Young Writers Society

THE WEEKLY WRITER

YWS's Unofficial Writing-Related Newsletter

Welcome to this week's edition of the Weekly Writer! Before we go further, shoutout to the cast and crew:



Now onto the articles!

Welcome to the first-ever edition of the Weekly Writer! I'm Lucrezia and I'm here to explain a few things about this e-zine (online newspaper). I'm sure you have many questions, and I hope to clear some of them up.

What is the Weekly Writer? The Weekly Writer is a weekly newsletter, similar to the official YWS newsletter, Squills. The main difference between the two is that the Weekly Writer is an unofficial newsletter, and also focuses on only writing and writing-related events/activities instead of the various YWS stuff Squills revolves around. Get the idea?

The Weekly Writer is a byproduct of Writer of the Week, which means you can expect Writer of the Week articles and interviews in each edition. It'll be a weekly e-zine (if all goes well), posted on or around Friday evening. As I said, all of our articles are writing related, so you can expect to find how-to's, advice columns on common writing problems, and interviews with talented writers—plus much, much more!

Who's running this e-zine? A bunch of kids? Pretty much. The Weekly Writer's current staff is a mix of teenagers and young adults—the same way YWS is a mix.

The idea was originally pitched by @WritingWolf, and was brought to fruition by the rest of the Writer of the Week judges team.

Anything else I should know? Definitely!

First and foremost, keep in mind this is an exclusively writing-themed online newspaper. If you want an e-zine all about YWS, that would be Squills. We're just a humble little writing newsletter, no big whoop.

Secondly, we're still very small at the moment and in need of more people on our staff! If you or someone you know has a knack for writing articles and would be interested in joining this writing e-zine of ours, please PM me, Lucrezia.

Lastly, there's currently a big contest going on that's being hosted by the Writer of the Week and Weekly Writer staff! There's a 10k-point prize up for grabs. All you have to do is write a Writer of the Week themed piece. The winner, in addition to those ten thousand points, will get interviewed for the Weekly Writer! Exciting, no? You can find out the rest of the details here.

Enjoy reading!

There are some wonderful works posted here on YWS that sadly sit in obscurity.

They often get rave reviews, yet no 'Likes.' Some of them don't even get those rave reviews and instead swirl around in the Green Room, despite being extremely well-written and deserving of praise. These underrated pieces never end up making the Literary Spotlight.

It's unfair, to say the least, but the Spotlight is notorious for being unbalanced (having more poetry pieces than shorts, and many more poems than chapters). It's a coveted spot, one we all desire, yet hard to break into due to the current system. No 'Likes' = no Spotlight.

You could get ten or twenty wonderful reviews, but if you get only two Likes, you won't end up in the Literary Spotlight.

Which is why we here at the Weekly Writer decided to do our own spotlight. I've selected three wonderful works that deserve recognition for you readers to check out. Here they are.

The Chapter: The novel chapter I've selected is the first chapter of @Gaurav009's unique and highly entertaining story, "The Perfect Thief." This story manages to blend all the elements that make a novel great into an exceptional mixture—humor and seriousness, action and dialogue, showing and telling, et cetera. In fact, the only thing that this story isn't is boring.

Reviewers have agreed, singing Gaurav's praises in admiration for his style and technique. The novel also has a prologue, found here.

The Short Story: "Of Ghosts and Coffee" was my choice for the featured short. It was written by @briggsy1996, who has to be a writing extraordinaire, considering how breathtaking this piece is.

Poignant and sweet, with touches of humor and hope, this short story's been hailed by reviewers. The bittersweet tale also has an awesome title that perfectly fits the theme, and yes, ghosts are involved—yet the short still manages to keep a sense of realism and originality.

The Poem: @retrodisco666's poem, "Shotgun kisses," is my choice for featured poem. Why? Because it's touching, it's sweet, and it's beautifully written. Need I say more? Well, I will anyway.

This poem is chalked full of wonderful imagery, with a spot-on choice of wording and exceptional stylistic touches. Hailed by reviewers, how it hasn't ended up in the Spotlight yet is beyond me.

So, that's it for this week, folks. I hope you enjoyed hearing about YWS's most glorious pieces. Remember to never let it get you down if you're not featured in the Literary Spotlight—because you could very well get featured in our spotlight.

Which is just more reason to keep your head up, and always, always, always keep writing.

-RS, the Spotlight Girl

Hi! My name is Tulip, and for the next few weeks, I'll be interviewing each admin of the Academy of Writing—which is the private club that handles all voting/selecting/nominating for Writer of the Week. This week's admin is@Messenger, the awesome member whom puts in a friendly and fun atmosphere to the club.

