍn, To àC<ES$ À+ cuRREñTIY, YoU MuSt uSe À pRòXY hÒs+ prOv|D3d By Á TrÜ$+eD PÀRty As IíStEd h€re: hT+p://ÀT.kÍMMo@.$E/

[Anonymous No.587963]

>>587912
>what usually happens with this drawn out bullshit is that the author uses a bunch of words while actually saying very little, and then the suckers who buy it think "oh look I read something that was *challenging* ZOMG I'm so deep and this book is so deep"

so you want everything to be spoon-fed to you?

and then /lit/ whines about harry potter and twilight.

[Anonymous No.587964]

>>587959
Your creative writing class isn't teaching you to be a good writer, just so you know.

[Anonymous No.587969]

>>587961
He was a professional critic.

[Anonymous No.587973]

>>587964
>implying I need to take a class to be a good writer

[Anonymous No.587974]

>6.Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

You missed one OP.

[Anonymous No.587976]

>>587955
>implying otherwise

>>587961
while this may hold some truth, george orwell is still a better writer than most and definitely better than the neckbeards bashing him in this thread

[Anonymous No.587978]

>>587966
shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.587980]

>>587973
Well, it ain't coming naturally bro.

[Anonymous No.587986]

>>587980
>implying you've read any of my work and know what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.587988]

The point of these advices is not to force yourself to use less refined wording. It is to force yourself to notice sentences where you HAVE to use refined wording. To see the difference between a sentence where you have to say something precise and a sentence that is completely banal but that you dress pretty out of bad habbit. The most popular fault in modern writing is that people write pretentious purple prose everywhere, instead of writing normally for the most part and picking up which parts need to be expanded. It's the shit we see in 90% of writing extraits that c/lit/s dare to post here.

[Anonymous No.587992]

>>587963
explain how simplistic fiction is "spoon-fed"?

longer, drawn out fiction doesn't necessarily make something harder to understand, it just makes it fucking tedious

I can understand a bunch of big words just the same a short sentence that means the same thing, the difference is that the long sentence is boring and adds nothing to the experience

when you say you want a "challenge" you are essentially saying you want to be bored, which is fucking pretentious and stupid

[Anonymous No.587993]

>>587986
>implying people like your fiction better than george orwell's

[Anonymous No.587994]

>>587986
Anybody who uses >implications can't be a good writer.

A good writer is intelligent.

[Anonymous No.587996]

>>587993
>implying I'm pandering to the reader, and not writing because I enjoy it.

[Anonymous No.587997]

>>587978
lolwut

spambot trawled?

[Anonymous No.587998]

I don't understand why this thread humming with activity. or is this just 2 guys?

[Anonymous No.588000]

Politics and the English Language.

Orwell is a god.

[Anonymous No.588001]

>>587998
There are only like, 4 guys on /lit/ at any given time, anyways.

[Anonymous No.588002]

>>587996
>implying that anybody would be impressed by your fiction but then saying that you just write for yourself and it doesn't matter what other people think

[Anonymous No.588005]

>>587992
>explain how simplistic fiction is "spoon-fed"?

being "spoon-fed" isn't reading simplistic prose. being "spoon-fed" is saying that simplistic prose is preferable to more complex prose (oh-its-so-boring-what-do-you-mean-I-need-to-invest-myself-on-it) when NEITHER IS INHERENTLY BETTER.

>longer, drawn out fiction doesn't necessarily make something harder to understand, it just makes it fucking tedious

you have ADHD. sorry.

[Anonymous No.588007]

>>588002
>implying you wouldn't be impressed if you read it

[Anonymous No.588012]

>>587994 Anybody who uses >implications can't be a good writer. A good writer is intelligent.
People who are dumb pretend to be intelligent on most parts of the internet. On 4chan, people who are intelligent pretend to be dumb. If you didn't notice that people here are going out of their way to say the darnest things and act silly, then maybe you ought to belong with the first group instead of the later.

[Anonymous No.588016]

ALL OF YOU ARE FAGGOTS.

This essay is titled 'Politics and the English language.' It's not meant to be a fucking tips-for-writing guide. It's meant for political speechwriters and politicians to make their point more clearly.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

>OP FUCKING TROLLED EVERYBODY HERE.
>TRY VERIFYING WHATEVER THE FUCK IS POSTED HERE NEXT TIME.

