In my experience, people who have studied English, creative writing, or journalism usually make the worst writers. They take forever to make their point; there's 10 pages of fluff for every page of worthwhile content.
Any thoughts on this?
>>1195132
it's common to all aspiring writers, regardless of whether or not they took writing classes
the key is realizing that the background fluff isn't on the page for the reader's benefit, but for your own. you yourself are kind of making it up as you go along, and you end up inserting pages of fluff about stuff nobody else cares about into the book in an attempt to get your own ideas straight in your head.
like imagine how much LOTR would suck if Tolkien had thrown the entire silnarillion into it as background fluff. there's a reason he wrote all that shit in a seperate manuscript that he only released later for dedicated fans of his works who actually WANTED to read the fluff
>>1195132
/lit/
>>1195140
*silmarillion
Yeah they don't learn utilitous writing very well.
>>1195132
I wonder if there is any connection to length and monetary amounts paid out (in total, not just the author/writer).
So a short, straight to the point 500 word article gets paid less than a 3,000 word article that has the same actual content but 2,500 added wasted words of waffle.
Engineers best writers.
>>1195140
He actually didn't release it. The Silmarilion was pubished when Tolkien was dead by his son using Tolkien's notes.
psycholinguists are the most economical writers i've come across
>>1195140
lots of fluff in this post
>>1195843
I like mathematicians
>>1195843
>i never read a haiku b4
