z

Young Writers Society


Choosing a Genre



User avatar



Gender: Male
Points: 690
Reviews: 2
Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:52 pm
Zeus99 says...



Hey, my name is Zeus99, and I've been writing for years now. It had always just been a hobby now, but now I want to get serious about it. I'm trying to write a novel, maybe even get published, but already my first problem came up. I can't decide what genre I want to write into. I enjoy reading plenty of different genres, but it's only making it harder to decide what I want to write about.

I like realistic fiction because of the its characters and the plot that can be easy to connect with, but the plots can sometimes be slower, and they lack the fast-paced action of dystopian novels. On the other hand, dystopian, with its plot just full of action and romance, has just become so cliche that it's plots have become so predictable.

My idea for the realistic fiction plot was this: Writing under a pseudonym, a 16-year-old runs a blog on a lot of the larger social issues. He has many supporters because of total honesty and the fact that he manages to write with minimal bias. However, his writing also creates many opponents because they are offended by it. He has received plenty of death threats, but so far no one knows his true identity. When he falls in love with a beautiful girl, he's faced with a difficult decision. She loves him back, but she deeply dislikes his writing - of course she doesn't know it's him. He has to choose whether to accept his writing identity, lose the girl, and just keep writing or whether he'll put his writing identity behind, denying the truth about his writing, but also getting the girl.

I still haven't come up with a lot for dystopian, but I think that dystopian tends to be easier to come up with ideas for.

I was also thinking of the possibility of mixing the two genres. How would I mix the two? I could create the lot in a dystopian world where it's easy for the reader to pick it out as one, but I could create characters who don't completely see the wrong in the society; they have conformed with the world already, and they're not faced with a revolution. Instead the characters would just be faced with some smaller problem that mainly affects them, not the entire society.

If you guys could help me decide, it would be tons of help and I would appreciate it a lot. Thanks! :D
  





User avatar
425 Reviews



Gender: Gendervague he/she/they
Points: 50
Reviews: 425
Thu Nov 26, 2015 1:10 am
View Likes
Vervain says...



Hey there!

First off, let me ask you a question: Why do you have to pick just one genre?

I'm asking this as someone who's working on a few projects at a time. One is speculative fiction set in the very distant future, but it's not quite sci-fi; one is fantasy set in an era similar to the late 1800s in Eurasia; one is sci-fi/fantasy set in a time period similar to our own; one is steampunk, something of a historical sci-fi/fantasy—I have a dozen more I could give you, each of them fitting into their genres (or super-genres) in their own way.

The point being, I generally don't pick one genre and stick to it. I like messing with genres and the tropes they provide, I like reading books in any number of genres, and I like toying with my own interpretations of the past and future.

So that's my first question to you: If you like reading plenty of different genres, why not try writing plenty of different genres? You don't get just one crack at writing a novel before you publish, so go at it with whatever you want.

Second: Who says that dystopian fiction is full of only action and romance? Dystopian fiction has as many layers of meaning as anything else; you create the plot to tell the story you want to tell. The plot isn't predetermined by the genre—one of the dystopian classics, 1984 by George Orwell, has romance in its plot but very little action, and relies more on showing the setting and the gradual self-liberation of the main character as a threat to the dystopian state.

While yes, there's often little more than action and romance in modern dystopian YA popular literature, especially in the wake of The Hunger Games, there's always something else to toy with in those layers of meaning. If you brush dystopian fiction off as being "only action and romance", you close a lot of doors, not only in your writing, but in your perception of what you read. If you buy into the idea that there is nothing but cliché in a genre, then you dismiss the ideas that genre may bring to you as a writer and a human being.

Third: Your realistic fiction plot. Let's start from the beginning.

"Larger social issues" - these vary from person to person. Some people believe that racism and sexism are really big deals; some people think that the larger social issues have to do with homophobia and the treatment of non-heterosexual people by heternormative society and media; some people think that animal rights is the largest social issue we should focus on. As a person, I'm not saying that any of these specifically are my views, or that any of them are wrong, but: People have different ideas of what's important.

