Writing Advice

[TNTOS]

I introduce new characters by introducing them in a way that fits their personality, job, or role in the plot. For example, let's say I am introducing a new character who is a crazy psychopath. The most logical and natural way to introduce him is by showing him doing something a crazy psychopath would do, such as killing/torturing someone while having a good time doing it. Or if my character is a police cop, I can show her chasing down a criminal or filing a report or doing something else police-related. Or if your character is supposed to be the villain, then you can introduce him by showing him doing something evil or whatever. In my opinion, that's the best way I can think of introducing a new character. As long as you understand your character's personality or job or role in the plot, introducing him/her shouldn't be that difficult. The only hard part is figuring our when to introduce that character; but if you, like me, are an organic writer, it's not as hard as it could be. -TNTOS-

[Kaleidoscope Tekulo]

Organic writer? O.o-pulls on arm-...I'm... I'm made of flesh, does that count? XD But thanks, those suggestions from you guys really help. ^^

[TNTOS]

Er, sorry for not explaining. Thought you'd already know, but I was obviously wrong. An organic writer is a writer who writes without an outline, essentially letting the characters write the story. Hope that helped. -TNTOS-

[Kaleidoscope Tekulo]

Oh! Yeah, I never really studied writing or stories. They're just something I've always been intrigued by. I mainly like mysteries and classic fairy tales so far (comparing the originals/earlier works to the mainstream Disney versions and other cartoon/cgi works is really fascinating). And I don't really have a method for writing. I'll make a rough and vague plot line, then I'll get a new idea and change a few things, then add in a character who brings the story into a new light... I normally picture the beginning and the full circle ending first, but I'm trying to figure out how I'll get the middle done. XP So, really, I just write whatever inspires me at the time, or whatever catches my eye and I go from there, more or less. (Sorry if I don't know a lot of technical terms. Writing really isn't a science for me. @_@)

[TNTOS]

That's okay. Writing is definitely not a science. It's an art. If it was a science, there would be no debate about what makes good writing and what makes bad writing (or at least there would be a lot less, anyway). -TNTOS-

[Kaleidoscope Tekulo]

I'm not too sure about that. There's an art to science (things are never black and white. There are theories, but theories are theories and not fact. A lot of people seem to forget that we are supposed to use science merely as support and not illumination as Einstein -I believe- once said). Also, there would not be a right or wrong way to write a story if it were a science. There would be theories that would clash and illogical things that others would study and experiment with just like anything else, I'd think. Sorry, got off topic. XD Anyway, yes, the point of writing is expression, just the same as drawing a picture. No right, no wrong, simply "what does the viewer take away from this?"Hmm... I suppose you would have to think like your reader for that, huh? Though, if you like it, then your reader should like it too. If not, you're writing for the wrong audience. XP And yet another tangent brought to you by this crazy toa of wind... -.-

[Mr. Fluffy]

Tips for good writing? Don't take me for granted on these, since I'm not a writer, but I'll try. Take a break when you're lacking creative prowess. Maybe you'll have an epiphany that'll tell you how to write good. Use creative expressions. Instead of saying "The dog frightened the cat.", say "The dog sheared the cool of the cat." Spam alliterations. It's simple enough, but I always get a nod from my teacher when I do this with my essay's title.

[Jean Valjean]

