Writing Discussion II

[USS Monitor]

snip

At first I thought the 14 minutes dedicated to the Galactic Senate's debate on the Equal Rights Amendment was jarring and out of place with the flow of the film, but after five consecutive viewings I understood what the director was going for.

Regardless, my two paragraphs were unrelated. But I still contend that some things don't need to be explored, or even known by the author. If the characters of the story aren't intimately connected to why Mars is rebelling, then it doesn't matter. The speaker of Zombie by the Cranberries doesn't care about the politics of the Troubles. She cares that children are being murdered. Sometimes it just doesn't matter.

And the lyrics of "Zombie" wouldn't be particularly interesting as a story, if people weren't listening to it for the music. Unless Pax is planning to set his story to music, you're comparing apples and oranges.

I don't care for it even with the music, but that's a matter of personal taste.

[New haven america]

I disagree with the politics stuff. If the story isn't about politics — if the audience doesn't care about politics — then if anything it hurts to include it. Nobody praises the Phantom Menace for its attention to political detail.

No, people do care about politics and politics are important to understand the circumstances of a story.

Tell me, without looking it up, what is the Galactic political environment in the ST of Star Wars? What is the First Order? Why is the Resistance a thing if the New Republic/Rebellion already won? Why isn't the capital of the New Republic Coruscant? I don't expect you to actually know, I didn't and I know... basically no one who did. That's because TFA and TLJ are so scared of boring the audience with politics that they don't actually tell you the political events that happened between RoTJ and TFA to lead to the current environment of the ST, even though it's severely needed to understand the story.

[Vienna Eliot]

1984 must be utter shit. For one of the most political novels of the century, it doesn't meet half the political infodump requirements you've set for interesting literature.

I disagree with the politics stuff. If the story isn't about politics — if the audience doesn't care about politics — then if anything it hurts to include it. Nobody praises the Phantom Menace for its attention to political detail.

No, people do care about politics and politics are important to understand the circumstances of a story.

Tell me, without looking it up, what is the Galactic political environment in the ST of Star Wars? What is the First Order? Why is the Resistance a thing if the New Republic/Rebellion already won? Why isn't the capital of the New Republic Coruscant? I don't expect you to actually know, I didn't and I know... basically no one who did. That's because TFA and TLJ are so scared of boring the audience with politics that they don't actually tell you the political events that happened between RoTJ and TFA to lead to the current environment of the ST, even though it's severely needed to understand the story.

It's demonstrably not necessary to understanding the story at all or else it would be included. It seems like you're convinced plot matters. But any serious writer will tell you it doesn't. People take characters and write stories and stories and stories about them. Nobody writes multiple books about the same plot five times.

[Pax Nerdvana]

At first I thought the 14 minutes dedicated to the Galactic Senate's debate on the Equal Rights Amendment was jarring and out of place with the flow of the film, but after five consecutive viewings I understood what the director was going for.

Regardless, my two paragraphs were unrelated. But I still contend that some things don't need to be explored, or even known by the author. If the characters of the story aren't intimately connected to why Mars is rebelling, then it doesn't matter. The speaker of Zombie by the Cranberries doesn't care about the politics of the Troubles. She cares that children are being murdered. Sometimes it just doesn't matter.

And the lyrics of "Zombie" wouldn't be particularly interesting as a story, if people weren't listening to it for the music. Unless Pax is planning to set his story to music, you're comparing apples and oranges.

I don't care for it even with the music, but that's a matter of personal taste.

Setting it to misic would be interesting, but that's not my plan. I think my character is going to be more of the adventurey type, nominally allied with the Martians, but mainly looking for a paycheck.

[New haven america]

1984 must be utter shit. For one of the most political novels of the century, it doesn't meet half the political infodump requirements you've set for interesting literature.

No, people do care about politics and politics are important to understand the circumstances of a story.

Tell me, without looking it up, what is the Galactic political environment in the ST of Star Wars? What is the First Order? Why is the Resistance a thing if the New Republic/Rebellion already won? Why isn't the capital of the New Republic Coruscant? I don't expect you to actually know, I didn't and I know... basically no one who did. That's because TFA and TLJ are so scared of boring the audience with politics that they don't actually tell you the political events that happened between RoTJ and TFA to lead to the current environment of the ST, even though it's severely needed to understand the story.