What does your protagonist think is important? What does he think needs to be addressed in society? For that matter, what society does he live in? Different issues are more important in different places.

"Total honesty / minimal bias" - everyone has a bias. Everything you read, in books, on the internet, it all has a bias, typically towards itself and what it believes (unless you're reading satire). Every person you meet has a bias, because they all have personal beliefs.

If your character is running a social commentary blog on "larger social issues", then he has to have a bias—just from that, I can spot a bias towards activism and awareness, but depending on what issues he addresses, he would have a bias towards those issues and his views on said issues.

Not to mention, "total honesty" is often used as a buzzword by people who are espousing more bigoted views on the internet; "I'm just being honest" is used to wave away any offense taken or disapproval on the other side of the discussion. I would hesitate before using that phrase or its variations when describing your teenage social blogger, especially when the focus of your plot is that this girl dislikes his writing.

Speaking of that, why does she dislike his writing? Is it bigoted? Is it biased? Does she disagree with the conclusions he reaches on the social issues he addresses? Does she believe that he should be addressing other social issues instead? What is her sociopolitical background as compared to his, and why would they disagree except for the sake of cheap tension?

Moving on to the next series of questions, if it's a healthy relationship where they can overcome the differences in their beliefs, then why should he have to make a choice in the first place? If he's forced to choose between the girl and his writing, then that means the relationship isn't very healthy—she would be forcing him, or he would be forcing himself, to deny his own core values. That's not healthy romance, and to portray the choice as something he desires would have a seriously negative effect on audience perception of your main characters.

Why is the girl so important in the first place? I get being a teenager, feeling like the world is going to end after high school, and falling in love all at once. I have friends who got married right out of the gate when they graduated, because they had been together for years and they were really, genuinely in love, working through their problems and their differences in beliefs like mature people. But why is it so important to the story that your main character fall in love?

On that note, why is the girl treated like some sort of award that he can only "get" if he gives up his writing? Where do her beliefs and choices come into this? How do her personality and beliefs affect the plot? Does she think it's True Love that will last forever, like the main character obviously does if he thinks he has to make such a huge decision?

Okay, that's a lot of questions. While you mull over those, I'll move on.

On the note of dystopian plots being "easier": No, they aren't. Really, the plot to anything should be as complex or as simple as it needs to be. Just because some popular YA dystopian fiction seems to have a simple or "easy" plot doesn't mean that dystopian fiction as a genre is any easier or harder to write than any other genre.

You mentioned characters being faced with a plot that affects them instead of the whole of society. This is one of the tenets of dystopian literature, especially classic dystopian novels like 1984 (which I mentioned above, and I would recommend you read). Another dystopian novel that has a slightly larger but still character-centered plot is The Giver by Lois Lowry; there are any number of other dystopian fiction novels that you could read, and I recommend you devour them if you plan on writing anything dystopian. Like I mentioned before, there are a lot of layers of meaning in creating a world where all is not what it seems; you must create the utopia to create the dystopia.

It all really boils down to "know the genre you're writing". Be an avid reader, note things that you enjoy in books, note tropes and plot devices that you like or dislike. Write a lot, to get a feel for your own voice and style, and read a lot, to get a feel for other authors' voice, style, and how they do what they do. Ask yourself questions while you read something, about the plot and characters, and how you might have handled a situation if you were writing it. Then, you'll see how different authors can make the same plots go in wildly different directions.

There are no genres that are truly "easier" or "harder" than others, unless we start delving into academic nonfiction and heavy science fiction, and those have people behind them every step of the way, too. Ask yourself what you enjoy reading, and what you would enjoy writing. Ask yourself what stories you feel the absolute need to tell the world.

It's not simple. I wish I could give you a two-word answer, but these are some things you have to figure out for yourself.
stay off the faerie paths
  





User avatar



Gender: Male
Points: 690
Reviews: 2
Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:14 pm
Zeus99 says...