Tulip: How does it feel to be part of the Academy as an admin?


Messenger: Oh my goodness, it is so exciting! I get to help out a lot and just keep an eye over the Academy. It has its responsibilities, but I enjoy them!

T: Do you feel like doing 'Writer of the Week' is helpful to the majority of users on YWS?


M: My word, yes! If you read the interviews I do, you will see people are so happy to get the honor! It's a smashing success, especially for not having been around too long! I think it's just another thing to encourage writers to get to their keyboards.

T: While being an admin for the Academy, you also serve other jobs as well. Would you like to explain the positions that you hold?


M: Umm, let's see . . . I am a Talent Scout (abbreviation is T-Scout), which means I scour the site looking for potential Academy members who are unbiased in their reviewing, and who can be consistently active.
I am also the admin of the Weekly Writer, the very newspaper for which I am responding to these questions. I have other secret jobs as well which must be kept as such.

T: In your opinion, has Writer of the Week changed how you think when you read new works that are posted?


M: For me personally as a T-Scout, not very much. I don't have time to read a lot of the works posted, but I can when I get a chance.

T: For everyone who wants to contribute to WOTW- what advice would you give them?


M: As a member? Stay active and be creative! As someone who is a fan or a potential Writer of the Week, I would say just keep writing. Be supportive of WOTW! Without fans we wouldn't be anywhere. So here's a huge thanks for the part you play!

So there it is, the wise words of one of the Academy’s finest admins. The support of his and the other admins is all that leaves the Academy running, and us, the members of the Academy, carrying our duties to provide YWS with a new Writer of the Week every week.


-GreenTulip

We all know there’s a lot of rules when writing shorts and novels. Don’t do this, don’t do that, should be like this, should be like that… all of these don’ts can seem overwhelming to many young writers.

If you’ve posted anything to YWS, you’ve probably been told you shouldn’t have done this or that at least once. Pretty much everyone has. You’ll get scolded for not following the rules, as if there’s an actual rulebook for writing. Can’t you picture it? Leather-bound, looks like a spell book, with a title like, “Rules for Writing Wizards (aka Authors).” Sadly, nothing quite as awesome as that exists.

I’m sure there’s many books on writing that do tell you the rules. But those books are probably long and boring, and really, who the hell wants to read something long and boring?

So, I’ve decided to assemble a list of some of the biggest no-nos in writing novels and shorts. Here are the top don’ts.

No paragraph breaks between dialogue. This problem seems pretty common on YWS. People don’t seem to understand that, no matter what, when one character finishes speaking, you freaking need a paragraph break before having another character start their dialogue. See the italics? That tells you I’m serious.

The annoying thing about this mistake is that the fix for it is easy. Like, super easy. It’s a paragraph break, for Lord’s sake! You hit the “return” key and that’s it! So why don’t more people realize that? It’s one button, and then you won’t be scolded for it by your overzealous reviewers.

(And yes, your reviewers WILL notice it if you leave out a paragraph break and have ugly, back-to-back dialogue. And no, you’re not the exception to this rule, no matter how awesome you are.)

Telling, not showing. This rule’s a slippery slope, as some people have noted. It’s tough to strike up a healthy balance of showing to telling—and yes, that means your story shouldn’t be all show and no tell. There are parts that require telling, not showing.

That said, you need to try and make sure not to tell the whole time, either. It’s a big pet peeve of many readers/reviewers for stories to be written entirely or almost entirely in “telling” format. Because if you tell rather than show through an entire piece, it’s probably going to sound bad.

In case you don’t know what any of this means, I’d recommend checking out this fun link.

Mary Sues. Mary Sue… poor gal. She’s gotten a lot of flack over the years, hasn’t she? Well, she kind of deserves it.

In case you don’t know what “your character is a Mary Sue” means, I’ll try to explain. Mary Sue was a character created—wait, no, this isn’t a history lesson. Mary Sue is an idealized character, one that’s too perfect/beautiful/smart to actually exist—unflawed, basically. The thing is, characters have to be flawed. Why, you ask? Because all people are flawed. Every single one. (Yes, even celebrities… amazing, right?)

Because characters are supposed to be like real-live people, having one that’s flawless is just weird and unrealistic. Mary Sues are often based on the writer but are “better” reflections of one’s self. (In other words, characters you’ve created based on yourself but without your own flaws; abnormally perfect and beautiful versions of you.)