*facepalm* . When I said "interesting" I meant to "complex and gray". I don't know how I got those words switched around, since they don't have the same definition. Really, I do think that a villain should be interesting. Everything about a story should be interesting. That's rather embarrassing. Although now that I think about it, if I ever wanted to make fun of someone in real life I could throw a random villain into the background of my story who's so uninteresting that the reader hardly noticed them and then give that villain the person's name. Like, I can remember this terrible teacher who only ever read of the power point a few years back . Anyway, I'm looking at my own series. There are tons of people in there and in general I go for realism since I feel that the characters have to be real, but since this is a romantic fantasy story, certain types of characters are almost inevitable on the long run. That stems a bit from my worldview, where I do believe in an absolute divide between the ever-present powers of good and evil. In a book, tat translates into a story where everything is somehow connected to a larger, black-and-white struggle. Of course, you can think of it the other way around. From the large and general struggle between good and evil, many more complex struggles are derived. I think that other popular and successful stories have done this. Harry Potter, while by no means my favorite book, is ultimately about (but not all about) a struggle against Lord Voldemort, who is a manifestation of evil. He links and unites all te other evils within the story in some way. I have no problem with Lord Voldemort, although I do feel that J.K. Rowling had an opportunity to explore more types of villainy through his followers. Draco could have had a more interesting father than Lucius and Voldemort could have had a more interesting follower than Bellatrix Lestrange, but still, there was a diversity of villains and types of struggles. I take this into account in my own writing. I have mentioned before that the ultimate villain in the story is Death, but he doesn't dominate all aspects of it. For the most part, he works through the people he has manipulated. Now there are a few other villains who are also pure evil, but in most cases their narrative purpose is to serve as forces more then as people, although I ave to admit that there's something about Craytus's very person brand of sinister and sadistic that makes him a intriguing villain. Now, as for the vast majority of all the other villains, there are reasons that justify them being the way they are, and I wanted to describe them for some time, so here goes nothing: -Master Legious is a proud gentleman who feels he is worthy of the world over.-Sualls grew up in a violent and crime-filled culture and became a selfish person who only cares about herself and enjoys being important and putting others down.-La'ti isn't necessarily a villain, but in the end she turns Buzzy down in a rather mean and prissy way, so she isn't likeable-Kaiac is from a corrupt race and chooses a lifestyle of hunting down and eating children because he has a sick sense of humor, all because he doesn't believe that there is a consequence for evil so one might as well have as many thrills as you can.-Molgog is from the same culture as Kaiac and is overly proud of his strength and competency, and in his past he hunted people for sport for thrills.-Quarr is pure evil, although his specific evil comes from an eternal hatred against losing some cosmic struggle against a mysterious white entity, ad he serves the narrative purpose of bringing out hatred in anyone who meets his gaze (which I leave completely up to interpretation since I myself like to interpret it differently quite often).-Raka is disrespectful and flippantly regards morality as stupid, so he considers a few more options than most when e wants money.-Roteris is prejudiced, jingoistic, and genuinely believes in a fascist ideology, and is has a bit of a Napoleon syndrome because second-born children like himself take on a less honorable place in society.-Tasha likes attention and partially marries Roteris for it, and she became very involved in advancing the fascist political agenda behind the scenes out of her loyalty to her husband.-The "Strong Bullies" aren't villains, but they're so arrogant and stupid that it's fun to hate them.-Clear Water goes through teenage angst and believed that she was wronged by several of the protagonists, but she also genuinely believes in some of Master Legious's preaching.-Megstra is a prince and general over the vast Second Empire and has only ever known the honor of bringing more people under is power, driven not by pride but by a controlled ruthlessness, which is all the result of a historic hatred that the Second Empire has had of its predecessors, the First Empire, and he also disdains weakness, disloyalty, and dishonor.-Jack was a demon who turned good in the middle of a world-changing mission when he saw love and goodness, but even while joining forces with good he remained moody, dark, and mysterious, because he understands evil more than his comrades.-Jloudo, for all his intelligence in the field of genetics, is a cowardly and easy to manipulate villain.The unamed Oxylotl is likewise a manipulated villain, but he was lied and deceived and would want to do evil if he knew all the consequences of his actions.-Rover J. Banks is a ruthless dictator and conqueror who doesn't want his competitors to empire-build faster than himself.-Gold is initially a general under Banks with a jealousy problem, and when he sees people on the other side who are better at doing what he does, he takes it very personally and pathetically goes after the person, Mr. Maker, who he felt took away his dignity, and is characterized by poor self-control and foolishness.-Ellie is of some relation to Gold, and when he looks like a total fool going after Mr. Maker, she makes him look like an even bigger fool by going after Mr. Maker better.-Lunathrax is from a species with an instinct for assassination and is strangely attracted to one of the people she tries to kill, Mr. Maker.-Visigoth Richards is very intelligent and manipulates people to the ends of attaining his heart's desire for money, and is otherwise heartless.-Euthanasia, although in secret surprisingly philosophical, is stubborn and wants attention, and since the species he comes from has an instinct for genocide, his smaller acts of homicide are conservative, and he tries his best to take it out primarily on stupid people, all the while being a smart mouth.-Titanus is a giant with an instinctive blood-lust and delight in the pain of mortals, but it's because he knows that he was created for acts of destruction and doesn't question his purpose as a warrior to this end, and he becomes a proud father figure among the Amakor.-Theophilus Zweifel isn't a villain, but he's mean-spirited, plays games with people, betrays people's trust, and never gives encouragement to the people who need it most, most notably his own son and grandson, who he secretly manipulates and cheats in order to "strengthen them", although most likely the conflict of is subplot will resolved in the end with him being redeemed.-Deleta is an anti-hero who, for all his intelligence and precision, and in spite of the beautiful crispness in which he sees the world, and in spite of his perfect understanding between right and wrong, all his decisions are completely chaotic and apathetic, and one could argue that he doesn't have a soul. I didn't touch on all the villains, since over an eighteen part series there tend to be quite a few, nor did I give much description to them. I purposely tried describing them each in one sentence, just to see how it goes. It's real hard. Most of them are real complex and I'd have an easier time writing several pages on them each, but I still wanted to see if I could be as brief as possible and still capture their essence. No, I've failed. Still, I don't want to take up much room describing them all at once. Besides, I finally got a Word program that I can start keeping track of all the details on. But on the other hand, I feel I just need to give a brief description on these forums anyway because I know that people have been under the misunderstanding in the past that none of my villains had any personality or motivation when I once described the events in my story without describing the characters much. But yeah, several of these characters I can't even begin to define in one sentence. Master Legious is like his arcitechture and music, representing very complex evils, the simplest of which is pride. There are so many reasons to dislike Raka that, even though I got the most important ones, there are other things that I'd like to say about him that make him unique. Roteris as a long, long story and it spans over several books as he slowly turns into a villain with complex reasoning, and in the meantime he still respects some of the main heroes and likes to consider them his friends. Clear Water can be described better than just angsty, and she goes through a complex emotional development throughout the series Gold is a character who is, while really quite simple, is the ultimate example of a big fool and I'd ust love to describe how he goes around putting up with childish fights. Theo Zweifel is so complex that he's too hard for his family to understand. Perhaps it's his self-confident personality, but really, why does he steal moey from his grandson? Why does he hurt other people? Is it because he wants to be a hurting person or for some other reason? What is it that he cares about? Sometimes it seems like it could be social status, power, family, personal strength, legacy, or money, but none of them really his the mark. It's hard to know what he's after or what motivates him. One of these days I'll figure it out. But really, what makes him an antagonist is because of his long and complex history with his family. Then as for Deleta? Don't even get me started. He's the only person I write of from first person perspective for a reason. So anyway, I do look forward to seeing how this complex world all mixes together. In the meantime, I will be writing drafts. Your Honor,Emperor Kraggh