1.It's demonstrably not necessary to understanding the story at all or else it would be included. 2.It seems like you're convinced plot matters. 3.But any serious writer will tell you it doesn't. 4.People take characters and write stories and stories and stories about them. Nobody writes multiple books about the same plot five times.

1. Except it does matter if you have no bloody idea what's going on or how we got to this current place. Answer my bloody questions, do you know any of the answers to the above stated questions?
2. It does matter. Good characters can only go so far. Itachi Uchiha is one of my favorite characters of all time, but the series he's attached to is almost complete shit plot-wise and isn't worth going through. Hell, I like Finn, Poe, and Rey in the ST, but that doesn't make the lack info in the ST any better.
3. A. That's a blanket statement, and B. No, most wouldn't.
4. How am I expected to really connect with or suppport characters if I don't know the consequences and stakes of what they're going through is?

[Respubliko de Libereco]

Regardless, my two paragraphs were unrelated. But I still contend that some things don't need to be explored, or even known by the author. If the characters of the story aren't intimately connected to why Mars is rebelling, then it doesn't matter. The speaker of Zombie by the Cranberries doesn't care about the politics of the Troubles. She cares that children are being murdered. Sometimes it just doesn't matter.

Many aspects of the political situation simply can't be avoided, regardless of whether the characters are "intimately connected" to them. Consider the following example:

Our protagonist, John Spaceman, has just joined the American Orbital Forces to help bring the Martian colonies back in line. He's shipping out tomorrow. Wearing in his crisp new dress uniform, John goes to visit the local ice cream parlour one last time. What happens when he walks in?

• Suppose it's early in the war, and the war is widely supported at home. As John walks in, a stranger walks up and thanks him for his service. The cashier offers him a banana split on the house, saying "You're gonna need those calories when you're chasing the Reds, eh?"
• Suppose it's later in the war, and while people still support the cause, they're starting to feel like lives are being wasted. Some old men glance at John as he walks in and sigh, and the cashier offers him a banana split, saying "It's the least I can do. Let's hope it's not your last, eh?"
• Suppose the war is widely opposed, and many people on earth sympathize with the colonists. John notices some of the parlour's patrons giving him the stink eye as he walks in. No free banana split. The person preparing John's order disappears into the back room briefly, and John wonders whether he's spitting in the food.
• Suppose that the government has used the war as an excuse to crack down on civil liberties lately, arguably coming close to imposing martial law. As John walks in, most people try to avoid eye contact. The cashier takes his order, gets to work quickly and silently, and hands over the order with a shaky "Here's your banana split, sir". John notices that the sprinkles he asked for are missing, and when he points this out the fear in the cashier's eyes is noticeable. This makes John feel like a dick.

The important thing to note here is that you really can't avoid making some sort of decision about how people treat John when he's wearing his uniform. Sure, you could decide to just have everyone treat him "normally", but even then you're still making a decision about a political aspect of the setting, although you might not be thinking about the fact that that's what you're doing.

More generally, you should be aware that any time you decide to "ignore" some aspect of the setting, you're pretty likely to simply be inserting your own perception about the way things are "by default". This isn't necessarily a problem, but if you're not aware that you're doing this it could cause problems for readers whose "default" doesn't line up with your own.

[Vienna Eliot]

Respubliko, that's a story you could write. But I don't recall any time in this thread's history when we've thought telling people what to write about was a way to help them improve as a writer. Monitor et al's one-size-fits-all "talk about politics" diagnosis isn't a particularly helpful one when Pax has said it's making him doubt his own story ideas.

1984 must be utter shit. For one of the most political novels of the century, it doesn't meet half the political infodump requirements you've set for interesting literature.


1.It's demonstrably not necessary to understanding the story at all or else it would be included. 2.It seems like you're convinced plot matters. 3.But any serious writer will tell you it doesn't. 4.People take characters and write stories and stories and stories about them. Nobody writes multiple books about the same plot five times.

1. Except it does matter if you have no bloody idea what's going on or how we got to this current place. Answer my bloody questions, do you know any of the answers to the above stated questions?
2. It does matter. Good characters can only go so far. Itachi Uchiha is one of my favorite characters of all time, but the series he's attached to is almost complete shit plot-wise and isn't worth going through. Hell, I like Finn, Poe, and Rey in the ST, but that doesn't make the lack info in the ST any better.
3. A. That's a blanket statement, and B. No, most wouldn't.
4. How am I expected to really connect with or suppport characters if I don't know the consequences and stakes of what they're going through is?