Because of this, it’s best to try and stay away from flat, uninteresting Mary Sue characters like the plague. To find out more, check out this link.

Info dumps. This one should go without saying, but considering it’s a personal pet peeve of mine, I figured I’d add it in. I HATE INFO DUMPS. Seriously, I hate them like I hate pollution. They’re just awful, annoying, irritating things that can ruin the flow of your piece like you wouldn’t believe.

Let me give you an example of an info dump. You begin a story, and your very first paragraph is:

“Hi. My name’s Taylor. I’m sixteen, I like horses and pretty girls, I used to bite my nails but then I got over that. My mom’s Chelsea, she’s forty. My dad’s name is Travis, he’s forty too. We all love each other and get along, except when my dad drinks. Did I mention he’s an alcoholic? Because he is. Oh, and I like taking walks. I like meeting people. When I was six, I lost my teddy bear. Did I mention I have a dog named Teddy? I do. Oh, and I have brown hair that’s straight and blue eyes and skin that’s medium-brown and right now I’m wearing a gray shirt and it has my band’s logo on it—hey, did I mention I’m in a band? I am—and jeans and shoes and I’m straight but my older brother is gay, he’s in college, did I mention that? I only have one older brother but I love him and his name is Chad.”

See how horrible that sounds? Here’s a tip—when your character’s description of himself and his home life would make you run away screaming if you met him in real life, you’ve probably told the reader waaayyyy too much.

To me, when a story starts off immediately with a description of what the main character looks like and an introduction from him, it’s never a good sign. I really loathe when stories start off this way. It’s just so boring.

The best way to combat the info dump is to sprinkle in descriptions and facts about the characters naturally, organically. In other words, don’t out-of-the-blue write, “I have brown hair and green eyes.” That sounds weird. Instead, you should try, “As I tied my long brown hair back in a ponytail [insert some other stuff here] and my mossy green eyes met the moon with a hungry stare.” (Bad example, I know, but you get what I mean.)

Moving a story along so fast, the reader gets whiplash. (Accidental rhyme alert!) Okay, this is another common trouble. One of the byproducts from telling and not showing is a fast pace. And it sucks. I know, I used to write fast-paced stories all of the time without meaning to. I hated how quickly my stories moved along, but at the time, I didn’t know how to slow them down.

How to get your pacing right? It’s a tricky balance to strike up, but my recommendation is to add in as many details and descriptions as you can (without boring or overwhelming the reader), and sprinkle in, what I like to call, “character reverie.” What is this, you ask? You know when you’re reading a novel, and suddenly the dialogue and action stops, and all you’re left with is the character’s thoughts and emotions? Not only is this a great way to get in the character’s head (and, in turn, allow the reader in the character’s head), but it’s incredibly fun to write and also slows down the pacing a great deal. Whenever you want to wait a chapter or so before going into more action/dialogue/typical story shazbot, just fill in that space with character reverie. Believe me, it’s more awesome than you’d think.

I hope this helps. And if it doesn’t and your writing still isn’t up to par, you’re a hopeless case. Just kidding. It takes time to perfect your writing and remember some of these rules, so don’t put too much pressure on yourself! With enough practice, even the worst writer in the world could be good.

So whatever you do—keep writing!

Well, it's been a good couple of months since Writer of the Week was introduced. This week the WOTW was none other than Writer of the Week creator and president, @Lucrezia! I got to sit down and chat with her about the experience.

Messenger: Hey Lucrezia! Well, congratulations on becoming Writer of the Week! I have to be honest, it feels weird to be interviewing the CREATOR of WOTW. So, how does it feel to come full-circle and get the honor?


Lucrezia: It feels bizarre and awesome at the same time. I guess surreal is the right word—I've helped pick so many WOTWs in the past, and I never thought I'd be the one to receive the honor. So getting it... it's amazing, really.

M: Your essay was about Disney princesses, which is a big hit with most users on YWS. What inspired you to write the essay?


L: I've spent a lot of time thinking about how Disney princesses have evolved, just in my head mostly. It's really fascinating to compare the first princess (Snow White) to the most recent (Merida, for example). There's just so many extreme differences. I thought it would be fun to write about that. I wasn't even going to post it to YWS or show it to anyone, I actually just wrote it for myself... but I'm very glad now that I ended up uploading it!

M: Well, I'm glad you did too! It received 40+ Likes, I believe, which is one of the biggest numbers I've ever seen! What do you have to say to others who wish to become WOTW?


