Controversial opinions about writing

Receiving advice. Yes. I go to two writer's clubs in my home town. One is called the "write and critique" club and the other just "critique". One is full of Grandmas and Grandpas - the other has three published novelists (including award winners). I took a chapter of mine to the first club, and it was smashed, torn, destroyed, smeared across the floor, and just blown to hell until there was nothing left of the piece to put back together.

I took the same piece to the critique group with the published authors, and they loved it.

So I think it isn't "don't take advice from writers", but "don't take from inexperienced writers". Most of the tips and nitpicks thrown at the piece inside the Grandma writing club almost seemed fabricated, making plot holes that didn't exist, critiquing my grammar and punctuation when theirs was horrid, etc... The critique club took my pages and filled it full of red pen, sure, but it was a different kind of critique and advice. They weren't trying to change my writing, but just help me mold it. When I had, he looked, there'd be a "you can do better than this" beside it - just a reminder.

At the same time, I still have to sift through the advice and pick what I like, because many things like "never ever use incomplete sentences" and "never start a sentence with But" were mostly ignored. Their experiences aren't your experiences, and your writing style isn't your style, so there are things anyone just cannot help you with. But I think for the most part, it just matters who is giving the advice.

Writers Block does exist. It does. It does. It does. Anyone who thinks otherwise should try writing a long project and see if they can write each and every night on the piece. There are times you simply don't know what to write - and for days, even weeks, it will continue.

One day - boom, words on paper. It's baffling and unfair, but that's writing. xD

@Arkhaion, I think just about everyone who writes and wants to become a full-time writer knows and hopefully understands that. But you know what? I'm giving it my best shot, regardless. I'll burn the midnight candle every night to write, while working during the day to support myself. Who knows? Maybe it'll happen. Maybe not. And my internet connection has always been slow, anyway.

Hmm... I just realised that I only commented on what everyone else had said, but in the process, I forgot to give my own controversial opinion. Fortunately, I can still say something without repeating somebody else.

My controversial opinion: don't keep things simple.

This opinion will probably earn me numerous sideways, defensive or even hostile glances, but I stand by it. First, I should say that the saying "keep things simple" originated in the Classical Period. During the Baroque Period, everything was embellished - architecture, music, you name it. However, people eventually grew tired with this style, as it was like eating a candy that was too sweet. Unfortunately, some people still have that tendency, so it is most certainly not a forgotten habit.

For example, my class is reading Lord of the Flies now. I detest that book. True, the writing is good (I use "good" with moderation), but the plot puts many people off. I dislike the plot too, but I also find the setting unrealistic. The description, though, is what bugs me the most; the author takes about one and a half pages just to describe how a fire comes to life. And while personification and metaphors are joys to write, you don't want to encounter it at least once a page - no exaggeration.

Thus, by keeping it simple, you spare your readers the torture of literary diabetes (I have friends and family who suffer from diabetes, so please don't think me tactless; it's just a comparison). Nevertheless, while keeping things simple the whole time won't necessarily result in a bad story, it will never result in a great story. A good story, sure, but if you want people to remember reading it and recommend it to their friends, there had to be something more.

This is what I meant by "don't keep things simple". I didn't say that you should go crazy with descriptions, figuritive language or any of that Ja... Baroque, but limiting it to once a chapter isn't going to work either. Balance is one of the best things in the universe, so naturally we should strive to achieve that in our writing - but trust me, that is not an easy task. It takes a great amount of effort, and unless your story explodes metaphorically, input really does determine the output.

So I think it isn't "don't take advice from writers", but "don't take from inexperienced writers".

@TimmyJake Nope. Experienced writers can give just as much bad advice that needs to be thrown out as inexperienced writers. In fact, experienced writers can give the absolute worst advice (depending on how pretentious they are) and inexperienced writers can give advice that's closer to what you actually need to hear. Inexperienced writers can also give better impressions than experienced writers, sometimes.

Like, that "you can do better" on "he looked". What is so wrong with simply saying "he looked"? Why does it need to be padded and turned into something that might be pretty, but loses the impact of simplicity? How do you know those plot holes actually don't exist, and the experienced writers aren't just so steeped in their own biases they can't see them? Why do you weigh that advice more heavily than somebody saying to never start your sentence with "but"?

Sure, your reason for starting a sentence with "but" might be good, however you could legitimately be making it sound less awesome by doing so. I received that advice myself and disliked it. Once I started applying it, my writing became much better. That is grammar advice, and that is advice weighed far more heavily. Even if the person makes grammar mistakes themselves, they can still have a sense for what good grammar looks like. Bad grammar is not always a sign of incompetence.

I've found that those who believe they can give good advice— actually, genuinely believe that they can tell a writer what to do and it will make them a better writer— are the flat out worst at giving advice. In my experience, the people who give the most insightful commentary are those who give impressions, reasons why, logic, and only reach for suggestions when the person seems absolutely stuck. Suggestions, for them, are a last resort. Otherwise, they simply point out what doesn't make sense and let the writer figure it out on their own.