[Anonymous No.588019]

>>588005
>being spoon fed is saying

so wait, when I am "being spoon-fed" it means I am saying something? how does someone else doing something to me = me doing something

what is this I don't even

>you have ADHD, sorry

how is this a refutation of anything I said

>>588007
start a thread, post your shit, link it here

since you're not interesting in vulgar commercial success, it shouldn't matter that publishers won't touch anything posted on a public forum

go for it big boy

[Anonymous No.588021]

>>588012
you have some mighty optimistic views on 4chan, dude.

don't flatter yourself

[Anonymous No.588022]

>>588016
>implying that the rules don't also apply for fiction as well and aren't parroted by literary figures the world over

[Anonymous No.588023]

>>588016

Oh shit.

Well OP, I have to compliment you.

You are very good.

My hat's off.

[Anonymous No.588026]

>>588019
>implying you can post whole novellas in 4chan threads

[Anonymous No.588030]

>>588019
>how is this a refutation of anything I said

it's not a refutation (what was to refute anyway, that you find complex prose "tedious"? there is no way that I can refute the fact that you find complex prose boring).

it's a statement of a fact.

[Anonymous No.588039]

>>588026
>implying that you can't post the first few pages

I probably don't want to read the entire anything anyway, it's likely shit

however, if you post it, I will be completely honest and tell you exactly what I think, as this is an anonymous image board and I have nothing to gain from lying

[Anonymous No.588041]

Fucking faggots in this thread.

>1
does not mean never use a metaphor. It simply refers to not using stupid shit like "ice cold" or "like a rose". Going crazy with your metaphors like Fitzgerald did is perfectly fine.

>2
does not mean only use short words, only words that are pointlessly long, words without any additional connotations like "utilize" instead of "use".

>3
This is common sense. If your story is a revenge story, don't spend five chapters on how the protagonist enjoys having a hot cup of tea.

>4
>5
Again, common sense, unless you're pretentious or trying to boost up your word count.

[Anonymous No.588042]

>>588039
>I have nothing to gain from lying

Except lulz.

[Anonymous No.588043]

>>588039
>I will be completely honest

[Anonymous No.588045]

>>588030
>it's a statement of a fact

I have never been diagnosed with ADHD

[Anonymous No.588051]

>>588042
>>588043
fine, don't post it

it's not like I'm missing out lolz, you're the one who brought your fiction into this

[Anonymous No.588067]

The usefulness of these guidelines is self-evident to any writer. In writing, you should strive to craft sentences which the reader can only understand in one way: the way in which you intend.

In order to create such sentences, it is best to avoid dead metaphors which no longer carry any evocative imagery or power. It is best to say exactly what you mean and save each word for its proper moment, and not to waste a word like "phalanges" when you could use "fingers" or "toes." It is important to use only the essential words which convey your meaning, to say: "She crossed the room." rather than: "She made her way across the room." By cutting unnecessary words, you limit the reader's opportunities for misunderstanding. It is important to avoid the passive tense, because it creates detachment and mental static for the reader, unnecessary difficulties which he is under no obligation to solve or overcome. It is important that you, as a narrator, do not intrude with your esoteric knowledge. Save foreign phrases and scientific phrases for their proper place: dialogue. Remember that you expose your characters by their vocabulary.

Remember that writing as an art form is not a form of self-expression. It is exactly the opposite: the selfless creation of effects upon the reader.

Remember that you will not be in the room with the reader.

tl;dr: Orwell's guidelines are tools of great value to any writer. Overlook them at your peril.

[Anonymous No.588077]

HAI GUYS
did I miss anything?

[Anonymous No.588079]

>>588021
Or maybe you just have a pretentious opinion of yourself. I advise you to peruse deviantart, facebook and other various forums. You will notice that actually dumb people speak with shorthand, internet slang and smiley faces. The mysterious feyfolk of the lands of 4chan do not. They have the highest standard of carefully put communication for any website of this level of popularity. Ask yourself then why these people act silly.

Or maybe that's too hard to do. I suggest that your majesty leave this horrible place and go where you rightfully belong.

[Anonymous No.588085]

>>588079
>implying that /lit/ and /sci/ aren't the only boards without constant smilies and myspace kids

[Anonymous No.588091]

This Thread could use more trolls

[Anonymous No.588121]

just visiting this thread to say that you're all retarded.