Hey Arkaion, thanks for the reply! You really took your time to respond to it.

Well to your first question about why I only want to write one genre is because I don't have that much time available to me. I've had multiple projects at one time, and I loved doing it, but that was when I had lots more free time on my hands. Right now I'm trying to juggle 6 AP classes. sports, family time, and spending time with friends; that really limits my time for writing to about thirty to sixty minutes a day, sometimes not even getting to write the entire week. As much as I would love to write all I could, I personally doubt I would be able to manage it.

And I loved your response to my issue about having to choose one genre. See, I have been doing research for weeks before I joined YWS trying to read on what's cool, what editors want, what agents want, not exactly to base my writing off it, but to see what sells (my biggest dream currently is to publish a book). Many sites had said that mixing genres isn't always the brightest, but I like your opinion. As long as a great story is created, with great writing behind it, what would stop it from possibly being published?

Next, I loved 1984, perhaps one of the very first dystopian novels out there, but very few dystopian novels followed in those footsteps. Today we get novels like Hunger Games, Divergent, and Legend (my personal favorite) but everyone just gets that sense that their plots are practical mirror images of each other, and although they're not all identical, the characters and the conflicts are all quite similar. But I figure now that perhaps you're right. I can find new ways to write with new material while staying in the general genre.

Now, about my realistic fiction idea, you were asking what I meant by larger social issues. By that I meant big events that most people would be aware about. For example, today the larger social issues would definitely be the cops and whether their actions could be considered racist or not and then the new ones about terrorism or events in the Middle East/Eastern Europe. Almost all Americans know something about these events and have their own opinions on them. Just think of it as perhaps Whitman's writing, or Emerson's or Thoreau's where they make their own commentary on the events they criticized or supported. Their writing was very popular but it also made them very unpopular with others. Whether they were right or not is also up for discussion, and that's kind of what I wanted to use in my realistic fiction novel. Perhaps the kid is wrong. Maybe he's right. But either way, he'll have a ton of opponents if he just flat out rights his own opinion on some blog.

But I would like to disagree with you in the fact about bias. I understand that it will always exist, and that's why I said "minimal bias." With "total honesty" I meant that he would flat out give his own opinion on the subject without changing anything or omitting anything just because it could offend someone.

As to the bias, I think it is possible to minimize it in a sense. Yes, his personal opinion could be considered a bias, but I like to consider biases the events in his life that actually affect that personal opinion. If he can separate himself from that, especially for younger people who haven't had as long to live (meaning that there is less to affect his/her opinion) and tend to be much more honest about their opinion, then their opinions would run less on their emotions and more on their intuition.

Now for example (And I don't mean to offend anyone with this next example, I'm just trying to illustrate an example), if you were to ask 100 Hispanics or Arabs living in the United States what they think about immigration in respect to the kind of citizens coming in from all over the world, then you would get two kinds of answers. 90 or more of them would probably say that immigration is not a problem, never has been, and that the people coming in are just looking for a new and better life. That is where there personal bias could come in. The few remaining, though, maybe four or five them, might put themselves apart from their own circumstances, setting themselves apart from the fact that they themselves are immigrants, and acknowledge that perhaps immigration is a problem with the new threats that come with immigration (I'm not saying this is my personal opinion, but there are thousands of answers that could be given to a single question)

I also see that I made my plot confusing. What I wanted to was to create a character who was two-faced. He was one person in person and another in writing. I wanted the conflict not to be about him and the girl but instead about acceptance of identity. He's set his writing identity apart from him (also setting himself apart from his true opinions) and the girl serves as the medium for the conflict. I wanted to use the girl because teen romance is seen quite often in many novels since it adds that romantic touch to the novel, and I totally understand that not all teenagers are really into the romance thing (I myself have never really been interested in relationships) but it also kind of illustrates the thinking of the youth. They think that everything is about being in the moment, and they never truly think about how their actions could effect the future. It helps demonstrate the main character's two-sidedness because he's very analytical in his writing, but he still thinks like any other teen in the importance of a relationship.