Inexperienced writers often just have good taste. They're usually pretty well read, they know what they like, and they can give raw opinions. Experienced writers, on the other hand (along with arrogant inexperienced writers) have theory and specialties and their own well developed voice that they get good results with, so they proceed to apply it to everyone they know. They start thinking that they are somehow better simply because they've learned more writing advice. It probably won't fit you. Better writing comes from well thought out works, not more theory.

As soon as you start going "I am an experienced writer, I can give the best advice!" you're doomed, because there is always improvement in writing, there are always skills you don't know, and there are always places where you are weak. Once you think your opinion is better because of "experience"... you will start giving even worse suggestions. Each writer is unique, each writer has different skills, and each writer has different methods. If you don't remember that every single time you approach a work, then you'll end up disrespecting the writer's own voice.

@TimmyJake

I still have to sift through the advice and pick what I like,

Just a side note, darling. If you pick and choose the advice you take and the advice you decide you don't 'like', you're not going to get better as quickly as you want too. Writers who take every single crtique they can, good or bad, and listen and take it into consideration are the writers that get better faster. If you pick and chose and decide you're only going to listen to some of the advice you receive, then you might miss some important stuff along the way. I understand not listening to some advice about 'you shouldn't have fragments in your novel!' or something, because like fragments are sometimes okay. But if this is a repeated correction? Maybe you should listen instead of deciding you don't think it applies to you. Just a thought <3. As for what Rosey says. Yes. All of it.

@LadySpark

LadySpark wrote:If you pick and choose the advice you take and the advice you decide you don't 'like', you're not going to get better as quickly as you want too. Writers who take every single crtique they can, good or bad, and listen and take it into consideration are the writers that get better faster. If you pick and chose and decide you're only going to listen to some of the advice you receive, then you might miss some important stuff along the way.

I totally agree with you, when you post your work you are hoping to get advice on how to better improve your story/grammar/character. When you write a review, you really hope that you help the writer in max.(if you are like me). So when you read over the reviews, really you should at least consider every piece of advice. Pick and choose is not a good method to do this.Sometimes you are blindly choosing the pieces of advice/reivew-that are easy and you are comfortable with, instead of stepping out of your comfort zone and seeing those harsh reviews and spotting your mistakes.

This is pretty logical but the quicker that you or a reviewer spot a mistake and point it out-the quicker you can fix it @TimmyJake

Rosendorn wrote:In my experience, the people who give the most insightful commentary are those who give impressions, reasons why, logic, and only reach for suggestions when the person seems absolutely stuck. Suggestions, for them, are a last resort. Otherwise, they simply point out what doesn't make sense and let the writer figure it out on their own.

I have to say that I actually totally agree with you 100% but I do know that I have to work on implementing this. This is my struggle spot in my reviews, I always pull out flaws and sentences that don't make sense or that aren't grammatically correct. But then I do the "last resort thing, I give suggestions constantly, which isn't healthy for my reviews. I mean writers should be able to figure that out.That for pointing that out and convincing me @Rosendorn!

PFFT! XD

@LadySpark, you can't agree with @Rosendorn 100% and yet disagree with @TimmyJake when he says he sifts through the advice and takes what he likes out of it and ignores a bit! Didn't Rosey just talk about how many writers, both experienced and inexperienced, gave out bad advice? So, it would make sense to weigh through the advice and take out what you like from it and ignore the rest, if you believe it is bad advice.

With that said, I agree with sifting through advice and cherry picking whatever strikes your fancy. Doing that is fun!

I am going to throw out another controversy (which has probably been thrown out before... I think, but I am doing it again): I think that telling is sometimes much better than showing. Sometimes, you can show too much. Much of the fairy tales that we grew up with tell pretty much everything, and yet they are still potent. Telling things instead of showing doesn't have to be this horrible thing.

Of course, some things are better shown than told. BUT. Not always.

Another controversy! TOO MANY STORIES START OFF WITH THE WEATHER. Unless the weather actually has to do with something important in your story, like, drowned rats invade your house because outside is flooding or there is a tornado that sends you to Oz or a old hag shows up at the castle door and asks a prince for shelter for the snowy night or it starts raining blood or someone is hallucinating that there is a storm coming (or is he?!), or something else that has weather as a critical plot point, QUIT WITH THE STUPID WEATHER SCENE. I swear. There are too many stories on YWS that start off with several paragraphs of the character observing weather, and then... nothing. Why nothing? Because it's not important. It's like, the writer decided that the Weather Channel is the ultimate storyteller and thus tries to tell a forecast to hook readers in. WHY ARE YOU TAKING CUES FROM THE WEATHER CHANNEL TO TELL YOUR STORY?!?!?!?!?!?! I know lots of people love to watch the forecasts and everything, but... REALLY?!?!?!?!

...I'm really impassioned by this whole weather point, maybe. Probably more than I should be.

"write what you know"

I understand this to some extent. Like, I wouldn't just dive into a story where my protagonist was seventy year old male CEO of a large company since that's something I know very little about. Additionally, personal experiences that I've incorporated into my own writing have tended to be received very positively.

