I have a very bad sense of distance and orientation, and since I hope to become a writefag I consider it pretty bad. For example, I never managed to grasp how actually fuckhueg 40k ships really are.
The best method I found out so far is drawing everything on paper, then just observing and describing the situation.
Any advice, /tg/ ?
Imagine a cinematic zooming shot
>>43591394
Look at GRRM. His characters can travel the distance between Detroit to Rio de Janeiro in eight horse days if the plot demands it. And he sells a ton of books.
No one cares about your 40k fan fiction.
>>43591394
>and since I hope to become a writefag I consider it pretty bad.
I don't really see how this is a problem. If you want to avoid doing stupid mistakes, do research and always look up references, so that you don't accidentally claim a normal healthy human is five meters tall or something, but otherwise I don't think this should have any impact on your writing.
Again: you have access to internet, and that basically means unlimited trivia and research data, so whenever you want to describe distances or sizes and stuff, just look up references. But to be honest, I can't remember when was it the last thing such thing mattered to me when reading a book.
You might - and this is just a thought, so don't take it personally - have a different problem, not uncommon for aspiring write-fags: you seem to think that for good story, you need to be very perfectly descriptive. Here is a little tip: When editing my works, I've found out that I intentionally delete things like descriptions that rely on measurements. It's more often actually distracting than anything. Don't think that your job as a writer is an exhaustive and precise description of the whole situation. Most people don't care if the character is ten meters or twenty meters away, they need to hear "he was standing aside" or "he was quite a bit away".
>>43592217
I do, I imagine it all perfectly in my head, but when I write it down, it looks like utter shit
>>43592705
Yeah, I blame my autism ( let's map every room in a 6km starship! Yay! )
>>43592760
No one cared about Twilight either, senpai
>>43592813
>I don't really see how this is a problem. If you want to avoid doing stupid mistakes, do research and always look up references, so that you don't accidentally claim a normal healthy human is five meters tall or something, but otherwise I don't think this should have any impact on your writing.
>Again: you have access to internet, and that basically means unlimited trivia and research data, so whenever you want to describe distances or sizes and stuff, just look up references. But to be honest, I can't remember when was it the last thing such thing mattered to me when reading a book.
Oh I do, I often read up on numerous topics, I delight in collecting obscure data
>You might - and this is just a thought, so don't take it personally - have a different problem, not uncommon for aspiring write-fags: you seem to think that for good story, you need to be very perfectly descriptive. Here is a little tip: When editing my works, I've found out that I intentionally delete things like descriptions that rely on measurements. It's more often actually distracting than anything. Don't think that your job as a writer is an exhaustive and precise description of the whole situation. Most people don't care if the character is ten meters or twenty meters away, they need to hear "he was standing aside" or "he was quite a bit away".
You pretty much nailed it all. Yes, everything must be perfect, and if it isn't, it annoys me to no end.
>>43592918
>Yes, everything must be perfect, and if it isn't, it annoys me to no end.
The problem is, keep this exhaustive descriptive style up and you likely end up annoying the reader to no end. Books are not supposed to provide photography-like perfect stills or blueprints for the narrative. They are supposed to speak in language that evokes the same associations and feelings as the scene you are describing.
If you want to describe, say - an attack of a terrifying alien, and you start describing it's precise dimensions, the precise shape of the room where it takes place, you will never actually convey the actually really relevant thing: how would you fucking feel when attacked by a terrifying alien. And I can assure you that when an alien attacks, you won't be thinking "I wonder how many meters is it shoulder-to-shoulder-wise?"
The example is rather extreme, but this applies to everything. There are also exceptions: if you want to convey, say, the tension on a bridge of a ship that is planning for a battle, and where relative positioning and distances are all the commanders are considering - sure. But those things crop up in very rare cases.
Most of the time, it's better to stick to more natural language.