No, of course I don't fucking know any of that. You said yourself it'd be shit if they included it.

Apparently you're a genius, so I'll let you keep writing bestsellers and ignoring other writers' advice.

[New haven america]

1. Except it does matter if you have no bloody idea what's going on or how we got to this current place. Answer my bloody questions, do you know any of the answers to the above stated questions?
2. It does matter. Good characters can only go so far. Itachi Uchiha is one of my favorite characters of all time, but the series he's attached to is almost complete shit plot-wise and isn't worth going through. Hell, I like Finn, Poe, and Rey in the ST, but that doesn't make the lack info in the ST any better.
3. A. That's a blanket statement, and B. No, most wouldn't.
4. How am I expected to really connect with or suppport characters if I don't know the consequences and stakes of what they're going through is?

1.No, of course I don't fucking know any of that. 2.You said yourself it'd be shit if they included it.

3.Apparently you're a genius, 4a.so I'll let you keep writing bestsellers and b.ignoring other writers' advice.

1. My point is proven.
2. You're thinking of someone else, I never said that, ever.
3. I'm not gonna deny that, but you said it, not me
4a. Will do, b. The problem with this is your advice happens to be not be very good. If people got bored by or didn't care about politics then how did things like Star Trek, Babylon 5, Game of Thrones, The West Wing, House of Cards, etc... become popular or well liked?

[Vienna Eliot]

House of Cards, great example. If I write House of Cards fanfiction for some reason, I don't write about the America Works program. It's never really expanded on, is it? I write about Frank and Claire Underwood as characters. We don't understand Frank Underwood's politics very well. What we do understand is his character.

Stop trying to make this into an argument, numbered lists included. You're not in General and you have nothing to win here. Unlike the other threads I assume you frequent, we try and make people's writing better here, not tear them down.

[Respubliko de Libereco]

Respubliko, that's a story you could write. But I don't recall any time in this thread's history when we've thought telling people what to write about was a way to help them improve as a writer. Monitor et al's one-size-fits-all "talk about politics" diagnosis isn't a particularly helpful one when Pax has said it's making him doubt his own story ideas.

I'm not saying anyone needs to write specifically about a new recruit's experience of his last day before shipping out, or anything like that. All I'm saying is that if your story involves people, who interact with other people, in a society, then you literally cannot avoid making some decisions about the political nature of your world, although you might fool yourself by writing something that seems "apolitical" because it reflects the politics that come naturally to you.

[Vienna Eliot]

Respubliko, that's a story you could write. But I don't recall any time in this thread's history when we've thought telling people what to write about was a way to help them improve as a writer. Monitor et al's one-size-fits-all "talk about politics" diagnosis isn't a particularly helpful one when Pax has said it's making him doubt his own story ideas.

I'm not saying anyone needs to write specifically about a new recruit's experience of his last day before shipping out, or anything like that. All I'm saying is that if your story involves people, who interact with other people, in a society, then you literally cannot avoid making some decisions about the political nature of your world, although you might fool yourself by writing something that seems "apolitical" because it reflects the politics that come naturally to you.

But some stories really just aren't political. I keep tying this back to plot because I'm saying this could apply to anything, not just politics — sometimes you need to flesh out politics but the state of technology doesn't matter. Sometimes politics is unimportant, but the history of a family, or the location a story is set, or how banking works (referring to the Big Short) are invaluable to understanding the plot. I contend that politics is unique from any of these. It's just another possible part of the plot and, as you and I think Monitor pointed out earlier, the characters.

[New haven america]

House of Cards, great example. If I write House of Cards fanfiction for some reason, I don't write about the America Works program. It's never really expanded on, is it? I write about Frank and Claire Underwood as characters. We don't understand Frank Underwood's politics very well. What we do understand is his character.

Stop trying to make this into an argument, numbered lists included. You're not in General and you have nothing to win here. Unlike the other threads I assume you frequent, we try and make people's writing better here, not tear them down.

No, you would have to write about the program because it's a major part of the series. It was one of Frank's major political policies and would help him get a full term. You need to understand how it works because if something goes right or wrong it has a major effect on Frank's goals.

I'm not making this into an argument, you are. I'm simply trying to help you understand why politics is important when it comes to character and world building (And I'm not alone, as can be shown from the past few pages, namely Monitor, Chan, and Respubliko). I'm trying to help you, while you're the one getting defensive about this.