This girl he's attracted to constantly mentions how she completely disagrees with him (as in the commentary he makes in his writing), and she does so with like a hostile tone. It's not that she finds his writing biased or inherently bigoted, she just completely disagrees with the ideas. However, since the main character writes under a pseudonym, she doesn't know that he is actually the writer.

The conflict is more about social pressures and identity, kind of the same things The Scarlet Letter by Hawthorne talks about, but it does so in a more modern setting.

And I wasn't actually saying that dystopian is generally easier to write, but I just find it personally easier because of its generally fast-paced plot. Whenever I write Dystopian, the words just flow out, but I also enjoy writing in other genres. And you're right. I forgot about The Giver. It definitely doesn't have the action-packed plot, but it was an entertaining read.

As to which genre I enjoy reading most, I can't say because I truly love all of them. But I guess I could mix elements of any of them.

Now thinking about it, I think that all of this leads me to one conclusion. I shouldn't choose a single genre. Choosing a genre before-hand could actually be a bad thing. Instead, I should write the story I want it to be written, and then see which genres it fits into.

Anyways, thanks Arkhaion for your response. It really gave me a lot to think about.
  





User avatar
1162 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 32055
Reviews: 1162
Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:57 pm
View Likes
Carlito says...



If you're looking to be published, YA dystopia is extremely hard to sell right now. I follow a lot of YA agents and I've been hearing this theme for a while now. The market is very saturated right now with all of the big, successful dystopias that have been coming out for the last five/ten years. And agents are much less keen on signing debut authors with dystopias.

Now, that doesn't mean you shouldn't write a dystopia. By the time you write the novel and edit and polish it to the degree needed to attract an agent, the market will be different and dystopia might be "in" again. It's definitely a good idea to be aware of the market, but don't write to the market because by the time your novel is ready, the market will be different.

I feel your pain with having more than one idea and only really being able to focus on one at a time. I tend to write YA contemporary and YA contemporary romance, but I have more ideas and projects than I can name swimming around in my head. When I have competing ideas, the way I choose which one to start with is pretty simple: which one do I have to write right now. This usually comes down to which idea is more developed, which characters are speaking to me more, which story is pulling me in more, etc. Sometimes I have to write a few chapters of each novel to figure this out and sometimes it takes months to decide, but ultimately one comes out as the clear "winner" in my mind.

The way you described them, the realistic fiction seems like the one you care about more, but I'm not you so I don't know. Remember, whichever one you pick, that doesn't mean you can't write the other one once you're done with the first. You'll need some time to let the novel sit before you can edit, and you can write the other novel during that time.

Best of luck!
It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.

Ask a Therapist!
I want to beta read your novel!


Ask me anything. Talk to me about anything. Seriously. My PM box is always open <3
  





User avatar
1272 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 89625
Reviews: 1272
Thu Nov 26, 2015 9:05 pm
View Likes
Rosendorn says...



"Multiple genres" does not mean "multiple projects". I believe Ark meant using multiple genres within a single work, which is more than possible and actually encouraged in the writing world, because it makes pieces more unique.

Genre mixing is not "bad". It produces good quality writing. Even so-called solid genre pieces have elements of others in them— that's what makes them so good. Even if you appear to be in a single genre, if you don't pull from other genres then you end up with a piece every single editor has seen before. You don't want to be so formulaic that you end up becoming so average you have no hope of being published.

"Great writing" is a very tricky concept. For a few reasons:

1- "Great" is subjective. What one person considers brilliant the next will hate. Google "famous author rejections" and find editors telling J.K. Rowling that her books would never be a success.

2- Great writers never started off with the goal of doing great writing. They wrote stories for the sake of writing stories. They wrote stories for money. Shakespeare, Dickens, Stan Lee— take your pick of famous writers and find out they wrote to pay off debts or just to make their living. They were writing stories they wanted to hear, or they were interested in. They had no dreams of being famous. That's one of the reasons they are so good.