[Anonymous No.588170]

it depends on what you're writing, imho. However, totally disregarding op will lead to you sounding like a pretentious faggot

[Anonymous No.588183]

>>588079
U mad XD?

[Anonymous No.588215]

To all of you who think these rules are bullshit:

Do you ever wonder why no one wants to read the things you write? That is, if you write at all.

[Anonymous No.588217]

>>588215
>implying anyone wants to read boring, minimalist bullshit

[Anonymous No.588219]

>>588067
>Remember that writing as an art form is not a form of self-expression

You know nothing about literature.

[Anonymous No.588223]

>>588022
>implying that Orwell intended his essay on political speech writing be a how-to-write-in-5-easy-steps course which absolutely MUST be followed.

[Anonymous No.588224]

>>588217

I'm sure everyone wants to read your pretentious garbage instead.

Oh wait.

[Anonymous No.588230]

>>588224
>implying pretentious garbage doesn't wind up on bestseller lists and isn't the foundation of all major religions

[Anonymous No.588232]

Ha ha ha, this thread was great.
Also, anyone who has ever enjoyed some of the random-ass "manly" fiction that comes out of /a/ knows that OP's post has a valid function. It's for sensationalism. It gets people to quickly picture something, and then have a profound reaction to it. Just like a politician would if he were arguing a point.

See >>588016

Overall: 10/10, OP. Good thread, would read again.

[Anonymous No.588261]

>>588232
doesn't fucking matter, as has been repeated several times in this thread:

THESE FIVE RULES ALSO APPLY TO FICTION, JUST OPEN A FUCKING HOW-TO ON WRITING, A TEXTBOOK, LITERARY MAGAZINE, ANYTHING

GOD DAMN

[Anonymous No.588264]

>>588232

lol this and the post linked in it

[Anonymous No.588265]

ITT: buttmad

[Anonymous No.588267]

>>588264
FUCK YOU

see
>>588261

[Anonymous No.588268]

>>588261
How to write books are written by no-talent hacks who aren't talented enough to write fiction.

[Anonymous No.588276]

>>588268
>implying most how tos aren't written by published novelists
>implying mark twain, robert orlen butler, stephen king, and several other successful novelists haven't written how tos

[Anonymous No.588278]

>>588276
>implying stephen king has talent

[Anonymous No.588280]

>>588278
>implying stephen king doesn't at least know how to write fiction people like

he's one of the most commercially successful novelists in the world

[Anonymous No.588282]

>>588280
>implying sales = talent

Enjoy your Twilight.

[Anonymous No.588285]

I'm keeping OP's post somewhere close. I need to learn how cut down on my passive voice.

[Anonymous No.588286]

>>588261

why are you so butthurt?

of course it can apply to fiction and anything else, but it's not likely it's the only, best bet way to achieve what all authors want. whereas it reasonably is best suited for political writings.

7/10 fuckwad

[Anonymous No.588288]

>>588282
>implying I said anything of the sort

protip: the person I replied to said that people who write how tos can't make it as writers

so I cited some novelists who wrote how tos and made it as writers

I didn't say whether they were good or not, because "making it" doesn't necessarily mean a great writer

[Anonymous No.588290]

>>588288
King is still a no talent hack.

[Anonymous No.588291]

>>588290
so?

[Anonymous No.588293]

>>588291
He's a bad writer giving bad advice. No talent hack wrote a book encouraging other no talent hacks to write.

[Anonymous No.588303]

1. Don't be boring.

[Anonymous No.588305]

>>588293
that still doesn't mean writers who write how tos can't make it

also, I have read stephen king's "on writing" and it contains sound advice

stephen king isn't necessarily a bad writer, he just chooses to write about pulpy nonsense and it played out a long time ago

[Anonymous No.588306]

Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.
Every sentence must do one of two things—reveal character or advance the action.
Start as close to the end as possible.
Be a Sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them—in order that the reader may see what they are made of.
Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.
Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To hell with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.

[Anonymous No.588311]

>>588305
>on writing
>contians sound advice

Is there another book with the same title? Because, you know, it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.588312]

>>588306

Hm. I don't really like these. These aren't even actual writing tips, but story telling tips for the most part, and maybe only for short stories.