[Vienna Eliot]

America Works can be replaced with anything and it wouldn't change the series. Frank Underwood can't be replaced without radically altering the story. I'm done discussing this with you until you learn to respect other people. I don't need a condescending internet man to "help me understand." I have a degree in writing, thank you very fucking much. If you're interested in being disagreeable there are places on this website where people will entertain you.

[Respubliko de Libereco]

I'm not saying anyone needs to write specifically about a new recruit's experience of his last day before shipping out, or anything like that. All I'm saying is that if your story involves people, who interact with other people, in a society, then you literally cannot avoid making some decisions about the political nature of your world, although you might fool yourself by writing something that seems "apolitical" because it reflects the politics that come naturally to you.

But some stories really just aren't political. I keep tying this back to plot because I'm saying this could apply to anything, not just politics — sometimes you need to flesh out politics but the state of technology doesn't matter. Sometimes politics is unimportant, but the history of a family, or the location a story is set, or how banking works (referring to the Big Short) are invaluable to understanding the plot. I contend that politics is unique from any of these. It's just another possible part of the plot and, as you and I think Monitor pointed out earlier, the characters.

The history of a family inherently has to relate to the political reality the family exists in. The location a story is set in will almost always tie back to politics in some way (unless you're writing a pure wilderness survival story, and even then the existence of an untouched wilderness is in some sense a political aspect of the setting). And "how banking works" is very clearly related to politics. In general, anything that touches on the way people interact with each other, society, and their environment is "political".

While there may be stories that you see as "not political", all that means is that the political aspects of the setting in those stories match with your idea of the "default", so they don't stand out to you.

[Vienna Eliot]

But some stories really just aren't political. I keep tying this back to plot because I'm saying this could apply to anything, not just politics — sometimes you need to flesh out politics but the state of technology doesn't matter. Sometimes politics is unimportant, but the history of a family, or the location a story is set, or how banking works (referring to the Big Short) are invaluable to understanding the plot. I contend that politics is unique from any of these. It's just another possible part of the plot and, as you and I think Monitor pointed out earlier, the characters.

The history of a family inherently has to relate to the political reality the family exists in. The location a story is set in will almost always tie back to politics in some way (unless you're writing a pure wilderness survival story, and even then the existence of an untouched wilderness is in some sense a political aspect of the setting). And "how banking works" is very clearly related to politics. In general, anything that touches on the way people interact with each other, society, and their environment is "political".

While there may be stories that you see as "not political", all that means is that the political aspects of the setting in those stories match with your idea of the "default", so they don't stand out to you.

That's a very broad application of the word "politics." What it comes down to is that wasting time thinking about politics just isn't applicable to most fiction. And for the record — I'm sure you'll appreciate this — it doesn't apply to poetry, either. I mean, sure, there's certainly a very political element to talking about old buildings you have memories about being replaced with new ones; there's a political backstory. But it'd be crazy to write about that in a poem about how you feel about the demolitions, and whether or not you brainstorm much about it doesn't really affect the final poem.

[Respubliko de Libereco]

The history of a family inherently has to relate to the political reality the family exists in. The location a story is set in will almost always tie back to politics in some way (unless you're writing a pure wilderness survival story, and even then the existence of an untouched wilderness is in some sense a political aspect of the setting). And "how banking works" is very clearly related to politics. In general, anything that touches on the way people interact with each other, society, and their environment is "political".

While there may be stories that you see as "not political", all that means is that the political aspects of the setting in those stories match with your idea of the "default", so they don't stand out to you.

That's a very broad application of the word "politics." What it comes down to is that wasting time thinking about politics just isn't applicable to most fiction. And for the record — I'm sure you'll appreciate this — it doesn't apply to poetry, either. I mean, sure, there's certainly a very political element to talking about old buildings you have memories about being replaced with new ones; there's a political backstory. But it'd be crazy to write about that in a poem about how you feel about the demolitions, and whether or not you brainstorm much about it doesn't really affect the final poem.

My use of "politics" is fairly broad, but then again politics is a pretty broad subject. Regarding your poetry example - obviously you don't need to write a screed against gentrification or whatever in a poem that focuses on nostalgia for the changing face of a neighbourhood, but certain aspects of your political beliefs - most obviously the question of whether you feel broadly positive or negative about the changes to the neighbourhood - will come out in the emotional aspects of the poem. It's worth being aware of this, since some readers - for example, a reader who has struggled with issues caused by gentrification - might have a different emotional response depending on the ways in which the poet's world view manifests itself in the poem.