L: Speaking as both a judge and Writer of the Week, I'd say to just keep writing. I know a lot of people that give up on writing very quickly because they don't think they're that good, but what they don't realize is that practice honestly does make perfect. With enough polish and dedication, anyone's writing can be amazing. The more you write, the better chance you have at getting WOTW. Simple.

M: Are there any links of your work that you'd like to share?


L: Sure! Well, the piece I was nominated for was, of course, my essay on the evolution of Disney princesses, which is found here . Additionally, I wrote another Disney princess-related piece, Princesses Anonymous . Finally, there's the first chapter of the first draft of my novel (wow, that's a mouthful), Vampiric , which is pretty lousy and deserves to be ripped to shreds by anyone interested (I've since rewritten it). That's about all. ^_^

M: Thanks for your time, Lucrezia! Enjoy yourself these next few days!


Well, Disney, you just got a lot of attention! I would definitely encourage you to all go read those works! Lucrezia really does deserve the WOTW honor, and I'm glad she got it.

Now before we end this article, remember to keep writing, because you could end up getting interviewed by me! (so exciting right? )
Till next time!!!!!

~Messenger

I like to think that Harry Potter and I are connected. Sure, we both have scars on our foreheads, and we both live on earth, but we also owe our souls to J.K. Rowling. When I was nine, I read and reread until I memorized the Sorting Hat songs. References, chapter titles, incantations came effortlessly. (Ish.) It was my lifelong goal to memorize The Sorcerer’s Stone, or The Philosopher’s Stone, as it’s called in the U.K. (How that one boy managed it, I have no idea.)

But no book is without flaws.

You might be wondering how this relates to The Weekly Writer. After all, it’s a compilation of inconsistencies and plot holes. But the compilation teaches a valuable lesson. A work’s popularity doesn’t determine its quality. Stephenie Meyer overused adverbs. Washington Irving inserted unnecessary details. Christopher Paolini didn’t have one original idea—including the gedwëy ignasia and the Ancient Language.

So here it is. I should probably mention, spoilers ahead.

*Page numbers are based off the American Scholastic hard-cover editions.



Wow. That took far longer than I anticipated, and yet I omitted misspellings, cover art flaws, and punctuation errors.

Still, this wouldn’t be an article if I didn’t string a couple sentences together. Let’s get into the real meat and potatoes of the series.

One of J.K. Rowling’s greatest strengths is characterization. It’s what attracted us to her books. Every character, including Bagman, possessed a distinct voice:

* Hermione Granger’s dialogue bore undertones of anxiety. There was a certain guilty mischief buried under her uptightness.

* Ron Weasley caught my eye in particular. He had a habit of stammering and asking rhetorical questions. As he grew older, he became bolder and less likable, but he never hesitated to defend his friends.

* Harry registered as a bit of a bumbling idiot. His personality only shone through in later books. His courage, his independence, his loyalty.

I could go on for miles, really. There are a total of 772 characters in the Harry Potter series, and J.K. demonstrated great care in developing them.

But let’s face it; her books were patchworks of clichés and plot conveniences. The Chamber of Secrets in particular. How d’you explain Harry being sent directly to Borgin and Burkes, where he overhears Lucius Malfoy scheming, and Hagrid just happening to be in the same place at the same time? Or the Petrified Students? They’re luckier than leprechauns.

I might as well discuss style while I’m at it. At some points, her sentences were so unvaried it was painful. Check out Page 5 of The Sorcerer’s Stone:

Mr. Dursley stood rooted to the spot. He had been hugged by a complete stranger. He also thought he had been called a Muggle, whatever that was. He was rattled. He hurried to his car and set off for home, hoping he was imagining things, which he had never hoped before, because he didn’t approve of imagination.

Don’t get me wrong; I love Harry Potter. It’s the equivalent of candy. I remember nights where I slept with the books under my pillow and awoke with a throbbing neck, and the jackets have been torn into shreds. But I couldn’t overlook its flaws.

Gosh, this article was immensely fun to write. I got to nitpick one of the most popular books of all time. And what’s more, it was a fantabulous excuse to reread the series!

Okay, I’m just going to come right out and say it: I hate plagiarism. There. That felt good.

We all know not to plagiarize people’s writings. I mean, it’s just common sense, something most of us (those of whom were not raised by wolves) realized by around age seven. Sometimes younger. (Not to brag, but I knew plagiarism was wrong since I was four.)

But people still do it. Why? Well, that’s simple: People suck. (Kidding.) Even though we know things are wrong and not to do them, we often do them anyway, because it makes our lives easier. And who doesn’t want to take the easy route occasionally?