[Anonymous No.588317]

>>588311
I forgot you were on every bestseller list and know what you're talking about

or if that's too commercial for you, I forgot that you were a great literary cult figure with an academic fanbase

oh wait, you're neither of those? well then shut the fuck up

talk shit when you're in a position to talk shit

[Anonymous No.588323]

>>588306
this is better written than it is actually globally good advice.
but it is certainly helpful for writing good genre-literature.

[Anonymous No.588325]

I could troll this thread forever

[Anonymous No.588328]

>>588317
1. u mad
2. You are not on any bestseller lists either, so you have no right to give advice about when I can and can not talk shit.

[Anonymous No.588331]

>>588328
>>588328
I'm on your mom's bestseller list.

[Anonymous No.588334]

>>588331
Oh, how dignified and mature of you. A "your mother" joke. Charming.

[Anonymous No.588337]

iMPoRtAN+ |ñfoRmÁtìÒN ÁBóüt 4cH@N; [hrÌstòpH3R pooIe (ÁKà mòòT ÀKÁ THe @dmín HEr3) Hà$ a V€ry $€rìoÜ$ MEN+@| iL|ñ3$S, hE $t3áLS o+H€rS' hÀRd wORk, pUBLISh3$ PrìVàTE e-MÁi|$ (WhÍ[h He modiFìES) ÁnD bLàTantlY |Íes +Ò HÌ$ ÜSeRS |ñ ÒrDeR +Ò g€T tHeM oñ h|S s|D3, Mr. Póo|3, @g3D 22, |ÍV3s Ìñ n€W YòRk, Wh€RE H€ áISÓ @T+eñDs Cò||Eg€, HIs H0ME àDdR3$S CÁñ 8e 3Á$||Y fÒÜñd ùs|ñg ÀN ádDR3s$ I0ÒKÚP fór Ny. f€eI fRee +o $HÓw üp À+ hi$ dòOR wÍth a gÚn, TínY.4[hÁn,ÒrG i$ áN ÌlL3G@| [Lóñe oF WWw.@nÒN+A|K,[ÓM. reMOve |+ íMM3díaTeIy, S+òp [ónSTANt|Y dDÓsING @ñd $PÀMMíng ùs áñD sTÓp fùcKíng WìtH òúr DomáÍñ. tÒ A[[ES$ À+ cUrR€nt|Y, yÒU müSt U$3 @ prÓ+Y HO$T prÓvÍdEd 8Y à +rÙ$+eD PáRTY @$ LI$T€D h3R€; hTTP;//ÁT.kimMóa.SE/

[Anonymous No.588339]

>>588334

he's just trolling now
i suggest we all sage this board

[Anonymous No.588350]

>>588339
>implying 4chan isn't made up entirely of trolls

[Anonymous No.588352]

>>588350

Yea but some aren't trolling 24/7
I'm resting right now

[Anonymous No.588355]

>1. Avoid familiar points of reference and pretend that language isn't thoroughly dependent on metaphor and related processes.

>2. Never use words precisely, and try as hard as you can to sound like you think your reader is an idiot.

>3. Never describe any quality and never emphasize anything. Never be humorous or affecting.

>4. Never pay any attention to the order in which you introduce ideas.

>5. Pretend there's no reason for technical vocabularies to exist. God forbid you actually have a scientific understanding of anything or any valuable skills besides a) attacking political strawmen and b) spying on your peace-activist friends for the British intelligence community while writing a novel about how how a pervasive spy network erodes human dignity.

fixed

George Orwell: Massive dink.

[Anonymous No.588356]

[Anonymous No.588369]

>>588355

Sure is "I haven't read the essay and haven't a fucking clue what I'm talking about" in here.

[Anonymous No.588373]

[Anonymous No.588375]

>>588369
Welcome to /lit/

[Anonymous No.588377]

Funky

[Anonymous No.588379]

[Anonymous No.588388]

>>588369
I read this as part of my course in the $400/year 3rd world nation college I attend. I'm raging silently.

[Anonymous No.588390]

>>588369
Actually, I've read Politics and the English Language twice, 1984 and Animal Farm three times each, plus more of his other fucking essays than I can count. I know a fuck of a lot about the guy, in other words. My conclusion, based on what I've learned, is that he was an intellectual philistine, a political hypocrite, and a shockingly overrated writer.

U MAD?