[Jedi Knight Krazy]

I hate to bring up an old argument, but I think something important went unaddressed in that whole morals debate... I believe it was said, regarding the Lion King, that anyone who cries over the death of an animated lion has "serious emotional issues".This is a dangerous mental trap to get into that can seriously hinder your creativity. Imagine every character in that scene as human. You've got a man dying in front of his son, betrayed by his brother who he (admittedly, shouldn't have) trusted. That's some serious stuff. Do you see the danger in thinking of Mufasa as just an "animated lion"? That leads to thinking of anything unrealistic as unrelatable, which means you'll probably never write about anything abstract, or symbolic, or meaningful.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Jedi Knight Krazy

[Hanako Herupa]

Apparently the Lion King was inspired by Hamlet...and two bible stories. In fact in an intro to film class I'm having, it basically listed everything it drew inspiration from. Though the author seemed rather harsh about it. On the discussion of Horror a bit back. I believe what is more terrifying to people like me at least is something like the Slenderman. The more you know the more you attract its attention. Humanity is naturally frightened about what's unnatural. So to make your horror stories good the "horror" needs to be inhuman. I'm going to be watching a David Lynch film and he was famous for filming his most horrific scenes in broad daylight.

[Kaleidoscope Tekulo]

I actually disagree that horror needs to be inhuman to be good. I've read stories where a human is the one behind countless chaos, destruction, pain, sorrow, etc. The thing that made those stories so chilling was the thought that any person is capable of horror. I actually find a lot of horror stories (movies in particular) with monsters and ghouls to be far more funny than actually terrifying. It's just so unreal and out there that you know it's just all silly little fabrications (even if you flinch at some of the more violent scenes). Bringing in a human villain is just far more personal and far more thrilling to me in general.

[Hanako Herupa]

The issue of humans doing it though is that they use the same things over and over again. Silence of the Lambs was scary because it was just so horrifying wrong and a human being was capable of doing this. I do agree with your point it's just that unfortunately there is not many psychological horrors at this moment. The longer you keep it in the shadows the scarier it gets. Now certain video games knew how to follow this up, by making the creatures once you faced them inhuman. Let's use Amnesia: The Dark Descent for an example. From the very beginning it's terrifying, you have no weapon to fight them off and when you hide from them you can't start at them too long or your sanity slips. What I was saying is that humans fear what they consider unnatural. If any alien being eats a human to use that seems inhuman, but to an Eldritch abomination we might just be lunch or wasps. That's why H.P. Lovecraft's stories are so terrifying, we are nothing in the eyes of something greater than us, more powerful, more dangerous than we could ever be. Personally I think atmosphere really decides whether the horror is going to be good. A world that is decaying, corrupted, is terrifying in my opinion, which is why video games like Silent Hill (the first three) were frightening enough. I mean I found Penumbra a little terrifying at times, usually cause my flashlight would cut out at the worst times.