3- Those that actually try to do "great writing" end up being in such a niche genre that they are forgotten. They have no mass market appeal. Because, the hard truth? Classics got to be classics because they were popular. The meaning and nuance was added later. They might've been part of the artist's intent, might not've been, but the point is— their goal was simply to tell an interesting story people would like. Sometimes they hated it (see Stephen King's Carrie— he hates it and finds it utterly terrible as a novel).

As for bias...

Even "minimal bias" is impossible. Admit that: it's impossible. While, yes, you can present all the facts, there are always going to be biases in how you present them. For example in your own post you are of the bias that "giving his own opinion" and "minimal bias" can coexist in the same realm, when opinion is by its nature biased. So if he's giving his opinion, he's giving his 100% bias. That's the bottom line.

Even if he were simply giving facts, the way you present those facts reveal bias. Take a look at books like Blur and understand the principles of "spin." Advertising and public relations is full out it— you can give people all the facts, absolutely all of them, but still bias yourself one way or another. It's basically automatic when you present opinion. You want to persuade people to your side, you want to have others who believe you, so of course you'll bias the facts.

"Minimal bias" is an illusion, and the logic of "they're younger therefore they're less biased" is actually the opposite of how it works. Younger people are more subject to the biases of their parents, because they lack the life experience to know there are as many biases as there are in existence. Yes, older individuals can be very stuck in their ways, but if you're looking at the difference between a 16 year old actively looking for multiple viewpoints and a 24 year old actively looking for multiple viewpoints— the 24 year old will win in terms of how much they know and how they can present facts.

Also, Ark's points about how "total honesty" can be abusive or malicious still stand. You have set yourself up for a character who tries to hide any potentially hurtful opinions under "this is just what I think" which is exactly the problem Ark (and now myself) are discussing. "Offence" is not a political buzzword for overly-coddled people. Offence is a very real thing— if you give a sexist opinion (such as "women can't drive") and people get offended, but you justify it by "I'm being honest", you are still being offensive and are not absolved from criticism. This is exactly what Ark was talking about. You have not addressed their point at all, or eased either of our misgivings.

Onto the rest of your explanation of the idea.

Ark's points about the two faced character and why does he have to give it up for love remain. The conflict is something that can be accomplished with anything, from a family member or a classmate. Heck, it can even be accomplished by a school assignment that threatens to reveal his identity.

I would like to point out you have turned this girl into an object instead of a character. She is replaceable. She is an accessory to the guy's life, without her own conflicts. She solely exists to drive the MC's character arc, which is a terrible reason to include a character. If you don't flesh her out arc, giving her a life of her own, then you'll end up with an unrealistic, navel-gazing plot that is extremely boring to read.

Unless you actually treat each person in this guy's life as a person instead of a symbol/accessory to his character development, you'll end up with a weak plot. Characters are not accessories to the main character. They are their own people with their own lives as rich as the main character and you have to give secondary characters that respect to get good writing.

(Yes, some writing is better than others. However, I'm not measuring it on any sense of technical skill or development, which is what I was speaking about when I said "Great writing is a tricky concept". I am measuring it on how it reflects reality, which is a much more measurable concept than skill)

Onto your claims about dystopia. I'm going to discuss the sociological role of the genre, along with sci fi and horror.

These genres are extraordinarily political just by existing. They tell us what we believe about the future, what we see as threats, and what we find scary. Analyze The Hunger Games and find a story about the evils of capitalism, where the wealthy elite force the masses to compete for resources they shouldn't have to compete for, but are told they "have to" because— why? Well it's because the wealthy have taken it all but don't reveal just how easily it can be spread around.

Analyze Lovecraft and find he was racist, making such obvious comparisons between non-white people and evil that it's transparent.

Analyze Matched and you find it's about the power of suggestion, about how people obey authority regardless.