TLDR: (This is the important part)
Detailed description makes sense only when every thing described is MEANINGFUL. Is there any MEANING in telling people precisely how far are things aside in meters? I am all for extremely detailed descriptions (I love Umberto Eco) but they have to be there for very, very good reason, and the reason is not "to describe how things were" - it's to describe what should be really IMPORTANT to the reader.
Sorry for the liberal use of caps, by the way.
>>43593023
Thank you for your advice, I appreciate it. If you have some more, I'd gladly hear it out.
>Sorry for the liberal use of caps, by the way.
Not a problem at all.
>>43593127
Not much else, really. It was just this. I remember writing this weird short story about a man trapped in a monastery during a vague, WW2-like war. It got moderately possitive reception (it really wasn't that good story, one of my earliest works), but EVERYBODY who read it told me: "drop the precise descriptions". I realized only later on that since the monastery played such a key part in the story (it was, in a sense, one of the main protagonists), I really desperately wanted to have it described as perfectly as possible. I had the layout drawn out, I knew how every window and every doorframe looked. I knew it's dimensions by heart.
Except in the resulting text, every where I mentioned things like solid dimensions, every where I talked about meters, or shapes, it was just jarring out bothered everyone.
Few years later when I re-read that I've realized what a dumb mistake it was to think only of how I see and know the monastery, and not really about why the monastery should matter to the reader.
That is really all I can offer, but keep in mind, I'm not a published author. Not seriously, anyway.
If there is anything you would want to ask though, I'd gladly share my thoughts and insights. Writefag wednesdays used to be some of my favorite threads around here, shame they don't exist anymore. As long as you don't take what I'm saying too seriously, I'll happily offer whatever insights I might have: I fancy myself to be a person who knows quite a bit about literature, but then again, I am probably wrong about that.
>>43593305
This is some really good advice, thanks again.
I'm also bothered that readers will judge me as a copycat
>He ripped off Pratchett/King/Butcher/etc
Also, I have this odd habit that all my writing projects gravitate towards the Roman Catholic version of Christianity (a la Tolkien style). The biggest irony being that I'm Orthodox.
>>43593656
>I'm also bothered that readers will judge me as a copycat
Ripping off is something I never let myself be bothered with. I think it was Bradbury who explicitly recommended starting authors to flat out write their own versions of their favorite existing stories. He believed (and I share that belief) it's actually a great way to practice. And writing, like anything, takes a LOT of practice.
Plus, I kinda subscribe to the old Borgesian "There are like 10 stories in the entire human history, everything else is just variations on those" philosophy. In classic literature, this is actually often the core of the works.
An example: One of the most famous Japanese "classic" books is called Diary of an Old Man. It was based on taking an older book, "Voice of the Mountain" - taking the story almost verbatim, just adding a more dark, perverse twist to it.
And if the world can tolerate the way Brown ripps off Eco, Coelho rips off... EVERYONE, and Fifty Shades of Gray started as a fan-fiction, then I think you do fine.
>Also, I have this odd habit that all my writing projects gravitate towards the Roman Catholic version of Christianity (a la Tolkien style). The biggest irony being that I'm Orthodox.
That is an interesting topic. Hard to imagine for me, as I'm as atheistic as one can get, but certainly something I'd actually be happy to read more on. Don't underestimate value of these "old fashioned" subject matters - they can make the difference between generic and actually good literature.
>>43593656
>Roman Catholic version of Christianity (a la Tolkien style)
I've heard this mentioned before, but I've never understood what people find so catholic about Tolkiens work. Then again, I've grown up in a secular protestant country so it might just be me not getting Catholicism.
>>43593829
>That is an interesting topic. Hard to imagine for me, as I'm as atheistic as one can get, but certainly something I'd actually be happy to read more on. Don't underestimate value of these "old fashioned" subject matters - they can make the difference between generic and actually good literature.
Yeah, me and my friend dubbed it "catholic indoctrination", since I've never had any contact with actual Roman Catholic theology, but rather with a ton of works inspired by it.