However, I think the advice should be to find what's the same in people and places that are different from you. That's why we read/watch movies, isn't it?

After all, Star Trek came at a time when no one had yet been to space.

Snoink wrote:I think that telling is sometimes much better than showing.

It absolutely is, especially with short stories. There's no other way to skip large periods of time, or intervals in which there's no dramatic conflict. Plus, a good writer can tell you exactly what a character is like and have you nodding your head in recognition -- which at some point is a necessity in most stories. (Referring to a minour character never on-screen, etc.)

Obviously there are many more instances, too. If I never wanted to tell, I'd take up screenwriting -- and even then there're these things called "monologues."

- Don't tell me your character's eye colour. I really don't care what it is.

- Anyone can be a good writer, if they learn how to be.

- It's more important to be a good writer than a good storyteller.

Sureal wrote:- It's more important to be a good writer than a good storyteller.

I don't think so. I think it's more refined to state that both are important.

However, I think writing is a craft. It is something you can improve at. You can learn new techniques and develop.

Storytelling I see as something more innate which you have or you don't. You are born (or raised to be) imaginative and creative, with an original mind, and fantastic ideas, or you are not born this way (or raised this way).

I think if you're a fantastic writer with below average storytelling abilities, you can still write good fiction, because your word-craft is so incredible. But people rarely get to that level, and they will always be more niche.

If you are a fantastic storyteller with below average writing abilities, you always know you can improve your writing (through re-editing, and general practice) and can write great stories which will sell bucket loads.

Therefore (in terms of the aim of being published) I believe storytelling is more important, but both are crucial if you want to do well in writing. I just think people do not appreciate the art of storytelling nearly as much as clever wordplay, especially on this site. There are far too many short stories on here which are praised when the plot is actually terrible and the conflict is non-existent and the characters are dull, just because they are well-written.

There are far too many short stories on here which are praised when the plot is actually terrible and the conflict is non-existent and the characters are dull, just because they are well-written.

I feel bad reviewing those stories. What do you write as a review? "Hi! This story is actually not a story. Maybe a character sketch, maybe a scene, but not a story. Try again, except this time make something happen!"

Yeeeeeeeeah. I'm sure that will go over well...

I think most people can be a good writer if they try hard enough. (I say most and not all because, let's face it, there are some people who physically can't be good writers because of their age, disabilities, and whatnot, but they are still people and should not be treated as anything less.) I mean, not every sort of writing is creative writing. People can hone their skills to be excellent technical writers and whatnot.

But, creative writing? If you want to be good at creative writing, be it poetry or prose or something entirely experimental, you need to be a good storyteller. If you can't tell a story, you're going to have a bad time.

@Sureal: the whole reason why Pride and Prejudice fails at a romance is that neither Lizzy's nor Mr. Darcy's eye color is ever revealed. I was very disappointed. (Though, I'm sure Mr. Darcy has piercing blue eyes.)

Holysocks wrote:I personally don't believe in 'writers block'. I believe in writer burn out, but not block. Nothing blocks you from writing, except yourself. Or maybe I do believe in it, but I believe it's caused by the writer themselves! Really, you either write, or you don't write. It's as simple as that.

I also believe in procrastination- writer's block is another form of that.

Guilty as charged.

My main character for a short story spanning a meagre two thousand words does not need a name.

I also don't really care for knowing the eye colour of my characters, or if they're in the 5'7" or 5'9" category or whatever. I dislike it when stretches of paragraphs focus on looks and looks alone. Characters can be expressive, their grimaces and smiles can be described to us subtly, I think, and I honestly prefer a vague image than a clear-cut one. Please just tell me what the character is doing and develop him/her/them properly, thank you.

(With that said, I have nothing against knowing what a character looks like, either, but I don't think it's such a vital factor in what makes a good story.)

Also: you can be a good writer and still not have a handle on grammar. Good grammar does not necessarily make a good writer; it just eases the editing process.

Agreeing with the eye colour thing, because in real life, how often do you really pay attention to what colour people's eyes are? Ditto on height.

That said, my policy with descriptions tends to focus on the stand out things - if they have unusual-coloured eyes (like a character of mine did), it's good to bring up, or if they're so tall they tower over everyone else, etc. Personally, I find description of character appearance really awkward - I always need a context for description (defining features, a change in their appearance like a haircut). And I despise flowery descriptions of eyes and hair colour, but that's dipping into purple prose which is another pet peeve of mine.

Haha, @Pompadour! Oh, the names! Who needs 'em?

I wrote an entire novel in which the main character was only known as "the freak" and another one of the characters was known as "Sadie's father." The freak was called by different names, depending on who was talking with her (one of the more common names she was called was Beth), but during the entire narrative, she was known as the freak. And Sadie's father was one of the main characters of the story (even more so than Sadie, who was more of a minor character) and yet he was only known as Sadie's father throughout. Never did name them.

(Now, if only there weren't five million plot holes and ten million weird stylistic things in that story and not 120K words long...)