[Vienna Eliot]

That's a very broad application of the word "politics." What it comes down to is that wasting time thinking about politics just isn't applicable to most fiction. And for the record — I'm sure you'll appreciate this — it doesn't apply to poetry, either. I mean, sure, there's certainly a very political element to talking about old buildings you have memories about being replaced with new ones; there's a political backstory. But it'd be crazy to write about that in a poem about how you feel about the demolitions, and whether or not you brainstorm much about it doesn't really affect the final poem.

My use of "politics" is fairly broad, but then again politics is a pretty broad subject. Regarding your poetry example - obviously you don't need to write a screed against gentrification or whatever in a poem that focuses on nostalgia for the changing face of a neighbourhood, but certain aspects of your political beliefs - most obviously the question of whether you feel broadly positive or negative about the changes to the neighbourhood - will come out in the emotional aspects of the poem. It's worth being aware of this, since some readers - for example, a reader who has struggled with issues caused by gentrification - might have a different emotional response depending on the ways in which the poet's world view manifests itself in the poem.

I agree. Still — and I think it applies too in your John Spaceman example — it is more about how the characters respond to the politics. So like with other parts of the setting, it's not enough to have them on their own. In other words, what we try to tell people all the time, that worldbuilding alone isn't enough. Point taken, anyway.

[Respubliko de Libereco]

My use of "politics" is fairly broad, but then again politics is a pretty broad subject. Regarding your poetry example - obviously you don't need to write a screed against gentrification or whatever in a poem that focuses on nostalgia for the changing face of a neighbourhood, but certain aspects of your political beliefs - most obviously the question of whether you feel broadly positive or negative about the changes to the neighbourhood - will come out in the emotional aspects of the poem. It's worth being aware of this, since some readers - for example, a reader who has struggled with issues caused by gentrification - might have a different emotional response depending on the ways in which the poet's world view manifests itself in the poem.

I agree. Still — and I think it applies too in your John Spaceman example — it is more about how the characters respond to the politics. So like with other parts of the setting, it's not enough to have them on their own. In other words, what we try to tell people all the time, that worldbuilding alone isn't enough. Point taken, anyway.

Sounds like we agree. The political aspects of the setting are important not for their own sake, but rather in terms of how they affect characters, atmosphere, etc.

[New haven america]

until you learn to respect other people.

You're one to talk.

I'm not the one cussing out people who don't agree with me, am I?

[Forsher]

Why must people ask me personally for my opinion on their stories? It always feels like I get put on the spot when that happens. I'm not even that good a fic writer, so it's not like I can give them a good critique. And then I wind up just saying something generically positive cause I don't wanna hurt their feelings. It's a mess.

Have you considered asking them what kind of feedback they'd like? Not to put too fine a point on it Ameri but you're... fairly opinionated, it's possible they're after your honest views. Is it possible to couch things via questions like, "Would you like me to be hyper-critical?" or is it not that sort of medium/site??

As to the quality of yourself as a writer... it is interesting (to me anyway) to compare the differences in the scores I gave stories in our (sadly defunct) short story contests and those others did. I like to think my feedback was useful and appropriately pitched but at the same time (when you look at my own entries) I'm... middling at best as a writer (but optimistic).

I finally got back to writing after a hiatus. I have always struggled with perfectionism and don’t feel as creative as I used to be. I stopped due to a lack of ideas I thought were good or original, and because I feel too limited in some ways. I had to have the perfect story idea. So now, I just force myself to write whatever comes to mind. I have gotten back into reading novels because the best writers are readers and I hear it can help boost your creativity, but I wonder if this applies to other mediums like scripts, light novels, manga, etc, as my view is that you should read extensively in whatever medium you plan on writing in?

Probably. The concern is that you end up too similar in style to what you're reading. To be honest, I personally worry more about that.

That being said, if you're ever up to watch three movies... you can definitely see similarities between Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch and Layer Cake... and not just because of substantial actor overlap. The director of the last was a producer on the first two, you see.... and Layer Cake is almost a serious version of the first two. The point being that certain similarities in approach can work out well without feeling derivative... even with reasonably similar plot structures and settings. (I have also seen Lock Stock and Snatch compared to Tarantino movies but the former two are vastly funnier and generally better, so I view the comparison as facetious.)