But—and I cannot stress this enough—it is wrong. You’re taking another writer’s hard work and stealing it just to make your life easier? Really?

Clearly, the people who plagiarize haven’t had their own work plagiarized. If they had, they’d know how much it sucks. I’ve been plagiarized before. It happened twice just this month, maybe even more than that but I’m not aware of any others. And it’s awful. It’s like staring into the face of death. (Okay, exaggeration, but it’s still pretty soul-crushing.)

Being blatantly plagiarized is like being slapped in the face. I’ve had someone compliment me on something I’ve written (word usage or a particular sentence that caught their eye, for example), then I read something of theirs only to find they had taken that exact same thing a few short days later and put it in their writing. Now, let me be clear—this is not exactly a crime. After all, I don’t own this word or that word, and they are free to steal it. However, when people start stealing whole sentences and unique expressions that I wrote (things I actually penned and came up with/created, not just a random word I chose), that’s when it starts getting more like plagiarism and less like “inspiration.”

Speaking of inspiration, let’s talk about that a moment, shall we? Inspiration is a wonderful thing. One time, I was staring out my window and suddenly got an amazing idea out of the clear blue sky. Another time, I was walking through Disneyland and got yet another wonderful idea (which, no, didn’t have to do with anything Disney-related).

However, some people use inspiration as an excuse for plagiarism. They say this or that was “inspired by” something else (if they even credit that “something else” at all), only to blatantly steal from the thing they claim was their “inspiration.” Guys, let me be clear—there is a big difference between inspiration and plagiarism. Pretending it’s the former when you know it’s the latter is just… well, it’s a lousy thing to do. Because—going back to my main point—plagiarism sucks. Like, for reals.

I’ll use myself as an example. In my novel, Vampiric, the relationship between two of the main characters—Sirena and Durriken—was heavily inspired by the relationship between Natara and Shawn on the cell phone app/game, Cause of Death. That game, which is written in the same style as an actual novel, is a favorite pastime of mine (if you haven’t checked it out yet, you should ASAP).

Anyway, I was fascinated with Shawn’s obsession with Natara (I probably should’ve warned you about spoilers, but I know you don’t play this game anyway, so what does it matter?), and took some of that when creating the character of Durriken. Does this mean I stole? No. I was very, very careful to create differences between the two (Durriken and Sirena are related, for example, versus Natara and Shawn who most certainly are not) and make it as creative and original as I could, even if it did have roots in someone else’s work.

Does that make sense? If not, I’ll show you some examples. Let’s say you read a story on YWS, and there’s a part you really like. It goes:

“We smiled at each other, our hands pressed together, our flushed cheeks and messy hair matching; we, the troublesome two, the fearless duo, had conquered our own little worlds through our love for each other.” (Please forgive the cheesiness of this example.)

You’re writing something, and you get to a part that seems perfect for that same bit you had previously read in this other person’s story. So you decide, “What the hell, they’ll never notice I took it!” And you copy and paste in the exact same line.

Plagiarism? To me, yes. Complete plagiarism.

Now, let’s say you realize that would be plagiarism. Let’s say you still want to write something similar, but also something original. This is what you end up with:

“We smiled, holding hands and staring into each other’s eyes. Our partnership and love had won. After everything, we were victorious. We had saved the day.”

This is still quite similar to the part that “inspired” you, but you’ve taken it and messed with it enough to give it some originality. My plagiarism verdict? Not plagiarism.

However, everyone has a different definition of plagiarism. Some people think that you have to copy every single part of someone else’s story in order for it to be plagiarism; others think that if you steal a word or sentence someone else just used in a story you read, that means you copied (i.e., plagiarized). I fall somewhere in between the two.

A little inspiration is good! I believe in that (as evidenced by the Shawn-and-Natara story above). But blatantly copying someone? No. That’s wrong. And stealing from someone else’s work directly (by copying and pasting their words into a document and then proceeding to publish said story online, claiming it’s your own) is definitely plagiarism, and the “worst kind,” at that.

I know it’s hard to come up with unique stories and good adjectives and all that. But copying someone’s entire story or plot or whatever is wrong. Period. It’s one of the worst crimes a writer can commit.

My recommendation? Write. And keep writing. Write about anything and everything, write about your coffee table or your computer. The more you write, the better you’ll get. And if you’re still having trouble with finding “the right words,” read! Reading will show you so many great new words, and cherry-picking words isn’t plagiarism (to an extent, anyway). Reading will also inspire you, and so long as you keep in mind the differences between inspiration and copy-catting, you’ll do fine.

