Young Writers Society

Controversial opinion on writing? Mine is the serious lack of real emotions. Descriptions, dialogues, structuring, writeup is all great but I as a reader want to experience genuine emotions while reading. It's a subjective thing, but I feel many works these days have a lot of sameness in them. Not essentially cliched but they are way too predictable to enjoy.

Another thing is the lack of talkative dialogues. Apart from fantasy, I believe a story becomes increasingly engaging if the characters are identifiable. I have seen many writers focusing more on the craft than storytelling. Let the dialogues flow naturally. It's something which should really be looked upon seriously. While beautiful metaphors and detailed descriptions shouldn't be missed out, the dialogues should give out the essence of the character and situation, which is seriously lacking these days!

@Sureal

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

I actually disagree with you on this one. I don't like overbearing details on writing either.I have this example, my own novel idea that I have been considering. The main character's name is Violet-and I want to describe her as having violet eyes (even though that's not realsitic, it's very important) Plus actually on the face, the eyes and hair are your most noticeable features,and really believe it or not @TriSARAHtops-every time that I meet someone new, the first thing that I look at is their eye color(or maybe that is just me)

@DrFeelGood

Let the dialogues flow naturally.

Oh yes, I see in too many works(and even in my own) how the dialogue is so stiff and formal. I tell writers, write the dialogue like there was a person sitting next to you.What would you say in this situation or scene? Now write it! In real life people say umm, urr, hmm, etc. and in "our" writing they tend to not say that. I real life people trail off, interrupt other people, and finish off sentence. Just being observant of how people talk to eachother will really actually help you write better dialogue.

Someone told me that our communication and interaction consists of 70% facial expressions, hand movements, etc. while talking. So really during a conversation we only communicate like this for 30% of the time. Show that strong communication aspect in your writing. Build it up.

Just today,open your ears and listen to people's conversation. And remember that your characters are real people with normal conversations, just like us

I dunno... I think a lot of opinions are taken in different ways, and often they're taken the wrong way.

One thing I have a problem with is that some people thing all writing needs a certain balance of elements-plot, description, dialogue... But there isn't just one answer. You can write with a lot of description, but you don't NEED it to compose a beautifully written story. You can plot every chapter of a novel, or you could just...not.
This is the entire definition of style.

Pompadour wrote: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.)

Preach. Descriptions of characters are mostly a distraction. I'm gonna picture your character however I want anyway, and I just want to see what they do and why they do it. Don't care about the colour of their eyes or how their hair falls or anything. It's always awkward and pointless, unless it ties in to the plot (Harry's green eyes, Harry's scar) or someone enhances their characterisation.

Another controversial opinion I have - your first one or two novels will probably suck. They are unlikely ever to be published.*

I believe most people need to get a couple of bad novels out of their system before they learn how to write one. That experience will create a good one eventually. But you'll have to sacrifice a couple on the way.

That's why when I see young writers stubbornly cling to their poorly-written novels, I kind of despair. Let them go. Come up with a new idea, and write that. Don't spend four or five yours trying to salvage something that probably isn't that good.

But do still pour your soul into them. Make them as good as you can, and try really hard. That writing experience is what you need to become great, but the best let their "special" projects go and write something new. Edit them, rewrite them, make it to the fourth or fifth draft. Well done. But it will probably still suck.

So use those experiences and keep going, and then you might just make it.


(*Yes, there are exceptions. Some writers get their first novel published, but it is like winning the lottery. It is not the norm.)

Firestarter wrote:(*Yes, there are exceptions. Some writers get their first novel published, but it is like winning the lottery. It is not the norm.)

True. But damn, Stephen King's first book was "Carrie" of all things. lol

I'm on the fence about character description. I believe it is important - you can't just give no information about their looks! - but you certainly don't need a lot of description for them.

And honestly, when I read a book, and the writer's like this dude's a looker and then goes on to describe some attributes that I don't particularly find all that attractive... well then I just kind of say you said he was handsome... so... and ignore the traits that I don't like. Which, I do kind of feel guilty about... but wouldn't the writer rather I picture their character as their original intent, rather then go with the things that maybe they found attractive? This of course goes for all types of looks.