[Kaleidoscope Tekulo]

Well, some of the stories I'm thinking of aren't exactly "All you see is them doing these horrible things" but what's more is you see the point of view from a ton of different people. The victim, the friend of the victim, the person who thinks the villain is just an ordinary guy, etc. It's not only about what they do, it's also about what they drive others to and really what a large impact they can have on a whole. And it doesn't have to be violent; it could be some sort of abuse or just a philosophical issue. Like in Phoenix Wright, the villains are all human. You play as an investigator who starts the cases where you know very little and eventually piece things together. You discover who the villain is bit by bit (and up to a point you know that they did it and you know that they are the villain) and then you finally delve into their mind and figure out "why did they do that?" And not all of the villains from that game are horrifying, but there are some that just... they can really give you the chills as their mindset appears unnatural and inhuman (but it isn't). Of course that's only one example. But just seeing a villain in a violent act just doesn't have as much of an impact on me, nor do unnatural things in general. Not to say I always prefer human villains. Dementors from Harry Potter, for example, were really scary to me as a child when I read the books. However, Voldemort (a wizard) was the ultimate villain and he was far more devious than any dementor could be for me. It wasn't because he was unnatural in looks (he actually looked funny to me when the movie came out XD) nor was it that he was dark or gloomy; it was because he was a wizard just like Harry, the protagonist.

[Legolover-361]

Use creative expressions. Instead of saying "The dog frightened the cat.", say "The dog sheared the cool of the cat."

While I do think creative expressions are necessary to good writing, that sort of creative expression is rather wordy and nebulous. I prefer describing how the cat was frightened, for example, "A loud bark! and the cat leapt into the air, hissing and spinning to face its attacker, a sheepdog looking for a fight," but that's just me.

Spam alliterations. It's simple enough, but I always get a nod from my teacher when I do this with my essay's title.

You shouldn't spam anything in writing. Variety is key. Alliterations are not. Don't get me wrong, wordplay is an important part of writing; however, alliteration can add a whimsical air to your stories if you aren't careful. I've never heard that using alliteration in essay titles is good. But, then again, I've never gone to school.

[WriterofReapers]

I alliterate the titles of most of my essays, and the teachers love it. Then again, most of my classmates come up with the most unoriginal titles, so it could just be in comparison that they are better...

[Lord Kaitan de Storms]

My experience is that heavy alliteration works great for titles and poems but not so much prose.

[Jean Valjean]

Again, thanks for JKK for his insight. Regarding horror, my stance is with The Mask. The brand of horror that I personally consider to be "horror" is the type that's so frightening that it's hard to watch, gives you nightmares, and makes you a bit superstitious for a while. For me, though I love Silence of the Lambs and consider Hannibal Lecter to be one of the all-time greats of contemporary villains, the movie to me was more of a thriller. The same goes for other brilliant movies like Hide and Seek. Yeah there are slasher scenes and the tension is wonderful, but the tension and actual deep, tangible fear are different things. So my mother and I came to a consensus that the type of story that I truly felt was horror delved into the realm of the supernatural. I'm not condemning Silence of the Lambs as not a horror, by the way, but to me it's obviously not because during the movie I never got afraid (and I watched it first on Halloween) and after watching it the thing that stuck with me was how charismatic Hannibal was. So what sticks out to me are things that hit me on a more primal, instinctive level. Supernatural things spook me out. Ghost stories are literally haunting. Frightening monsters raise the hairs on my neck. I'll admit, I have a fear of monsters and spirits, so scary movies for me would be stuff like Aliens, The Mummy, Paranormal Activity, and the Doctor Who episode Blink. If I were to write horror it would most likely come off this way. What I loved about Aliens, by the way, was all the elements it used to make the film as horrifying as possible. Fear of fire? Check. Fear of water, especially sewers? Check. Claustrophobic? Check. Fear of parasites? Check. Fear of being clenched around the neck? Check. Fear of being jumped on by something that was hiding in plain sight? Check. Fear of slime? Check. Fear of what's around the corner? Check. Fear of being stalked? Check. Fear of running out of time? Check. Fear of deadly silence? Check. Fear of darkness? Double check. Of course, suspenseful thriller movies can also be scary, depending on the person. Obviously we show some diversity. I have a little sister who was always afraid of going into the basement because she was afraid a murderer might be down there. I had a similar problem, but that was because there was a ghost in my basement, I swear. But then, the basement back then was a dark and haunted looking place, as opposed to our new house where the basement is a living room with a couple of bedrooms. Perhaps it's because of the circumstances, but perhaps we're naturally afraid of different things. Your Honor,Emperor Kraggh

[Hanako Herupa]

Well I used to have an irrational fear of basements when I was a kid, oh and thought someone was always hiding behind the shower curtain. Funny though, I never got to see Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. There's a term called "Nothing is scarier" which means when a jump scare is supposed to happen but doesn't actually follow through, leaving your paranoid for the rest of the film or possibly story. Horror must literally be the hardest thing to write rather make into a movie or anything else. Honestly I'm going to be watching David Lynch films and he's a master of Surrealistic horror as a director and writer. He made Eraserhead, Mulholland Drive, and created the Twin Peaks series. As for suspense Donnie Darko made me jump a few times, Frank has a way of doing that to people. The Slenderman is scary because of that idea of the more you learn, the less the fourth wall will protect you. I mean now I'm sort of interested but this was the reason at first, that made it hard to sleep. I mean that's how you handle horror, you say "Nope you lose, you read this book now they're coming for you." Still I think it's the hardest genre when it's not shown visually.