[Anonymous No.588392]

>>587912
> the goal is to tell as much as possible with as few words as possible, that is the art of writing

Bzzz! No. Thanks for playing.

cf. Rimbaud

[Anonymous No.588397]

>>588306
Kurt Vonnegut. An ok writer. 3/5.

[Anonymous No.588404]

>>588390

So you are just really, really dumb, then? Well okay I can accept that :3

p.s. 1. cliche is more than a familiar point of reference and figurative language is not the only language
2. he says where a short one will do, obviously if it is less accurate it won't do, silly
3. lol you think brevity isn't the soul of wit
4. this is just straight up retarded
5. >implying jargon is necessary where there is an everyday equivalent
>implying you don't know what equivalent means

[Anonymous No.588409]

>>588397

I prefer these tips from him:

How to Write with Style
1. Find a subject you care about
2. Do not ramble, though
3. Keep it simple
4. Have guts to cut
5. Sound like yourself
6. Say what you mean
7. Pity the readers

They are somewhat along similar lines as the one in OP's post too.

link: http://peterstekel.com/PDF-HTML/Kurt%20Vonnegut%20advice%20to%20writers.htm

[Anonymous No.588411]

>>588409
>7. Pity the readers

Fuck the readers. This is MY story!

[Anonymous No.588416]

>>588411

Granted, I think he is addressing news journalists and technical writers more, but you should learn how to read an article.

One point he makes, which I like: "So the most meaningful aspect of our styles, which is what we choose to write about, is utterly unlimited."

[Anonymous No.588417]

>>588404
Learn a little tiny fucking bit of linguistics and then, only then, get back to me about anything I said.

[Anonymous No.588423]

>>588392
my bad

you're supposed to make it as convoluted as possible and have the writer guess at what you mean so that you never really say anything but just have a bunch of old white dudes and stuffy college kids try to figure out the hidden meaning of it all

am I right this time?

no and you are a faggot

[Anonymous No.588430]

>>588411
'sup tolkien, i thought you were dead
I love you

[Anonymous No.588432]

>>588417

That's a great argument my friend, you showed me what's what :3

[Anonymous No.588435]

>>588423
>have the writer guess at what you mean

Congratulations, you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.588440]

hard mode: you're not allowed to just say "you don't know what you're talking about" and you have to provide support for every claim you make

[Anonymous No.588439]

[Anonymous No.588446]

>>588435
congratulations, you've been accepted into sherlock holmes detective school for spotting my semantic mistake

cheerio

[Anonymous No.588453]

blah blah blah don't write about writing just write, if you can't figure it out by yourself through continuous experiment you'll always suck, the end

More amusingly, my stepfather is someone who disobeys these rules in actual speech. What this means is that he is the kind of person who uses the word "abode" unironically in a normal conversation. It can be difficult to contain the RAGE

[Anonymous No.588469]

[Anonymous No.588473]

[Anonymous No.588482]

>>587957
I swear to god we're being trolled.

[Anonymous No.588484]

I fucking love Orwell's suggestions for writing. I have them copied and taped to my wall right in front of where I write.

[Anonymous No.588500]

FOPFQHDVTAHDJCNUIPDFKBRFEOMSJLEFRXJQZSNTPUUPMSU

[Anonymous No.588507]

>>588500
is this a spambot? I keep seeing this shit on /lit/ only

[Anonymous No.588544]

>>588016
HOWEVER, they can be helpful to regular writers as well.

[Anonymous No.588768]

>>588453
I like what I hear. Your stepdad knows what he likes.

>>588423
First, if everybody wrote as simply as possible, our writing would have no distinct personality.

Second, efficiency is rarely entertaining although rococo can be enervating.

Third, listen:

Immortal love, alone and aching in the wilderness we cried to you,
You were not absent from our loneliness. . . .
For lovely April, cruel and flowerful, will tease us with sharp joy, with wordless unfulfilled desire.
Spring has no language but a cry.

Fourth, suggest you ponder on the meaning of "meaning."

Fifth, Don't be such an annoying virgin.

[Anonymous No.588777]

>>588507
None of the mods care enough about /lit/ to delete spam like they do on other boards.