I never notice someone's eye colour first thing unless it's a really dark hazel or something obvious... so I agree about that, unless the eye colour has to do with something- or why not save it for a time when someone's actually close enough to see their eye colour?

I think that if the say you're writing from the POV of someone who is describing someone they've known for years, then mentioning their eye colour might be something to consider. I mean, I'm pretty sure most of the people that I've known from forever, I know their eye colour... but that's mostly because eventually, the topic of eye colour normally seems to just come up.

@Firestarter

The one thing about not describing character looks is, if you don't give certain description clues then attempting to show a world's diversity falls flat. While I agree that physical description can be too much, if you don't give some description hints then it gets very difficult to display a variety of physical features.

Which might lead to the controversial opinion that writing should be diverse. Sexualities, genders, races, disability, and body types.

I'm not really qualified to comment but I will anyway - How someone looks has a lot to do with who they are as a person. The hints you give in your story can be really interesting too - some of the only things I remember about novels are the descriptions of people. I think if they are describing themselves the sortof things they say can depend directly on their confidence and how they see the world around them and how they think the world sees them. Descriptions only take about a paragraph - I'm just really surprised at all the great writers here who suggest there is no need for them. There's not but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have them.

I really liked the book The Outsiders and how he explained each of the characters literally made the book be from good to exceptional in my opinion.

Also, some people don't have the best imagination- I think as a writer you should be guiding them to see a character that isn't a silhouette. It's easy to think everyone is as capable as you are but alot of people just aren't or aren't interested in it. That's what a lot of people in poetry try to overcome and they do it with details.

Just a couple thoughts- again, never wrote or plan on writing a novel.

Another controversial opinion I have - your first one or two novels will probably suck. They are unlikely ever to be published.*

I believe most people need to get a couple of bad novels out of their system before they learn how to write one. That experience will create a good one eventually. But you'll have to sacrifice a couple on the way.

That's why when I see young writers stubbornly cling to their poorly-written novels, I kind of despair. Let them go. Come up with a new idea, and write that. Don't spend four or five yours trying to salvage something that probably isn't that good.

But do still pour your soul into them. Make them as good as you can, and try really hard. That writing experience is what you need to become great, but the best let their "special" projects go and write something new. Edit them, rewrite them, make it to the fourth or fifth draft. Well done. But it will probably still suck.

You share the same opinion of my husband. He says FREAK was good, for what it was, but there's tons of plot holes still and it's been edited to death. He says it's time to move on for the next great adventure. Still trying to figure out what that next great adventure is...

Still hurts because MAN. I really worked on that novel!

I sometimes like character descriptions, sometimes don't. The Brothers Karamazov gives wonderful descriptions, with Alexey in his monk's robes and Gruskenka with her Russian beauty that will fade away quickly to Fyodor's drunk and foolish demeanor, and so on. I also love G.K. Chesterton's stories, in which he gives out a lot of physical descriptions.

The trick is, the descriptions have to be done in an interesting manner. If you're just talking about how gorgeous the characters are, and the language you use is boring and tiresome, it's going to be boring and tiresome. But, if you describe an aquiline nose that makes the person look more like a bird than a man or a bald head so shiny it reflects the moon, then that is more interesting and can add things or how someone is tripping up in his monk's robes, even though he isn't a monk, that is interesting.

Disabilities are also interesting to describe. In FREAK, I loved slipping in descriptions of the amputee and the crippled man, because it was so challenging to be able to describe my characters and their struggles with their respective disabilities and how they overcame (or failed to overcome) their disabilities. The amputee doesn't start that way in the story, so readers wouldn't think about him being an amputee. Then, there would be a a phrase which normally "hands" and it was replaced with just "hand" and they would be shocked. Or, sometimes the struggle of the character was as simple as putting on a shirt while he was upset. So, little things. It was fun.