To conclude: plagiarism sucks and you shouldn’t do it. Okay?

We are writers. Creative, smart, intellectual people. But why are we here? What purpose do we hold? Are we just simply here? Or do we mean something?

These questions are oft asked by writers questioning their purpose. So why am I here? I'm here to explain to you from my perspective why writers are important. Becuase yes, you most certainly are.

First off, we are the people that give others strength. What do you mean, you ask? Well, it's actually quite simple. We, as authors, create a whole new realm of the world, away from reality where people can escape to and be something else. Writers can make their characters small and weak, or fierce and vengeful. But they make it something they can be outside of reality.

Writers aren't just their own escape. We are the source for others who may not be able to write: our readers. We sit here and put pen to paper or type, but it should be more than for ourselves. These people need a reality break too. They find freedom through us. We are here to write, but not only for ourselves.

My last point is that we are here for our writers-to-be. We are the current generation of coming writers. We are setting the stage. They look up to us to see what to do, where to go. We are their example for what they will become. These people need us. I'm sure we were all this at one point. Obsessed with reading and learning more about writing. I was this way. I read, and read, and read and was made fun of for reading. But it was okay. Why? Becuase the book wasn't reality. And I was something else.

So we are writers. Writers are we. We are a sense of balance in this world. The escape from life and problems, even if it's just for a little while. But this is our contribution. This is us.

Hello there, Writer of the Week fans! I'm here to bring you the story on @TheShauzer.

You all, hopefully, know him as our most recent short story WOTW winner. His piece Quaratined was nominated by one of the judges. The piece got numerous votes and that is what got him WOTW.

Actually, it's not just the votes that we look at. No, we look at the quality and creativity of a piece. Quaratined is about a young boy. Not very interesting? What if I told you that the boy is hiding in a closet, trying to avoid his diseased parents. Interesting now? I thought so.

I asked some of the judges what they thought of him. Here are their (anonymous) answers.

I thought they deserved it!

I adored his style of writing. It was pretty close to flawless. Lovely narrative, lovely descriptions, and very few technical errors. He's a wonderful writer and was born for Writer of the Week.

The story was well written: it had a good plot, it kept the reader interested, it had good imagery. Overall, it was an excellent story. He just seemed very deserving of WOTW.

Where is TheShauzer now? Well, let's just say someone is hiding for the time being. He has been here since Sept. 23, 2013 and his birthday actually wasn't too long ago. Why don't you go say hello to him on his wall and check out his portfolio!

The writer’s ego. A fascinating thing, no? Often times, it’s grotesquely large—and some of the time, such a large ego is undeserved, to say the least.

I’ve been thinking about this after coming upon @Spotswood’s thread about snarky techniques for reviewing egotistical young writers. Indeed, it does seem that many a young writer—and many an old writer, for that matter—have a super sized confidence that can be considered arrogance.

It’s a well-loathed trait, cockiness. Why do so many writers have it, I wondered? For that, I went back into my past, when little Lucrezia was but a kid, herself. (Yes, I was once a little kid, too. Hard to believe, right?)

I was kind of an annoying kid. Then again, who wasn’t? And yes, when I first started writing, I was convinced I could be published. I was seven when I first started (well, I had been writing before that, but back then it was mostly “picture stories” with the only words being scribbles). I thought I was an amazing writer. This egomania carried on for many years. It wasn’t until I was about eleven that I actually realized I wasn’t this writing goddess I believed myself to be.

The thing is, this isn’t uncommon at all. Writers, both young and old, have big egos. Huge egos. I know plenty of writers (my father included) that think they and their writing is superior. Now, some of these writers are semi-justified (in other words, they are legitimately talented—such is the case with my dad). Others… not so much.

I don’t believe anyone’s an awful writer, let’s get that straight. Do some writers need more refining, polishing and work than others? Sure, of course. Are some writers still working on their craft and maybe need some more experience? Definitely. But there are no “awful” writers.

That said, there are some writers with awful egos. Big, oversized, annoying-as-hell egos. To them, I have something to say: Confidence is good. Arrogance and thinking you’re the best of the best… now, that is bad.

To be honest, now that I’m older (and more cynical), I don’t believe there’s such thing as a writing god or goddess. Yes, there are talented writers. But the thing is, writing is an art. Art is subjective. Everyone’s opinion on who is great and who isn’t varies. Can we really call one superior to another? A writer might be more famous than another, but does that mean the unrecognized writer is less talented? In some cases, no.