They miss so many opportunities, though.

You won't be surprised to say that I agree. Honestly, complicated politics and their dynamics is one of the best parts about world building in my opinion. [/quote]

It's also too fascinating. The number of times I've figured out how I wanted a world to work but never got anywhere...

It even infects my reading: "here's the end of the plot, the story is told, but where's the sequel on consolidating the tenuous denouement? I want to know how they rebuilt the kingdom/country"

I disagree with the politics stuff. If the story isn't about politics — if the audience doesn't care about politics — then if anything it hurts to include it. Nobody praises the Phantom Menace for its attention to political detail.

I have to disagree here. An audience completely unfamiliar to the political (and/or historical) context a work is drawing on is going to completely misread and misunderstand the text. If you've got the space and ability to provide this context, then not doing so is the mistake.

It's that Pax, as the author of a story about a Martian rebellion, should have an idea of why Mars is rebelling.

Between this and Vienna Eliot's line about plays... I am reminded of something.

We were doing a play at school (originally intended to be acted by two people... so not so far off the one person play mentioned)... and the character/scene I had really gave very few details about anything that happens around it, e.g. the dude didn't even have a name. So we, as the "actors" had to come up with this stuff. Whenever we watch something, the actors and/or director/s have all this extra stuff which influences all the decisions that they make. What makes the good characters Vienna Eliot is thinking of is precisely the situating of the characters.

The Inkworld trilogy talks about this quite a lot with authors as well... especially when there are unpenned sequels in the air.

It's demonstrably not necessary to understanding the story at all or else it would be included. It seems like you're convinced plot matters. But any serious writer will tell you it doesn't. People take characters and write stories and stories and stories about them. Nobody writes multiple books about the same plot five times.

[url=http://redwallabbey.com/forum/index.php?topic=8389.0Er...[/url]

...not that I (or it seems the OP of my random Google-found source) agree that much with the assessment, but it was pretty true.

Writers can and do, as it were, type-cast themselves... to varying degrees.

House of Cards, great example. If I write House of Cards fanfiction for some reason, I don't write about the America Works program. It's never really expanded on, is it?

It's not expanded upon because it undermines the entire premise of the character. Which is interesting, because what you're talking about is, in a very real sense, fan fiction.

I write about Frank and Claire Underwood as characters. We don't understand Frank Underwood's politics very well. What we do understand is his character.

The original House of Cards television adaptation consists of three arcs. The first is "wronged servant takes throne". The second is a power struggle... but not over policy but political/national relevance. The third is about handling a scandal. These arcs work. It is possible to maintain belief in the idea of Francis (who really is far more loathsome than, and as a result far superior to Frank) and see those beliefs tested and vindicated by the plot. When the American adaptation moved past Tusk (in some sense, its idea of the second arc is thus subsumed into the first) and put Frank in the White House, it either chose or was forced (c.f. forced errors in tennis) to test Frank against policy challenges. And the result? What TV Tropes would call "informed ability".

Now, I pretty much gave up on the show after this point so maybe it recovered itself somewhat but the point I am making is the same... you can't ignore plot and you especially can't ignore what it says about your characters (meta character in the terminology of the below paragraph).

It's probably also a fair point to argue that, on balance, you could not really translate House of Cards from a Westminster system to a semi-presidential regime with supreme law. Which is now the importance of the minutiae of the setting dictating plot and thus the demands the plot places on the character and the meta-character.

n.b. on the remote chance anyone cares about the story I mentioned when I resurrected the thread... I am currently intensely touristing and have not written anything more on it.

[USS Monitor]

And the lyrics of "Zombie" wouldn't be particularly interesting as a story, if people weren't listening to it for the music. Unless Pax is planning to set his story to music, you're comparing apples and oranges.

I don't care for it even with the music, but that's a matter of personal taste.

Setting it to misic would be interesting, but that's not my plan. I think my character is going to be more of the adventurey type, nominally allied with the Martians, but mainly looking for a paycheck.

That's fine.

It seems like you're convinced plot matters. But any serious writer will tell you it doesn't.

I know you think you're some kind of expert because of your education, but you do not get to speak with authority about what "serious writers" think. I know people that are serious writers. I wouldn't put you on that list.

