[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 546 KB, 1600x1200, Nick.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
886701 No.886701 [Reply] [Original]

I'm kind of new to this. What are some big things that are considered to be poor writing techniques?

>> No.886719

Overuse of adverbs, flowery descriptions (never use a complicated word when a simple one will do just fine), shoehorning in romance, idealized main character/mouthpiece for personal beliefs, morals/"message" pieces, too many exclamation points, using words like "muttered" "sighed" "shouted" "exclaimed" constantly instead of "said," ridiculous character names, shock writing/"edginess" (think Palahniuk), unconvincing character motives, prologues, submitting a manuscript in a sans-serif font.

Just a few of my pet peeves.

>> No.886740

>>886719
I see, I see. So just don't be a faggot?

>> No.886762

>>886740
Well, avoiding those will make your writing not terrible, but it can still be really mediocre.

Threads like these make me miss my fiction workshop classes.

>> No.886771

>>886719

Hi, Mister King. I enjoyed On Writing.

>> No.886794

>>886771
It's kind of sad that this stuff has to be put in a book for people to realize they shouldn't do it...

>> No.886814

>>886719
>prologues
>submitting a manuscript in a sans-serif font.
Like OP I'm also new at this. What's wrong with these two?

>> No.886833

My personal ones, mostly from a plot point of view:

-Never start with quotes
-repetition of he, she, I, you, me, we etc
-Avoid deus ex machinas
-Avoid prologues
-Never kill off a main character is a "noble and self sacrificing way."
-If you kill a character, never, EVER, bring them back.
-No Mary sues.

>> No.886834

>>886814
Prologues- They tend to front-load the story with information that, if you really need it, should probably be integrated more organically into the plot. Or they're a little "teaser scene" that isn't really relevant to where the first chapter actually starts. I don't need to understand the whole history or background of a situation before the story begins, and I'd really rather just get to the main thread of the story with the first chapter than read a few pages meant to "entice" me.

Serif is just generally a more professional and easy-on-the-eyes choice. To me, anyways.

>> No.886837

>>886814

Not sure about the font thing, that might just be taste, but prologues should be avoided, since it's better to dive straight into the story than cock about with a back story you could easily insert later.

>> No.886843

>>886833
Tell the power rangers this shit.

I fucking loved that shit and the evil villains/power rangers were always coming back from near death.

>> No.886848

>>886843

Eh, it just pisses me off. To me it show weakness on behalf of the writer. If you're going to kill a character, you fucking go through with it. Don't pussy out and bring them back with some stupid deus ex machina.

But yeah, the Power Rangers were the shit.

>> No.886872

Best thread on /lit/

>> No.886965
File: 153 KB, 1616x2099, gandalf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
886965

>>886848
My associate would like a word with you.

>> No.886977
File: 4 KB, 126x126, shitjustgotreal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
886977

>>886719

>> No.886979

>>886848

Oh, I don't know about that.

How would you feel about a character being lost track of in a battle or some other thing and the rest of the cast thinks they are dead, but they show up later with something like "I'm the most powerful thing on this planet, why would -that- kill me?"

>> No.886984

>>886833

>No Mary Sues

What about Master Chief?

I think the only way a Mary Sue can work is if the plot revolves around it. I know MC is one example, and I'm sure there are some others...

>> No.886986
File: 85 KB, 234x238, myfacewhen.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
886986

>>886984
>I think the only way a Mary Sue can work is if the plot revolves around it.
>Halo
wat

>> No.886991

>>886872
fuck yeeuh

>> No.886992

>>886984

Samus Aran? Link? Mario? Gordon Freeman?

Pretty much every central character in a video game could qualify as Mary Sue, but that phrase bugs me, because it doesn't actually have any meaning. It is a catch all for "character i don't like"

>> No.886997

You fucks don't know what mary sue means. Go look it up before you complain about it.

>> No.887005

>>886992
lolno

>> No.887019
File: 133 KB, 640x426, HA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
887019

>>886771
>>886771
>>886771
>>886771

pic related, this made me literally lol

Basic Stephen King-style writing is for fucking simpletons

>> No.887027

I can't think a character that was really a Mary Sue, except maybe Hal in Infinite Jest who was basically David Foster Wallace but wiser (he made himself 11 years old).

>> No.887109
File: 1.19 MB, 250x188, BUMP!!!!!.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
887109

>> No.887122

>>886794
I don't think it's sad at all. People try too hard when they are creating something that could be classified as "art". Especially when it comes to writing. If you try too hard with writing then it's most likely going to be shit.

>> No.887119

>>887019

So is acting like you are better than them because you like to read exaggerated prose and unnecessary complexity.

Why is it all of you need to make yourselves feel bigger than the people that have different tastes from yourself? Do you really have so little regard for yourself that your dignity hinges on belittling everyone else?