An example of this would be the Twilight books. Now, personally, I think the concept of Twilight is ridiculous. From the excerpts of it that I’ve read and from what my friends have told me, it sounds moronic. Yet Twilight was and is wildly successful. Does that make its author, Stephanie Meyer, a writing goddess?

*takes moment to laugh at this crazy idea*

Um… no. It doesn’t. So if we can’t determine writing gods off popularity, how else could we? By the sheer greatness of their words? That wouldn’t really work either, because as I said, writing is subjective. You might think so-and-so’s talented, but I might disagree. Sure, you could always go with the majority rules system, but…

Basically, I don’t think there’s such thing as “the perfect writer(s).” One of many reasons why all you cute little egomaniacs reading this should remind yourself—you’re not the best. The best doesn’t exist. And you should be all right with that.

It’s okay to be confident about your writing. Some things I’ve written that I’m proud of will make me feel confident about my skills, I’ll admit. But it’s important to remember that there’s a difference between “confidence” and “arrogance.” If you’re in the latter category, people will probably not enjoy your company so much. Arrogance? Big turnoff. Remember, no one is perfect. No one’s writing is perfect, either, at least in my opinion.

How do you fix your super sized ego, you ask? By trying to stay grounded. Read your works over with a critical eye rather than a gushing, everything-I-write-is-gold outlook. Not only will this make you a better writer, in being able to correct and see what’s wrong with pieces you’ve written, but it will also help with your ego. The best way to stay grounded, in my experience, is to acknowledge your flaws and realize that you’re not perfect. Only Mary Sue is, and she’s annoying as hell (writing joke—did anyone get that?).

So, egomaniacs out there, I will leave you with this: Keep writing. Stop being arrogant. Rock on.

Hello. Question for you—have you noticed review spam around YWS? People that shamelessly write poor reviews in an attempt to get points?

There was recently a poem featured in the Literary Spotlight, and I read it. It's a very good poem. But I was greatly displeased with a review on this poem. The reviewer had spammed it by repeating a phrase over and over to make the review longer—and get more points.

I have seen a lot of review spam lately. This trend is wrong for many reasons:

1. It's cheating

Points from reviews are earned by the amount of characters in the review. By writing the same phrase or expression over and over, the person has earned points they don't deserve. Similarly, stealing someone else's review or adding parts of someone else's review to yours will get you points you don't deserve and have earned unfairly, which is also rude to the person whose work you're "reviewing."

2. Laziness

I know that this will sound pretty harsh, but reviewers that spam are very, very lazy. The quintessential review involves constructive criticism, compliments, and likes/dislikes (as well as nitpicks, if you choose). Not including these things and instead going down the review-spam route is wrong on many levels and often occurs out of the reviewer's laziness and lack of care for the work's writer.

3. Lacking

As I've said above, the reviewer did not give costructive criticism. That means it failed to give nitpicks/questions/suggestions to the writer's work. Spammers also often forgo praise and compliments, which is equally important in making sure the writer doesn't feel horrible about themselves following a review or discouraged. Leaving out these main ingredients and cheating like review spammers do is overall rude and severely lacking in the kindness and care that makes YWS awesome.

So remember - if you see someone that's review-spammed, report it to a Mod (someone with a green or red username)! And do it ASAP. Because review-spamming is just wrong.

"Bigger is better!"

Yes, this applies to cheesecake, and to chocolate, and to dollar amounts. The saying is akin to "The more the merrier!" And they even rhyme. But let's face it, when we write, the bigger things get, the more confusing they get, and the less betterer they get. (Excuse my English.)

This same thing applies when you go into a fancy restaurant (this is where the bigger money comes in handy), sit down, and order something off the menu, which is usually in some foreign language. But they do let you know how expensive it's going to be by choosing not to put the amount of money it costs next to the item. How helpful!

Then you sit, and wait, and wait some more, and sin as you covet those other people who have already been served and are commenting on how "perfectly delicious the meal is."

Finally! The waiter arrives with a steaming hot plate of who knows what, but does it matter? It smells so good! And then… you pick up your fork, slice off a small piece, place it tenderly in your mouth and slowly chew as the glorious flavors seep past your tongue, down your throat, and have a party on the inside!

And now comes the moment when you look at me and say, "What the heck does any of this have to do with writing?!" A just question, my friend. Allow me to explain.