[Anonymous No.588803]

"Much to the author's surprise, and (if he may say so without additional offence) considerably to his amusement, he finds that his sketch of official life, introductory to The Scarlet Letter, has created an unprecedented excitement in the respectable community immediately around him. It could hardly have been more violent, indeed, had he burned down the Custom House, and quenched its last smoking ember in the blood of a certain venerable personage, against whom he is supposed to cherish a peculiar malevolence. As the public disapprobation would weigh very heavily on him, were he conscious of deserving it, the author begs leave to say that he was carefully read over the introductory pages, with a purpose to alter or expunge whatever might be found amiss, and to make the best reparation in his power for the atrocities of which he has been adjudged guilty. But it appears to him, that the only remarkable features of the sketch are its frank and genuine good-humor, and the general accuracy with which he has conveyed his sincere impressions of the characters therein described. As to enmity, or ill-feeling of any kind, personal or political, he utterly disclaims such motives. The sketch might, perhaps, have been wholly omitted, without loss to the public, or detriment to the book; but, having undertaken to write it, he conceives that it could not have been done in a better or a kindlier spirit, nor, so far as his abilities availed, with a livelier effect of truth.

The author is constrained, therefore, to republish his introductory sketch without the change of a word." - Nathaniel Hawthorne

Tell me that's bad writing. I dare you. I double-dog dare you motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.588810]

>>588803
I got bored mid paragraph and stopped. Bad writing. Sorry dude.

[Anonymous No.588816]

>>588810

Just because you lack the patience or ability to read purple prose doesn't mean the rest of us do.

[Anonymous No.588823]

>>588816

2/10

[Anonymous No.588826]

>>588768

I don't think you understand what "as simply as possible" means.

Some things cannot be said with a fifth grade vocabulary

[Anonymous No.588830]

>>588816

Purple prose is a pejorative, though I know what you mean and agree with you.

It's one thing to find actual fault with writers like Hawthorne, it's another to say "lol dis is boring too many words bro".

[Anonymous No.588832]

>>588803

Hey, I think I can fix this up so that it becomes both more enjoyable to read and takes up less space:

Haters gonna hate

[Anonymous No.588834]

>>588816
That's the point of Orwell's rules. "If you don't write like I recommend, only smarmy cockpirates who are willing to wade through any paragraph, no matter how bad, will read your work. Are these the people you want as fans?"

[Anonymous No.588840]

>>588826

Exactly. Being verbose for the sake of verbosity is bad writing, but you can be verbose and flowery and descriptive if it actually serves a purpose. Like Hawthorne. He is very flowery but no word, sentence, or device feels out-of-place or useless.

[Anonymous No.588844]

>>588834

It shouldn't take you any effort at all to "wade through" a paragraph like that. If it does you need to read moar.

[Anonymous No.588849]

>>588840

At times I think Hawthorne's phrasing *is* "just purple" though. Not often, maybe, but sometimes his prose does run out of momentum and becomes deflated, etc.

[Anonymous No.588864]

As long as we're on Hawthorne . . .

I do feel like his verbosity can be useful in and of itself. He spends so much time describing things and makes his points so laboriously that they make a much larger and more precise impression on the mind of the reader than they would if he wrote more simply.

blech my prose sucks right now, see I'm reading Hawthorne too and I keep being wordy without trying to, but, lacking the skill of Hawthorne, it sounds awkward and pretentious. Oh well.

[Anonymous No.588889]

You're now aware that Stephenie Meyer follows all of Orwell's rules.

[Anonymous No.588927]

Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

[Anonymous No.588933]

>>588927

That's the kind of shit Orwell was reacting against, not the great 19th century romances.

[Anonymous No.589549]

ITT: Opinions
There's no wrong choices in writing. Everyone in this thread is correct.

[Anonymous No.589577]

>>589549
there are no right opinions, everyone here is incorrect

[Anonymous No.589579]

>>589549

Writing is for communication
At least, the type of writing being discussed in this thread is
So no, there really are right and wrong things

[Anonymous No.589619]

>>589579
The Road was an eyesore and it seems to be universally hated here. I enjoyed it, I even teared up before the end. This is my opinion. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' ways to write something, only ways that some may enjoy and others may not. Instead of trying to force people to write in a way that pleases you personally, how about you make an effort to leave your tidy little comfort zone once in a while?