No matter how good your plot is, you still need to pay attention to characters, pacing, etc. Some people stress more than they should about making sure their plot is completely original. But none of that is the same as saying plot doesn't matter. A story with good characters and an interesting plot is going to be better than a story with equally good characters and a braindead plot.

1984 must be utter shit. For one of the most political novels of the century, it doesn't meet half the political infodump requirements you've set for interesting literature.


1.It's demonstrably not necessary to understanding the story at all or else it would be included. 2.It seems like you're convinced plot matters. 3.But any serious writer will tell you it doesn't. 4.People take characters and write stories and stories and stories about them. Nobody writes multiple books about the same plot five times.

1. Except it does matter if you have no bloody idea what's going on or how we got to this current place. Answer my bloody questions, do you know any of the answers to the above stated questions?
2. It does matter. Good characters can only go so far. Itachi Uchiha is one of my favorite characters of all time, but the series he's attached to is almost complete shit plot-wise and isn't worth going through. Hell, I like Finn, Poe, and Rey in the ST, but that doesn't make the lack info in the ST any better.
3. A. That's a blanket statement, and B. No, most wouldn't.
4. How am I expected to really connect with or suppport characters if I don't know the consequences and stakes of what they're going through is?

I think you are exaggerating just how essential some of that info is in the ST. A little more background might be nice, but they are OK movies anyway. Not my favorite movies in the world or anything, but not like I regret the time I spent watching them.

Respubliko, that's a story you could write. But I don't recall any time in this thread's history when we've thought telling people what to write about was a way to help them improve as a writer. Monitor et al's one-size-fits-all "talk about politics" diagnosis isn't a particularly helpful one when Pax has said it's making him doubt his own story ideas.

You're misrepresenting or misinterpreting what I said, and you own posts have not been particularly helpful that I can see. At least Respubliko and I were engaging with the specifics of Pax's story idea rather than just pontificating in vague generalities.

And neither of us said he should abandon the whole project.

Stop trying to make this into an argument, numbered lists included. You're not in General and you have nothing to win here. Unlike the other threads I assume you frequent, we try and make people's writing better here, not tear them down.

America Works can be replaced with anything and it wouldn't change the series. Frank Underwood can't be replaced without radically altering the story. I'm done discussing this with you until you learn to respect other people. I don't need a condescending internet man to "help me understand." I have a degree in writing, thank you very fucking much. If you're interested in being disagreeable there are places on this website where people will entertain you.

That's rich coming from you when you're arguing with everyone. Some of your other posts after the one's that I quoted here are more reasonable, but seriously, you have no business accusing others of being disrespectful after your own conduct.

You can't assume that everyone will look up to you as an expert based on your education. NHA wasn't talking down to you. He was arguing with you as an equal -- an equal that he thought was wrong, but still as an equal -- and you took offense because you don't see him as your equal. Even if you have a degree, it's not fair to expect him to know that.

[Nordengrund]

I have writer’s block, though I kinda know what I want to do with the the story. Someone suggested the M.I.C.E. Quotient to me, which for those who are unfamiliar, divides stories into four basic types: milieu, idea, character and event. I’m pretty much dead set on either riding an Idea story or an Event story. I also want to try my hand at non-linear storytelling.

What are your tips for getting over perfectionism and coming up with a workable idea?

[Respubliko de Libereco]

I have writer’s block, though I kinda know what I want to do with the the story. Someone suggested the M.I.C.E. Quotient to me, which for those who are unfamiliar, divides stories into four basic types: milieu, idea, character and event. I’m pretty much dead set on either riding an Idea story or an Event story. I also want to try my hand at non-linear storytelling.

What are your tips for getting over perfectionism and coming up with a workable idea?

Remember that you don't need to commit 100% to every aspect of your story before you start writing - in fact, I'd argue that you shouldn't. When you actually start putting pen to paper you might find that some of your ideas don't work well together, or don't fit with the setting, characters, or atmosphere that you're working with. At this point you can (and should) reconsider the ideas that aren't working and either modify or drop them as needed.

So, my advice is to start writing once you have a rough idea of where your story is going, and refine your ideas in the process of actually writing the thing.

[Conserative Morality]

This place dead.

What's everyone working on? Anything interesting?

[Ameriganastan]

This place dead.

What's everyone working on? Anything interesting?

If you consider a Halloween shipfic about witches interesting, sure.