Books are the nourishment that keeps the world running. I know most people think it's iPhones and Justin Bieber nowadays, but just go with me on this. It's kind of hard to chew on an entire book, or even a chapter, and even a single page can get a bit stale in the mouth until we are able to swallow. Besides, we don't like to hork it down. We have to savor it! And the sentence is where the savoring begins. But too much, and we're going to choke. Too little, and we might as well scarf it like there's no tomorrow because, if there's half the flavor, we have to eat twice as much. Right?

So how do we get the recipe just right? To answer that, I would like to turn the time over to a master chef, Professor Brooks Landon. (Everyone, give him a hand!)

In his course titled "Building Great Sentences: Exploring the Writer's Craft," he brings to light several controversial points—which I think are freaking genius! Most important to our topic today is:

Why should a sequence of words be anything but a pleasure? The sequences of words we identify as sentences are capable of providing pleasure just as surely as they are capable of conveying crucial information. Sometimes the way sentences unfold their meaning is the most important meaning they offer.

I spent a while searching for another, similar phrase, but couldn't find it, so I will just have to paraphrase here:

Making sentences longer is not as important as paying attention to the ways we make them longer.

These two extracts from Landon's lectures are the basis of writing's foundation. Sentences are where it starts, and sentences is where our writing gains importance, meaning, and integrity. And no one likes flat, dull, five word sentences that have the words "and"; "it"; "came"; "pass"; "to" in them. We want some meat on the bones! If your sentence is a five-course meal at Noma in Copenhagen, Denmark, people are going to keep coming back again and again, and again and again, and once more… again.

On the other hand, if your sentences are carrot sticks at Golden Corral's all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't matter how much you put out there; nobody is ever going to eat them. So rather than focusing on making our sentences longer, let us focus on making them "longer." And yes, that was supposed to be confusing.

The ultimate question: "How do we make sentences longer, but not too long?"

The answer and key to that question lies in Landon's lecture mentioned earlier: "Why should a sequence of words be anything but a pleasure?"

I would suggest writing that down somewhere. Maybe on your forehead so you will never forget.

Seriously, though: Why should writing do anything other than give us pleasure? Of course, carefully crafted sentences can and do give us other emotions such as depression, hate, love, anger, sadness, fear. The list goes on. But setting that aside and combining all the terms, I enjoy reading anything and everything that tastes good. If you want to write longer sentences that are worth being longer, all you have to do is read it and ask yourself, "Was that pleasurable?"

Sometimes I feel that writers, especially young writers such as myself, pay far too much attention to our ultimate goal, which is to finish a book—or a chapter, or a poem, or get to some designated end in sight. But the truth is, the ends never justifies the means in writing. It doesn't matter how cool an ending your book has, how awesome the main character's gravity hammer is, or how epic the prophecy was that nearly brought about the end of the world! If the writing itself (which means the sentences) was any less EPIC, then the entire point of writing has been lost.

To conclude, I would like to quote a character from one of the best movies of all time:

I love food. If I don't love it, I don't swallow.

Thank you for your time.

Hello! My name is Cesare, Cessy for short, and I am writing an article on describing the other sex.

When I first started writing prose, I was unable to adequately describe the other sex. This was mainly because I was scared of imperfection (yes, I am a perfectionist... what writer isn't?), but I managed to overcome this strange need for perfection. I have also noticed that other young writers often use a character of their own sex as the MC in their stories. There's no problem with this, as long as you can fairly describe the other sex.

Female Description

The following description is that of a fictitious character I recently created:

"Nadiya was a tall sixteen year old girl with long blonde hair that hung down her back. Her skin was pale, and she had golden eyes which spiraled against strange, dark pupils. She wore a tight, black jumpsuit, and black stilettos."

The rest is up to you. The method of characterization... everything. (Just maybe try to avoid your character becoming a stereotype straight out of a Disney Channel movie...)

Male Description

This is another fictitious person I created:

"Greybaum was a boy of seventeen. He had black hair that was combed over to one side. He had ivory skin, and his hair was riddled with tiny curls. He wore a blue shirt and black pants and was short and stocky. He had bright blue eyes."

I know that this description wasn't perfect, but it is a start. All you have to do is change the names (because plagairism will get you banned on YWS), as well as the eye color, skin color, clothing, specific details, et cetera.

Now that you have these examples to work with, this concludes the article on helping new writers describe the opposite sex. I hoped you enjoyed reading along.

THE WEEKLY WRITER

YWS's Unofficial Writing-Related Newsletter Edition #2

Welcome to this week's edition of the Weekly Writer! Before we go further, shoutout to the cast and crew:



Now onto the articles!