Edited October 20, 2011 by The Mask

[Comment Expired]

That's why H.P. Lovecraft's stories are so terrifying

Ha ha ha ha ha Maybe if you're scared by verbs

[Takatu]

His stuff is scary because of the implications he gives. It's not the kind of horror that makes you afraid of things in the shadows, it's the fact that if there are cosmic eldritch things out there, everything we do is about as meaningful to them as the tiniest amoeba's actions are to us. Our planet could go out in a fiery blaze and we'd all be extinct in one fell swoop and it probably wouldn't even register on their radars. That's where Lovecraft's horror lies. It makes you think that if there are powers beyond our comprehension out there, do we even have a meaning at all in their grand designs? Hypothetically, of course, but still.

[Jedi Knight Krazy]

So I have a bit of a dilemma... I want to start writing my story because up until now it's all been in my head. However, seeing as a short story for an English class is the first fiction I've written since I was 8 years old, I seriously doubt I'm a skilled enough writer to do my story justice. Should I start a series of short stories in the same universe to do world-building and writing practice simultaneously? Or should I just jump in without worrying about being good? You may now return to your previously schedule horror discussion.

[Legolover-361]

I would suggest writing a plot first to see if that's any good. Meanwhile you can work on various short stories, any at all, really, as long as you get to practice the writing skills you will need to write your story. Backstory would be great to write, as you would get to know more about the world in which your story takes place and thus be better able to describe it when you start the "actual" writing.The last book I wrote was written when I was nine or ten, though, so take my advice with a grain of salt.

[JohannDakitsch]

So I have a bit of a dilemma... I want to start writing my story because up until now it's all been in my head. However, seeing as a short story for an English class is the first fiction I've written since I was 8 years old, I seriously doubt I'm a skilled enough writer to do my story justice. Should I start a series of short stories in the same universe to do world-building and writing practice simultaneously? Or should I just jump in without worrying about being good? You may now return to your previously schedule horror discussion.

It depends... If you trust your story and you think you can do a good job with it right now, go ahead. But, be careful not to rush things, let the story take its time, let it mature on your head (but be careful to not let it rot). The idea of short stories is a good, one, but I believe that would be better when the main story universe is already developed well enough, so you just expand and detail it on the shorts... But thats just me... I have a plan for a big story too, but I'm not writing it now, I just don't feel I have enough experience and knowledge to write it. But, again, that's just me... Anyway, if you want a personal advice, thats it: Write. Do it always as possible, as much as possible. Actually, try to write something everyday. Anything. It may be a paragrah, a phrase, a poem, whatever, just practice. There's not really other way of getting better (unless you're an amazing natural talent)... And don't wait for that epyphany of inspiration to come: there's not this kind of imagical inspiration, you gotta work it out, and believe me, when you begin writing, the ideas do pop out. All you have to do is let yourself get in the story... But, in the very end, there's no universal advice in writing: everyone will say something different, but after all, you just gotta find your own process and style. And that takes time... So yeah, do whatever you feel is better. Edited October 20, 2011 by JohannDakitsch

[Hanako Herupa]

That's why H.P. Lovecraft's stories are so terrifying

Ha ha ha ha ha Maybe if you're scared by verbs

You are so silly taking things out of context. Nice try though. I like horror probably because I didn't watch a lot when I was a child and I think slasher flicks are always poorly done. For example the original Friday the Thirteenth was apparently scary, as was a Nightmare on Elm Street, but after the millions of sequels they lost their ability to frighten people. Paranormal Activity sounds like the film I would be laughing so hard I'd start vomiting. So recently I just watched The Jacket (which I enjoyed thoroughly), so I'm wondering how can you make it frightening? You know besides obvious implications.

[Comment Expired]

You are so silly taking things out of context. Nice try though.

No really. Lovecraft's scary stuff is the undead stuff. His "eldritch horrors" are just variations of the word "mass" or "bulk" which sits in some dingy place and whose only purpose is to drive curious people crazy. It's incredibly rustic and quaint. Like Lovecraft's writing really.

[Kaleidoscope Tekulo]

Hmm, I see your point, Kraagh. As a child, I would always get freaked out by my basement as it was dark, chilly and it did have an unnatural vibe as well. I did worry about a murderer or a bloody monster that I might disturb. But the more time went on for me, the more I saw that those thoughts and fears were irrational, illogical and therefore far less threatening and scary. I still do get disturbed by unnatural things, but to me it just seems like petty fear as opposed to applying the illogical fears to real world relations (an illogical mindset or an unnatural way of thinking, only something that seems more realistic and could actually be a threat. Even more thrilling for me to actually relate to character like that. That really gives me the chill and more importantly gets me thinking). Just my cup of tea, if you will. ^^'

[Mr. Fluffy]

Use creative expressions. Instead of saying "The dog frightened the cat.", say "The dog sheared the cool of the cat."

