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?
>>8085544
no. yur wrong
> Wild posting because I need a place to share this:
You are the question I could never answer. My theory that ends with an ellipsis; my hypothesis that evades empiricism. The one mystery I could never figure out. How could I ever hope to stay away?
>>8085544
The kind of people who study English or creative writing are the kind of people more interested in idea of writing itself than trying to communicate an idea, as a consequence all of their writing is aimless waffle.
>>8085552
Thank u foe the input :)
>>8085544
because they've been taught how to write, as opposed to learned how to write. i play instruments and i see the exact same thing happen. its mostly just a lack of experimentation and original ideas, they all (on purpose or not) follow a set of guidelines; more creative types approach it like a stallion approaches his mare. its pretty neat really
>>8085731
This.
There is no rules or set of things that must be followed.
As a journalism major I can say you're not entirely wrong, but any good editor will kick that tendency right out.
Learning technique helps you avoid many simple mistakes, but the trick is to make the technique yours, dont be a slave to technique.
I used to wing it alot until I seriously started studying the technical side of writing, and found many things I had learned on my own already confirmed. Its a mistake to avoid it out of some misguided idea of remaining "pure". To make the most out of any craft you will need to be aware of its any facets, learning technique is one starting point for that.
>>8085544
Is this why all the novels I see advertised on amazon are all 500+ pages for a simple crime story?
>>8085800
Borges was so fucking right..
>“Writing long books is a laborious and impoverishing act of foolishness: expanding in five hundred pages an idea that could be perfectly explained in a few minutes. A better procedure is to pretend that those books already exist and to offer a summary, a commentary.”
>>8085800
Wasn't Borges the one who said he thought crime novels were boring because they take forever to develop? I know he also said something along the lines of, why write a huge, encyclopedic door stopper when a plot can be condensed into a few pages?
>>8085805
Nice, I couldn't remember the exact quote. Wasn't it in reference to Ulysses?
>>8085809
I'm not sure, but in general I agree with him. Very few of the doorstoppers are actually worth it in that their scale and unfolding justifies their length. Like you wouldn't be able to sum up a book like Musashi without losing so much that gives the book its magic.
Most books these days just give you a bunch of filler. Little to no substantial development between all those pages.
>>8085813
Is Musashi really worth reading? I've been considering it but 1000 pages stops me.
>>8085805
But what if you write a 500 page book of short summaries that tie into a greater idea... hmmm?
>>8085823
Yes its one of the most popular Japanese novels for a reason. There's tons of depth in its historical accuracy, characterization and insight.
Its divided into several parts so its not like you have to devour it all in one night.
But if you're still bugged then read the manga adaptation Vagabond as a sort of sampler, its not 100% accurate to the book but it carries the same underlining spirit. Great artwork too.
>>8085857
Yea, its all about how those pages are used. If each an every word actually counts then nothing need be cut. Sadly the trend today just seems to be "larger is better/more epic"
>>8085839
Meh, i'm going to order it and Taiko.
I'll just read it in parts so I don't get burned out.
>>8085544
It's just a stupid opinion. Doesn't even make sense. Professors stress concision and support. You just sound bitter.
>>8085544
>plot is the most important part of a novel
I've never appreciated or re-read a novel because of its plot. Never. It was always because of the "condiment". Some particular scenes, some characters, some dialogues. Never the fucking plot.
>>8085880
My CW Prof was very relaxed and just shared her own insights of the work, not really admonishing you to adhere to some particular framework of composition.
I think that way is very helpful to people who are already self-driven to improve their work, development happens naturally without something being directly imposed upon them, and whatever feedback gained is for the most part honest and direct.
>>8085885
Characters make the plot desu, i dont know why people actually make a distinction between them.
>>8085893
Douglas Adams seems to make a distinction about sentences that move the plot forward and sentences that "merely" dig into the characters' personality or opinions or whatever, and he's saying that this last kind of sentences are useless. I'm saying that without them, a novel would be dry and unmemorable.
>>8085544
Yeah, you're retarded. Anybody who has ever been considered a good writer by anyone but the braindead masses has extensively studied writing, whether it was through schooling or autodidactic reading.
You're retarded and should leave.
>>8085897
The way I see it, if the characters are just being themselves you wont even need to take a break to show more about them, since they are already exposing themselves by just being. Its that same 'just being" which moves the plot towards its end..Everything arises naturally.
>>8085900
They can usually make the worst writers even if most of the very best are from that category as well.
>>8085794
how did you learn the technical side of writing, or do you just mean grammar
>>8085544
ITT:
NEET tries to validate his attempts to write a fantasy novel without any knowledge on how to write
>reading a plot focused book
Why
>>8085913
>They can usually make the worst writers
>can usually
Try 'typically' next time
>>8085915
I should say technical side of fiction, like characterization, description, POV, etc.
My mainstay books have been John Gardner's "Art of Fiction" and recently Lajo's Egri's books of Dramatic/Creative writing. All of them are very insightful books that take alot of the mystique out of the craft. Its hard work still, but say everything important is more or less laid out plainly. All that's left is practice, experimentation and mastery.
>>8085913
From that sentence I can tell you've never pursued any higher education, or even read much, so you'll be a shit writer.
Pro-fucking-tip, life isn't like media. No one has ever just woken up and found writing to be just so super easy and went out and got published. The people that you read, that the elite read, that give you that tingling in your spine like you feel the words running up and down them, those people read. A lot. They've read and studied and read some more, even if they didn't go to college. After you've read more books you'll be able to tell quality from pure shite, so go do that and then come back here.
>>8085927
Yep.
> “Tis the good reader that makes the good book; in every book he finds passages which seem confidences or asides hidden from all else and unmistakenly meant for his ear; the profit of books is according to the sensibility of the reader; the profoundest thought or passion sleeps as in a mine, until it is discovered by an equal mind and heart.”
>Ralph Waldo Emerson
>>8085937
"The good writer is the better reader" -Anonymous, 2k16