You are pathetic.

And I am the person that made the Stephen King post, just so you know that I hate you.

>> No.887132

>>887027
:(

That's not a Mary Sue at all. A "Mary Sue"-type of character is an empty vessel, not tied to any psychological logic at all.

If you accuse an author of using a younger or older version of him- or herself in one of his or her stories you might build a time-machine and take it up with Kafka. Or whoever the fuck, nearly every author in the history of literature put himself in his works.

>> No.887143

>>886701
following everyone else's advice on writing techniques that have already been experimented with one hundred times over, when you know what sounds good by yourself.
read good books. they will fill you in on the best techniques. what is called a good technique today, was bad form yesterday, and vice versa.

>> No.887179

>>887119
Not the guy that your bitching at, but sometimes prose can be a vehicle for delivering a message. I'm not saying that it's as profound as it is in poetry, but yeah, to a certain extent style matters.

Simplicity, or rather the absence of complexity, is not always a good thing. Complexity is a double edged sword, you can get very specific but at the same time you isolate yourself from some of your audience.

>> No.887187

>>887179

I like both the simple and complex styles.

I was just saying that considering yourself better than the people that like Stephen King or similar authors makes that guy a huge conceited dick.

>> No.887189

Does the writing in OP's picture say, "TOY STORY 2 BITCH"?

>> No.887207

>>887189
OP here, yes it does. Someone scratched that into the wall of the elevator in my building.

>> No.887228

If you read solely pulp fiction and consider yourself as being on the same level as other readers, at least in a literary sense, then yeah you're a simpleton. I'm not saying that everyone who enjoys King's writing comes under that umbrella statement, but it's kind of like the people who read ONLY Stephanie Meyer; nobody really gives respect to the people who read Twilight and enjoy it.

>> No.887235

I personally don't get all the King hate around here, I think his books are enjoyable.

There are hundreds of guides like this out there, OP. Read several dozen, cross-reference them and throw out the personal taste bullshit. Then build your own style, and don't be afraid to break rules in the name of making something
good or avoiding something barbaric.

>> No.887254

>>887235

Literati wannabees hate enjoyable books.

If it isn't confusing and hard, it is the province of the mentally unfit.

>> No.887275

>>887254
That's the problem: if you only ever read King, you'll never be prepared to read anything else.

If you read actual good literature (Joyce, Faulkner, etc.), it won't be confusing or hard. With practice, everything is easy.

To well-read people, good books aren't confusing. To uneducated, pulp-guzzling people, good books are very confusing.

>> No.887284

>>887119

Okay, you can go ahead and say that the Twilight Books are just "different taste" and that there is no objectivity in writing, and I will continue knowing that to a certain extent there is such a thing as "good" and "bad" in literature

>> No.887290

>>887275

Don't spout that crap at me.

You are just trying to justify being a dick by saying you are advocating greater literacy.

>> No.887297

>>887284

How can you think you are better when you obviously don't have any reading comprehension?

I didn't say there is no such thing as bad literature. I said that calling yourself better than the people that enjoy it makes you a ragging dick sucking faggot.

>> No.887430

>>887297

I didn't say that I was "better", only that I was more intelligent.

>> No.887447

>>886719
>>886833
I'll remember these.

>> No.887588
File: 102 KB, 642x1091, BUMP.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
887588

>> No.887654

BUMP

>> No.887680

>>886979

That's acceptable, because the character is only presumed dead, not actually dead.

What I hate is when a character is actually killed, then brought back through magic etc. Harry Potter is a good example.

>> No.887709
File: 62 KB, 500x408, 1277403922681.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
887709

>this thread
Write entirely derivative and entirely for yourself.

>> No.887761

>>887709
There's a difference between being derivative and following a few general rules that makes your writing much more easy to digest... I tried to suggest the latter.

Sure, you can "break the rules," but even then, you should do it for a good reason, and it's not guaranteed everyone will go along with it.

>> No.887793

>>887761

There aren't really any "rules" to writing, just things that universally piss people off.

You can do what you want with a story, but it's unwise to include something that you know is going to irritate your readers.

>> No.887814

>>887793
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Kind of like the rules of composition in art. They're not really rules in the strictest sense, just guidelines that naturally go over well.

>> No.888854

>>887019
Because that advice doesn't equally apply to Hemingway or Carver. Nice try.

>> No.888892

Not being able to move a story forward except through dialogue is always a sign to me that a writer has a lot of work to do.

>> No.888916

>>887709

I agree. For the most part I think anyone looking to become a professional writer could take a few creative writing classes, because you do gain some skills, and find some of your weaknesses you might agree with but not have seen otherwise, but your intended audience should be people like you.