While I do think creative expressions are necessary to good writing, that sort of creative expression is rather wordy and nebulous. I prefer describing how the cat was frightened, for example, "A loud bark! and the cat leapt into the air, hissing and spinning to face its attacker, a sheepdog looking for a fight," but that's just me.

Spam alliterations. It's simple enough, but I always get a nod from my teacher when I do this with my essay's title.

You shouldn't spam anything in writing. Variety is key. Alliterations are not. Don't get me wrong, wordplay is an important part of writing; however, alliteration can add a whimsical air to your stories if you aren't careful. I've never heard that using alliteration in essay titles is good. But, then again, I've never gone to school.

For the first point, I meant if the how was already revealed. Instead of saying, "The dog barked, frightening the cat.", you'd say "The dog barked, shearing the cool of the cat." For the second point, I guess I should've used a better term besides "spam" there. You're right when you say not to overuse anything on an essay. I meant to say that alliteration is an easy thing to include in your essay, so you should at least consider using it once or more.

[Bloody Nine]

Shearing the cool out of a cat just reminds me of sheep. Using strange metaphors is fine, so long as the resulting image fits.

[Jean Valjean]

Sometimes I still fall into the irrational mindset. I can't say it's too often, since I really can't quite remember the last time. Well, actually I can. It was when I was working on a portrait of a president almost exactly a year ago. The house was dark and empty, and I didn't have too many lights on other than those in the kitchen. I was listening to music, and eventually I picked the theme from Aliens. Something somewhere in the house fell. As far as I could tell it was spontaneous. I freaked out, turned off the music, and turned on all the lights. The interesting thing about that movie was that every once and a while, in the right circumstances, it comes back to me and awakens my primitive fears. It's irrational, but hey, we're not always rational. I find it cool when that happens. I fully agree. I really don't think that you can give books the same horror element as movies. One medium is immediately more sensual. In literature you have to work more off of ideas. Which is why I think that ghost stories around the campfire can still be a bit disturbing. They may not be scary as they're being told, but they might scare you later on once you're walking through the forest at night with a rampant imagination. That is, of course, if you're imaginative and the scary story is good. By the way, I do like the idea of the Slender Man. It might make a good scary story to tell when I'm old and have kids. That reminds me of one of my characters, Kaiac (whose name is subject to change). I've had a bit of inspiration from The Mouth of Sauron, xenomorphs, and the Pale Man from Pan's Labrynth. What they all have in common is their lack of eyes. So Kaiac doesn't have any visible eyes. He has a large and ugly mouth, similar to The Mouth of Sauron. I also make his movements spiderlike. However, it doesn't make so much of a difference in the book. Anyway, beyond just his physical appearance, he loves to eat children (Oh, how Hannibal would disapprove!). Although the idea is unoriginal, I actually don't see he that much so I feel that it will flop. So long as I do the concept better than the Slander Man. Really? Only a few minutes of screen time? Take advantage of the idea! Speaking of one villain, this reminds me of what The mask said earlier about the horror of wondering how a someone could be so sick in The Silence of the Lambs. Among a few of my more wicked villains, including the pure evil Craytus, this is a question. How can Craytus be so evil? How about Quarr? How about Kaiac and Hetagon? I think that with these wicked villains I do incorporate elements of such horror, not that it defines the narrative, but I feel that it's there. Well, I do consciously employ those elements in Kaiac, though I specifically included him for a horror element. Your Honor,Emperor Kraggh

[Kaleidoscope Tekulo]

You know, I'm not sure why people find creepy crawlies so darned scary these days. Like spiders, I used to freak out at as a kid upon seeing them. Now I look at them, and not only are wolf spiders (some of the biggest of the bad I witnessed growing up) kinda cute, but they're also really cool to think about. Especially to see one carrying its young on its back. So adorable. ^^ Centipedes and millipedes also look pretty cool when you look at them closely enough. They're almost like dragons with whisps of legs that move in a bit of a graceful float as they move forward. Really, insects seem more like objects of grace, beauty and symbolize life in multiple forms for me as opposed to just getting sick by seeing a praying mantis devour its mate. XP Heh, sorry if it sounds like I'm totally disagreeing intentionally... I just like looking at things in a different light, I guess. ^^' (Seriously, I'm fascinated by these sorts of things). Edit: Also, on the campfire story note, in that medium you have voice acting and body language to work with. Those can play a huge effect to the way the story gets across to the audience, almost like a stage performance. In writing we really only have words, so I do agree that writing based more off of ideas would be helpful. That and colorful ways to describe certain things. Take Hans Christian Andersen, for example. He did a masterful job with description for many of his stories (The Little Mermaid especially -I love it to death so much more than the Disney film. Not to say it's a bad movie, but the story is nowhere near as good as the original in my opinion-)

Edited October 20, 2011 by Tekulo: Toa of Wind

[Mr. Fluffy]

Shearing the cool out of a cat just reminds me of sheep. Using strange metaphors is fine, so long as the resulting image fits.

