There appears to be a flurry of writing threads in these parts. I wanted to start something that would bring together these disparate albeit similar parts in a practical manner to form a more coherent group so that we may all learn from one another instead of holding up signs with the dire want of acknowledgment.
This is a discussion thread hosted by Gantic (and the nonexistent Author's Guild). This will not be a discussion about a particular piece of writing by a writer but more generally about writing and the writer. I am hoping to get some productive discussion from writers here on Armor Games.
Discussion will be on various topics and may changed weekly, biweekly, however long a discussion needs. This will mostly (or most likely) be about prose but other forms of writings may also be discussed.
To start off: Why do you write? What do you want from writing?
The question is not "Why do you like to write?" Rather, it is "Why do you write?"
Please keep posts relevant. Posts should be relevant to the current discussion or a previous discussion.
Responses should be constructive. While we'd all like to be frank, there is a line between tactful and blunt. Keep in mind that not everyone is of the same disposition or age.
Also keep in mind that we're all amateurs here unless someone is writing professionally. Nevertheless, each opinion carries the same weight regardless of whether you disagree or not or how much you admire or despise someone. Please consider how something applies to you and not blindly accept or reject advice or opinion. An opinion is never a fact even if everyone thinks the same thing.
If you have any ideas for future discussions, leave a comment on my profile. Meanwhile, consider, discuss, learn!
i wright short stories inspired by, not replicated by fallout 3. i wright them because it was a good idea and it gives me something to do in my spare time. i dont want anything from it, weather people read them or not i dont care.
Theme? I'd say romance, friendship, loneliness, and all that sentimental shit, but the gosh-darned modernists won't get off my back for that. So I'll keep my mouth shut on it.
Theme? I'd say romance, friendship, loneliness, and all that sentimental ****
My sentimentalism goes off the charts. The only "overwhelming" response I ever get is usually accompanied with "that was sweet." Hooray for scenes that make people cry after emotional build-up. (I had no idea it was so, but looking back at my older pieces and one I'm working on now was enlightening.)
But there's gotta be some reason Pixar always pulls in so much and make movies that are on average ten times better than Disney, though I'm pretty sure it's something more than sentiment.
Whenever I see modernist, I think modernist yuppie... and in light of economic breakdown I don't have to voice my opinion on the subject.
But there's gotta be some reason Pixar always pulls in so much and make movies that are on average ten times better than Disney, though I'm pretty sure it's something more than sentiment.
Of course, you have the extra dimensions that movies provide that can't be accessed through prose: music, visual art, and the like.
Which brings me to a question I'm curious about: How is the feel of creating different media of art similar or dissimilar to that of writing?
I take back that statement. Dreamworks Animations makes as much, if not more than, Pixar. Pixar is award-winning and critically acclaimed.
How is the feel of creating different media of art similar or dissimilar to that of writing?
There is no visual or audial aspect from which you may pull emotions. There is no visual aspect to writing (aside from calligraphy and certain poems). There is no sense of emotion that can be pulled from a wall of text. By looking at just the words, it is harder to tell the emotion. There is also no audial aspect either. Written words require the reader to be active whereas other media allows for more passive reactions. The writer sets the tone in the reader's mind and not before the reader's senses.
There is no simultaneous action. There can be two different things occurring at the same time but they do not occur to the reader at the same time. So no gags are occurring while the main action is being presented. No counterpoints. No people talking at the same time. One cannot simultaneously process things like that simply by reading so it cannot be done in writing.
The only similarity I see is whatever is built from the level of abstraction of the piece. Beyond "What do I want to convey?" there are no similarities.
I was also going to answer Parsat's question on the diff. between visual media and prose but Gantic's answered it.
What is essential for a good character? Again depends on what "good" is but let's go on a limb and use the definition I'm using for Way of Moderation- one that is engaging because we can relate to it somehow because it reflects our way of being or natures.
There are different ways to do this too- for example some of the cast I like because they are very 'human', complete with insecurities and folly. Others are caricatures, with quirks and exaggerations we can easily recognise. At a glance these characters also happen to work because they are what I'm going to call well composed, as opposed to shooting the canvas with a paintball gun (repeatedly) and calling it a painting.
Again not to say that good characters MUST be entirely internally congruent since people never are, but there's a limit as to how much you can push things in different directions.
Again not to say that good characters MUST be entirely internally congruent since people never are, but there's a limit as to how much you can push things in different directions.
Usually, shouldn't you have all of you characters attributes going in the same direction?
I intentionally leave the subjective terms vague. For me, good is likeable. I'll define likeable as this: able to pull some sympathy, even if only a small amount
How one reacts to failure is more important than how one acts in success (in life and in fiction).
Firstly, if a character can't fail, why should I care? The only thing I detest more than an irredeemable bottom feeder antagonist is a smug protagonist who's always right in the end, even more so for those who don't show the process of how they are right. (Certain children's stories come to mind, but those are children's stories.)
Secondly, we've all failed at some point at something, so the reaction to failure is something we can relate to. That's not to say that certain reactions that are embarrassing because they're true necessarily make the character any more likeable, but that they reacted in a way that is familiar.
Again not to say that good characters MUST be entirely internally congruent since people never are, but there's a limit as to how much you can push things in different directions.
Usually, shouldn't you have all of you characters attributes going in the same direction?
Double standards (or something similar) are debatably incongruent and they are inherent in everyone.* It's an issue of "us versus them". I think a double standard is necessary in certain characters. The perceived hypocrisy is there. Characters should be able to say, "I can do this because I know better," because they do (or think they do) and because that would be how they would think.
*I will not qualify this statement, though I'm trying to think of instances where there aren't double standards.