My biggest indoctrinator would probably be Henryk Sienkiewicz, on every other page there is someone gloriously charging for God, Virgin Mary and Poland. And I've read the whole Trilogy + Quo Vadis when I was 11-12 years old.
>>43593932
>I've heard this mentioned before, but I've never understood what people find so catholic about Tolkiens work.
My guess is the rather explicit moral binarity, the whole "pure evil" schtick, which sure as hell isn't from the mythologies he studied.
>>43593980
>My biggest indoctrinator would probably be Henryk Sienkiewicz, on every other page there is someone gloriously charging for God, Virgin Mary and Poland. And I've read the whole Trilogy + Quo Vadis when I was 11-12 years old.
That is some nice literary education. And I thought I was hardcore for reading Crime and Punishment when I was 13 and a half. Which by the way leads me to a possibly slightly off-topic thought: how much are you versed in Russian literature? Dostojevsky and Solzhenitsyn pop up in my mind.
Shame people get so itchy about religion and religious themes these day, especially in the west.
>>43594193
>Which by the way leads me to a possibly slightly off-topic thought: how much are you versed in Russian literature? Dostojevsky and Solzhenitsyn pop up in my mind.
I am well versed in Russian literature, (no I'm not Russian), personally I'd crown Gogol a king of Russian realism. I dislike Dostojevsky (inb4 Dostojevsky cultist wanting to stone me). To me, he was an extraordinary writer, but all that Christian mysticism etc. in his works is just annoying. Sadly, I know quite a few " Dostojevsky is a philosopher, fuck Nietzsche and the West! " people.
>Shame people get so itchy about religion and religious themes these day, especially in the west.
Blame the political correctness.
>>43594404
>inb4 Dostojevsky cultist wanting to stone me
Too late, I'm picking up the stones as I type. Yeah, the religious message (which I would, however, never call "mysticism", I think his attitude to religion is extremely rational) that I was mainly aiming at.
>Dostojevsky is a philosopher
I actually completely subscribe to that notion.
>fuck Nietzsche and the West!
That however, is really fucking dumb, considering that I believe there are few souls as complimentary and akin to each other as Dostojevsky and Niertzsche. I honestly think they speak about the same thing - liking one and disliking the other seems to me possible only if you are completely misunderstanding one of them.
But yeah, I was mostly curious on your thoughts about how he handled the theme of religion in his works. He does get a lot of criticisms for it, and I can understand where they come from, too.
>Blame the political correctness.
I'd blame political correctness for almost everything, but not this. In my personal experience, the problem is mostly with the needlessly antagonistic presentation of both atheism and religion. It's a strange thing to say for an atheist, but I personally experienced atheist being the bigger part of the problem than religious people. But then again, I don't have the experience of dealing with American fundies...
>>43594579
>Too late, I'm picking up the stones as I type. Yeah, the religious message (which I would, however, never call "mysticism", I think his attitude to religion is extremely rational) that I was mainly aiming at.
I'm just fed up with all the "DOSTOJEVSKY 200 % PURE CHRISTIAN POWER HURR DURR " thing, heard it too many times.
I consider Max Stirner my Lord and Saviour, so religiosity is pretty much behind me.
>I personally experienced atheist being the bigger part of the problem than religious people
There's that one South Park episode which describes the atheist-only world, it's hilarious.
>>43594767
>thing, heard it too many times.
That is odd. In my experience, it's mostly people bashing him over the religious message, which is mostly understandable - ESPECIALLY in Crime and Punishment, where it really does come across as jarring.
Never seen anyone glorifying him over it, with the exception of Peterson, but he s a whole different deal.
>>43594933
Let's just say I have a dubious honour of knowing the local IRL /pol/ division, which is all about russophilia, orthodoxy, and love making themselves pseudo-intelectual by being avid readers of Russian classics.
Still, even without aforementioned crew, I consider Dostojevsky's religious message ramshackle at best.
>>43595070
This might be a longshot, but do you happen to be from some of the Baltic countries? Latvia perhaps?