It also depends on the reader (although I do agree my example is a bit ambiguous).

[Legolover-361]

I find an effective writing technique is to use verbs creatively to better "paint an image" in the reader's mind. Adjectives are effective, as well, but the trick is to use verbs similarly.As an example, take this sentence:

The sunlight shined through my bedroom window, creating a square of light on my floor.

Now if I take that sentence, replace the main verbs, and tweak it a little to match, I get:

The sunlight stabbed through my bedroom window, casting a sharp square of light on my floor.

See how it creates a much more specific image? In the first sentence you see sunlight; in the second, you see a very sharp sunlight, perhaps as someone barely awake would see it. Alternatively I could have written:

The sunlight wafted through my bedroom window, casting a hazy square of light onto my floor.

That gives a much gentler feel: The sunlight wafts through the bedroom window, not stabs. This scene might take place in early- to mid-afternoon, when the light doesn't seem as intense. Edited October 21, 2011 by Legolover-361

[Bloody Nine]

Depending on the reader, yes. But generally, most readers would respond the same way. I mean, if I wrote about eating a baby in exquisitely grotesque detail, most people would go 'ewww, that's sick!' If you're a writer who writes for other people as much as you write for yourself, the trick is to touch said response. Sorta like what Legolover did with his examples. Both of them describe the same scene, though one brings to mind me waking up because I have to go to school, whereas the other is reminiscent of 'lazy sunday afternoon rargh I want to nap'. Good examples, these.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Undying Light of the Lake

[Jean Valjean]

What Stephen King wrote in the the book On Writing, A Memoir was that generally the first word to come to mind was the right one. That is, if you're comfortable enough with your own writing style and have had enough experience. With an essay it's a bit different, because when arguing a point wording has to be very precise, but I think that in most literature intuition plays a large role in writing style. It's where we get our voice. I think that sometimes I go more for a certain voice and narrative style when I choose my words. Maybe the style is a bit focused on illustrating details. Me, I take the advise of what a composer once said: "Remember that you're not writing music for a scene but music for an entire story." For me, that means that I focus more on creating a narrative that moves along with the entire book. In any case, I almost feel that a good narrative, for me, is like a good shoe: one that you're hardly aware of. What matters is that it can take you places without you ever having to think about the condition of your feet because they're all taken care of. It contributes strongly to my story without distracting from it. I apply this to both writing style and the overall flow of the story. It's for this reason that many movies have deleted scenes because, even though some of the scenes can be quite good, perhaps they can contribute more to the story by not being a part of it than by being part of it. Now, to contrast with that statement, I also believe that a conspicuous narrative can be good. As C.S. Lewis said in Letters to Malcolm, "Novelty in and of itself can only have an entertainment value". He was using this while critiquing various new forms of worship, executing the exact same point that I made in my last paragraph (I even borrowed the shoe analogy from him). That point works to a different effect here because here entertainment is what many of us are looking for. Therefore, it's okay for a narrative to be conspicuous. Maybe you're writing a comedy. So let's look at a few examples of what I'm talking about:A Series of Unfortunate Events: The narrative is very noticeable here, but it's very funny and it's part of what gives the books their spirit.Alien: This narrative would stand out elsewhere, but the darkness and eerieness of the film went hand-in-hand with the overall effect that the story was supposed to have.Disney Movies: Their classic animated movies have a fairly simple narrative. In fact, it's so simple that the stories simply just...flow. The stories themselves are also fairly simple and universal. The very first thing people notice is the story and not necessarily how the film flows. If you did, it was because you were dissecting it.Inception: I could also list Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind here because they both have an intense narrative style that involves a disorientating and constantly shifting perspective. You have to be alert to notice all the details. People notice that, of course. Part of the reason why they visit these films is for the sensations of the experience.Musicals: In some musicals, the transition to playing music is done in such a way that you almost don't notice that a shift in narration type is taking place, whereas in other musicals it's rather obvious that the style has shifted gears. Compare Les Miserables to Joseph's Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. Now, I do realize that I'm walking along a very narrow line and that I'm trying to define here something that just very well isn't worth my time defining, but I thought I'd give it a go. Your Honor,Emperor Kraggh

[Protohuman]

Imma currently writing a romance which involves mystical AND day-to-day life themes. Pretty clever... ^^ Basically the plot is that on every last friday of a month, a cosmic being comes down from space and onto a beach, in the form of a woman. Every time she decends, a man named Arthur meets her and they get saucey...The main plot is Arthur trying to get her to stay on earth, but she keeps saying "No, I'm bound to the laws the universe, and whatever".And in between those events, Arthur just returns to normal life; working in an office, going to the supermarket... eating cheese... etcetera...And at the end, they finally find a way to get her to stay and become fully human, so they can finally settle down and have a proper life as a proper couple... Any good? ^^

[The Shouting God]

Seems a bit convenient that they find a way to keep her on Earth. Is it a good justified reason that fits the rules of that universe?