But, you can't just say things for the sake of saying things. Unless you want to use it as part of the story somehow and integrate it with everything else, leave it out.

Oh boy. You asked for it.

1. I can always tell when a story is made up as it goes or is carefully outlined. How? Because if a story has at least SOME structural foundation, it gets updated regularly, whereas a improvised story tends to fall on the wayside when a writer loses steam. ALWAYS OUTLINE EVERYTHING, EVEN IF CERTAIN IDEAS NEVER SHOW UP IN YOUR STORY OUTRIGHT. Yeah, you could just yank your story out of your buttcrack, but it's not going to be very good. Some people CAN pull this off, and pull it off well, but if you have no experience in writing, play it safe and plan first.

2. Internal consistency is the most important thing about writing. Bar none. If you've established certain rules in your story, you damn well better stick to those rules. There is a certain amount of reality that your story needs to adhere to. I'm not saying "reality" in the sense that it's based on what we know as reality. Any reality, in any context, has a set of unbreakable rules. For example, if your story features dinosaurs, that's cool. If you've established that you have dinosaurs from the beginning, have at it. But if it's chapter 20 and a tyranosaurus attacks your main characters camp, I'm going to call bullshit.

3. I'm sick of the pretty sequins-and-lace variety of fantasy I've been seeing around. Especially the stories that involve princesses, princes, or any other sort of person who, at worst, deals with drama or finds out their uncle is a goblin or something. Look. Let's be real here. Your Mary Stu exists in this cushy life only because the filthy, diseased, miserable proletariat outside haven't built a trebuchet and knocked the walls down, dragged the royalty out by their hair, and beheaded them. Have you ever read a history book? If someone lives a lavish life in a medieval/fantasy story, it's at the expense of people lower in the hierarchy. If you're not prepared to deal with the darker aspects of medieval fantasy, please don't write it.

StellaThomas wrote:I pushed hard at playing hockey and playing piano for years and I never excelled at either. There is an element of raw talent, X factor, to everything. Writing included.

Talent isn't a real thing you can quantify. Sure, there is a certain "aptitude" to learning something, but it's based on your willingness to learn and your ability to take in information.

Its all about practice. If you gave up on something, it's not because you weren't talented at it, it's because you set an arbitrary "good enough or not good enough" scale on yourself in relation to others.

I play guitar. I consider myself to be pretty good at it. I've been playing for 8 or 9 years. Am l talented? Gee, after all the time I've sunk into it, I friggin hope so! I didn't just pick up the guitar one day and start shredding.

Writing is the same way. It takes years of practice and you can become "talented," but at the end of the day it's about how much time you've logged, not about your supernatural X factor hooey.

@Snoink

But, you can't just say things for the sake of saying things. Unless you want to use it as part of the story somehow and integrate it with everything else, leave it out.

What plot reason does making your character straight, white, able bodied, neurotypical, or various other default serve?

What plot reason does making your character straight, white, able bodied, neurotypical, or various other default serve?

What exactly do you mean by that? Romeo was straight, white, able bodied, neurotypical, and overall an average dude, but I haven't heard much criticism about him being an uninteresting character. That said, there's not much description on how he actually looks. So I'm taking it that you're agreeing with Snoink's point that a boring/average description should be left out?

@Rosendorn, tagging you for above post ^^

beans wrote:

StellaThomas wrote:I pushed hard at playing hockey and playing piano for years and I never excelled at either. There is an element of raw talent, X factor, to everything. Writing included.

Talent isn't a real thing you can quantify. Sure, there is a certain "aptitude" to learning something, but it's based on your willingness to learn and your ability to take in information.

I got to disagree with you on that one. If what you say were the case, then it's just a matter of how much you practice. So as an example: everyone in my basketball team should be equally talented. We all spent the same amount of training. But there is no way that could ever get my eight grade friend to do half the stuff I did. Why? Because we have talents in different areas. He can practice twice as much as me at being a post player, but that doesn't mean he'll ever be able to do as well at that position as I can.