You don't have to answer, of course. Just curious.
>>43595165
>implying there are russophiles in latvia
No, I'm a southerner, Balkans actually.
>>43595266
>implying there are russophiles in latvia
There is a sizable portion of Russians and Russian descendants in Latvia, and some of the worst russophilic shit I've ever seen was there. The population seems to be pretty sharply divided at that.
Thanks for the reply, anyway.
>>43595305
Worst part here is, there is no Russian community to speak of, or Russian descendants, yet these people want to be under direct Moscow jurisdiction.
No, russianizing your name on Facebook does not make you a Russian citizen, or of a Russian breed, sorry.
>Thanks for the reply, anyway.
You're welcome.
>>43595437
>yet these people want to be under direct Moscow jurisdiction.
Wishing no political debate, considering the history of Balkan, I can't blame them that much. And I speak as an east-european with a massive grudge agaist Russia - both in our country, and in my family. But wanting some form of security, even if from what is essentially a new totalitarianism in making can be understood. I don't know where exactly are you from, and the last thing I want to do is lecture you on your own history, but the region got fucked over hard, and I guess that just changes the priorities of people.
It kinda scares me, but it's not like I don't understand why. Kinda like I have it with religion, curiously enough.
>>43595527
It all boils down to which Empire you want to serve. At least the West is the iron hand in a silk glove.
>with a massive grudge agaist Russia - both in our country, and in my family
Pole or Ukrainian, I guess? Or maybe Hungarian.
>>43596127
>At least the West is the iron hand in a silk glove.
I wish the west was at least an Empire, that I way I could at least respect it. The problem I see is that west is just plain silly, while the east is just plain scary. And we are trapped literally and figuratively in the middle of it.
>Pole or Ukrainian, I guess? Or maybe Hungarian.
Neither, but good guesses. My country has probably the least actual reasons to spite Russia of the entire former eastern block, but we do it anyway.
>>43596195
I think the U.S. will live on as a melting pot of other nations as it always had. And the Dragon will devour the Bear, if you catch my drift (muh empty Siberian land)
>Neither, but good guesses. My country has probably the least actual reasons to spite Russia of the entire former eastern block, but we do it anyway.
Interesting. My next guess would be Czechoslovakia, but they had those unfortunate incidents in the 60-es.
Romanians also no, because Ceaușescu.
Byelorussia, lol no
Either Baltic states or Moldavia then.
>>43596442
>Czechoslovakia
Is no longer a thing, the country split. And Czech part is pro-Russian lately.
>>43596495
I know Czechoslovakia is no longer a thing, I said it for simplicity's sake.
Both Czechs and Slovaks always seemed like decent people to me.
> friendly
> beer
> dat gothic arhitecture
> pretty good porn industry
>>43596495
>And Czech part is pro-Russian lately.
Oh god no, it isn't. The president has made some very pro-russian acts, but then again, the president is a drunken lunatic and nobody actually fucking takes him seriously. I'm not joking here. He is literally considered a public clown. The whole position is.
Pic releated: this was a SERIOUS contender for the post. His qualification? He is a punk artist.
>>43596587
You Central European Slavs learned to chill and not give a fuck a long time ago
>>43596676
Czechs: yes. Pollocks? Hell no.
And while there is something I like about the layed back and "we don't give a fuck, really" attitude, it's also incredibly sickening and annoying quite often.
If there is time we should start giving a fuck, I'd say it's right now. But I'm not sure if it's in our capacity. And even if it is, I'm not sure if it's not going to get out of hand and lead to all manners of nastiness.
>>43596587
Meawhile, in another thread.
>>43592757
>>43593057
>>43596719
Serbs on the other hand, give way too much fucks around.
The function of our entire state currently is closely tied to 3 reality shows.
I fully expect that our glorious PM (may He lead us on the path of eurointegration for the next 10,000 years) will make an appearance in one of the shows.
>>43596587
>He is literally considered a public clown.
>The whole position is.
And has been since 1936.