[Jean Valjean]

Ahhh, happy endings . I like the idea. Obviously, some balance needs to be found. Perhaps life goes on while she's not away, but I'm assuming that the story will still be strongly tied to her even during the off time in more ways than him just missing her. Personally, I find it easier to include the mystical stuff in the foreground and have day-to-day themes going on in the background than having day-to-day themes taking up the bulk of the narrative and the mystical things coming in second. I'm not saying that it can't be done: look at Matilda. It was a wonderful children's movie and ultimately I think of all of her regular struggles and strengths before I remember that she also happens to be psychic. It's for sure better than the farce show That's So Raven, which threw in her psychic powers almost at random. I'm assuming that you're going more for what I described earlier, however, where everything in the story ultimately brings the reader closer and closer to the big-picture theme, that of the cosmic romance. Your Honor,Emperor Kraggh

[Legolover-361]

Protohuman has posted some of his story on another site, so I've actually read some of it. I'm not going to comment on the writing style (it's pretty darn good, anyway), but as for the premise, as long as you make sure to build up a lot of tension leading to the cosmic being's final decision. Also, this may just be because I've developed a dislike for Disney Channel Original Movies, but please try not to make the ending seem too miraculous. Real life doesn't work that way, y'know?

[Jean Valjean]

Oh yuck, not Disney Channel originals. Those are okay and tolerable, but by all means I encourage aspiring writers to be better than that. Don't go for the miraculous ending. Most people are going to see it coming anyway. Instead, end it on a note that it's as powerful as possible, so thhat the reader gets done feeling that it was a full experience. Speaking of which, this applies to my saga within IDES. Taking some inspiration from Star Wars, I feel that the first story, which ought to function as a standalone, should end on a very positive note. Star Wars ends in a fanfare. Two of them. One is the "Rebel Fanfare" and the other is a bookend to the opening theme. There was certainly a finality. I was happy with the ending. Even after the last scene, the story didn't end. Part of it was told in the music of the credit, through which the story lived on. Those last moments are essentially sounds of celebration. So therefore I take the first two books of my series and do something similar. It's the type of story that would have a fanfare if it had a theme. Not an anthem. Not a march. Not a ballad. I think that it makes my fantasy a little more wholesome. Of course, there are a couple of problems that arise. In the first book, the reader is left to assume that two of the main characters, Brutus and Michelangelo, have died. They really haven't. Obviously I don't end the story on the note of their death. What ends up happening is that I end it after a giant battle led by their friends ends up claiming the planet Jorunge from the villains, and Nixon protects a lot of people from the threat of the child-eater, Kaiac. The final scene is when they return to the planet Alantra with the great news and they are welcomed by a giant celebration. Still, it's hard to shake off the terrible loss of Michelangelo being corrupted by hatred and Brutus, the wonderful leader, dying as he is forced to fight against his friend-turned-enemy. That's a bit grim. While there are extremely relevant plot reasons for this, I'm still pondering a way that makes this play out better. The second book shouldn't be as hard, because it turns out that Michael and Brutus are alive, and in the end they reconcile with each other for being on different sides. Your Honor,Emperor Kraggh

[Jedi Knight Krazy]

There's a few types of endings I really can't stand:

• [*]It was all a dream! (Exception: Inception. Was it all a dream? )[*]Go back in time, nothing ever happened and only the hero remembers any of it (less common)[*]It was aliens all along! (movie: Knowing)[*]Spend entire story explaining why the hero can't take the simple solution and just kill the villain. End by killing the villain. (movie: The International)[*]Conveniently find a solution to the conflict at the last minute and leave the audience wondering why the heroes didn't do that all along

@Kraggh: Your ending sounds perfect to me. Even though it ends happily, the grim events that lead up to it makes the story... I don't know the word. Substantial? Meatier? Uneasy, unresolved elements are also a good way to hint at a sequel without an obvious cliffhanger ending. One thing I'd caution you with is suddenly revealing that those characters are alive in the second book... it seems a bit Disney-ish. It's fine to do it within the bounds of a book, but leaving their "death" hanging between books is... Ah, what am I saying? I have a character I "kill" off in my first book that I fully intend to reveal is alive in the second :lol:Basically, I would make sure that there's a cost to their supposed death. For example, the character I mentioned will probably be crippled in some way, or might wind up dying again. Murtagh in the Eragon/Inheritance series appears to be dead at the beginning of the second book, and comes back in the ending as a corrupted enemy. Obviously that's already happened for Michelangelo but you get the idea... something needs to be different. P.S. Inception wasn't all a dream, but my explanation belongs in a different topic

Edited October 22, 2011 by Jedi Knight Krazy