Look at old school sci fi and see it speaks of a bright, promising future that reflects how many baby boomers at the time had life handed to them on a silver platter, and that was the general cultural narrative. Look at sci fi now and notice how the future is bleak, reflecting Millennials growing up in a time of economic uncertainty, huge debt loads, and a mental illness epidemic because of both high expectations, low margins of error, and extraordinary few opportunities.

Dystopia has indeed followed in 1984's footsteps. No, they're not written as obvious thought pieces, but they are still thought pieces. They still reflect a deep nerve in the public consciousness. In a sense, 1984 was simply riding on the wave of fear after WWII— how is that any different from riding on a wave of fear about the Great Recession and Occupy Wall Street?

Stories do not exist in a vacuum. They all reflect society, and they all have a certain level of depth.

They all have a deep seeded bias about what the author considers good and evil, what society considers good and evil, and what the interpreted challenges of the world are today.

That doesn't make them bad or fluff. Those are the very factors that make them popular.

So if you're really trying to get published, really wanting to be a so-called "great" writer (which, might I add, you shouldn't be, because as I mentioned great writing is impossible to achieve and the most successful writers are simply writing for the sake of story, not for the sake of fame)— why fight that?

Find your biases, find what biases you want to showcase, and use them. Find the nerve you want to tap into and run with it.

That's all classics did. Found the right nerve and became popular.
A writer is a world trapped in a person— Victor Hugo

Ink is blood. Paper is bandages. The wounded press books to their heart to know they're not alone.
  





User avatar
14 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 1640
Reviews: 14
Fri Nov 27, 2015 4:18 am
View Likes
Senmaster says...



Hi this is Senmaster. I'm new to the site but I hope my advice still helps.

I would have to agree with the others in what they say. They have really good advice.

I would like to add to that by saying that genres almost don't matter when writing. I think that you should focus more on the idea. Don't use up all your effort trying to just decide what genre you want to write in. The plot itself is more important than the genre. Spend more time developing the plot, the characters, and the setting. I would even advise you to take a notebook and completely describe everything you want in your character and the world he/she lives in. Develop the relationships he/she has with other characters.

An important aspect of writing is to also be one with your character. You must understand how your character will act in every situation. Understand how they think, they speak, they feel. Trust me, when you do this, you can see it in the writing.

And I completely agree with Rosendorn. Many people will look for the symbols and importance in writing, but often times they find themes and symbols that the authors never intended to implement within the novel. Look at Mark Twain. He wrote great novels that became classics, but he clearly specified that his works had no meaning. No one ever knows which novels will be "great" or will become a "classic." They just do. Don't focus on themes or symbols. Focus on the story.

You could use an idea as a center for the novel, like Rosendorn said, but just remember that it's not necessary. Just think of a story you would love to read and it's your job to write it. That's your goal. I like to think of novels like songs. I personally like songs with stories, not the kind where the repeat the same words over and over again. When I write, I want to have a great story to tell, but you want to do it in a way that's entertaining and that makes the reader want to read it over and over again.

I would also like to add that you shouldn't write a novel in the way a movie script would be made. What I mean by that is that there have been many writers who just want their novel to become a movie. They add all the thematic elements to it, but it just takes away from the novel.

Whether it's realistic or not, which I see seems to be one of the things that you struggle with Zeus99, I don't think it should be a problem you should worry about. All readers want is a good story. If you have an idea, and you like it but you're just worried that the characters are not relatable and same with the conflict, put it aside. Sure, the characters may be in a complex society that doesn't resemble our own, but that's what novels are all about. It's about using your imagination and an entertaining story.

Your idea for the realistic fiction could be a good one if you change a few things. I'd agree with Rosenborn that your female character seems like she could be an obnoxious character who wouldn't be very well developed. I think that you could make the plot stronger in other ways. Perhaps, instead of the plot focused around this one girl, you could make it much more interesting and entertaining if someone did find out his true identity and threatens to kill him if he continues writing. It's just an idea.