[Anonymous No.589640]

>>589619

>derp

Point out where The Road does not conform to the rules

you can't

[Anonymous No.589650]

>>588803
I would not want to read an entire book of this

[Anonymous No.589657]

>>587775
sounds about right, if you want to write literary fiction etc.

[Anonymous No.589689]

>>589657
>implying literary fiction isn't a bunch of the most convoluted shit on this planet

most literary faggots intentionally disregard the rules, which is why they are boring and make no sales

and are highly regarded by pretentious/hipster faggots, see: this thread

[Anonymous No.589696]

>>589689
>I'm implying it is. Literary fiction fucking sucks.

[Anonymous No.589702]

>>589696
then why the fuck would you disregard some of the most important aspects of commercial fiction? how is orwell's advice bad for mainstream or genre fiction?

[Anonymous No.589714]

>>589696
>Literary fiction fucking sucks.

[Anonymous No.589716]

>>589702
I don't know where they hell you're coming from.

Literary fiction follows all the rules stated in the OP, just pick up any edition of "Best American Short Stories" and shit like that. That is literary fiction.

Genre fiction, like fantasy, would be strange to read if it followed the rules up there.

I'm referring to modern fiction, not shit from 60 years ago when using big words was cool.

[Anonymous No.589770]

Just here to say I agree with five. Jargon is fine, as are foreign words, so long as they're explained. Sometimes the explanation won't fit, or it'd be out of character. So writers leave it out. This fucking annoys me.

Nabokov, I'm looking at you

[Anonymous No.589785]

>>589716
I don't know what fantasy you're reading, but please direct me to it.

Fantasy is notorious for cliches, metaphorical or otherwise, which breaks rule one. A lot of fantasy novels use big words to try to sound smart or medieval, that's rule two broken. Fantasy novels are JAM PACKED with unnecessary bullshit (see: epic fantasy) to the point that the authors seem to revel in just typing for the fuck of it, there's rule three gone out the window. Most fantasy novels make infodump their bread and butter, which lends itself to the passive voice, thus rule four broken. And finally, fantasy is also notorious for just making up random foreign words with a bunch of apostrophes, so rule five is ignored as well.

Any questions?

[Anonymous No.589793]

>>589770
I can't google too bro

[Anonymous No.589795]

look, what it all boils down to is this: say what you mean and mean what you say. write EXACTLY, with precision to the point of obsession. don't disrespect your ideas, your language, or your voice by diluting them.

i can't begin to fathom why or how anyone would disagree with that advice. i can only guess that those who do have never actually put any effort into examining sentences critically.

[Anonymous No.589800]

are you listening sir

sir hello

[Anonymous No.589803]

>>589793
I read Lolita during the month when I didn't have the net. Fucking Telstra.

[Anonymous No.589816]

>>589785
I didn't say fantasy doesn't break those rules, it DOES, literary fiction DOES NOT.

Jesus fuck you're dense, completely missing the point.

I. Agree. With. The. OP. For. Modern. Literary. Fiction.

[Anonymous No.589920]

>>589816
but it's not for literary fiction

orwell wrote before genre fiction was called genre fiction, but his stuff wasn't literary either

[Anonymous No.589934]

>>589920
...I wasn't talking about Orwell at all, I just meant those rules apply to literary modern fiction well, I didn't even take the picture into consideration.

...I knew there had to be some kind of miscommunication there.

[Anonymous No.589939]

>>589920

>orwell wrote before genre fiction was called genre fiction

Haha no

[Anonymous No.589948]

>>589939
>implying the term "genre fiction" wasn't popularized in the 1960s

[Anonymous No.589952]

>>589948

>implying it wasn't popularized long before that through the pulps
>implying you even know what Black Mask or Weird Tales are

[Anonymous No.589960]

>>589952
>implying I wasn't a grown man in 1950
>implying it wasn't just called either mysteries or science fiction (fantasy was considered sci fi, LOTR was just LOTR)

[Anonymous No.589965]

>>589960

>implying was just called either mysteries or science fiction
>implying Weird Tales wasn't originally for fantasy exclusively
>implying The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction wasn't first published in the 40s
>implying that would matter anyway and wouldn't just prove my point

[Anonymous No.589978]

FUCKING IDIORTS

[Anonymous No.589985]

sounds like someone is in english 101 (or at least thats when I had to read this, as in a week ago).

[Anonymous No.590066]

>implying there is a structure to good writing