But then there's still another problem. We still have the bias issue. You need to realize that unless it's a fact, it's an opinion, and every opinion is biased. Read a history book, check out a blog, watch the news. They all use facts but they still give a biased opinions on everything. But look, it doesn't mean that you have to scrap your entire idea. His writing can still be controversial, you just can't necessarily say that he is all-knowing and unbiased.

I really hope this helps even a little.
  





User avatar



Gender: Male
Points: 690
Reviews: 2
Fri Nov 27, 2015 4:26 am
View Likes
Zeus99 says...



Well, I'd like to thank you all for your honest opinions. I guess I was kind of connected to this one idea, but I'll definitely think about everything you guys said. You guys are right in so many different aspects, and I'll definitely consider all your advice.
  





User avatar
1272 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 89625
Reviews: 1272
Fri Nov 27, 2015 5:50 pm
View Likes
Rosendorn says...



You can still be connected to an idea and keep the general principle even if you make these modifications.

The general idea— popular blogger gives controversial opinions and is targeted for them, nobody knows his identity, and something forces him to recognize his dual nature— is pretty solid. We were commenting on how you were approaching it, and some factual inaccuracies within the premise.

That's what happens when you start exploring ideas, and it's why you put them out for critique in the first place. You find out if the execution/potential execution is any good. You get told some of the execution isn't as good as it could be. That doesn't make the idea bad— start boiling down each super popular series and you realize just how boring ideas sound— it just means you have to approach how you do it differently.

That's also why you critique ideas yourself. The more you review— thoroughly, with an eye for what works for you and doesn't, along with how it could potentially be improved— you develop your own sense of what you like and what you don't. You end up becoming a better writer because the more aware you become, the better your drafts and the less you rewrite.

So if you're looking to really improve your craft: review. Don't just sit in a glass tower and study what makes a good book or not. Review. Read. Improve your reviewing skills. Read other reviews. Keep reviewing and keep challenging yourself. After awhile, you'll notice your writing improves, as well. You'll notice your edits are more efficient.

If you want to improve, review. Then take the lessons you learned and write. Review a ton more. Get authors who push back and explain themselves, then say where they fall flat and help them not fall flat anymore. Follow edits. Keep trying to pick out stuff that could be improved, while also keeping in mind the author's style and how they could do things, instead of just assuming everyone writes like yourself.

But most importantly: don't ever stop working.
A writer is a world trapped in a person— Victor Hugo

Ink is blood. Paper is bandages. The wounded press books to their heart to know they're not alone.
  





User avatar



Gender: Male
Points: 690
Reviews: 2
Fri Nov 27, 2015 7:13 pm
Zeus99 says...



Thanks Rosendorn. You really helped a ton. I think I'll stick to my original idea and just make some changes to improve it. You guys all helped a ton. I'll definitely read other works, review them, and hope to learn things for myself as well. All your advice really helped and I'm glad I posted the question.

Thanks to everyone
  





User avatar
1220 Reviews



Gender: None specified
Points: 72525
Reviews: 1220
Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:38 pm
View Likes
Kale says...



I'd just like to drop in the side note that genres are more a marketing thing than a writing thing. Genres are just groupings of stories that share common traits with each other, so realistically, any story you write will belong to at least one genre: it's just a matter of playing up which genre will sell better, which matters after you have a manuscript you're trying to sell.

You still need to write and refine that manuscript first, and a lot of issues can only be seen once there's a complete draft.

Now that you've had some of the possible problematic aspects of the ideas pointed out, I'd recommend focusing on writing the first draft. It will suck and have tons of problems, but having that draft (and all the successive ones) will make it easier to see what problems are actually problems as well as spotting problems that weren't foreseen.

There's a whole lot of rewriting and rethinking ahead, so you'll need to get to it with your limited time to write. ;P
Secretly a Kyllorac, sometimes a Murtle.
There are no chickens in Hyrule.
Princessence: A LMS Project
WRFF | KotGR
  





User avatar
1272 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 89625
Reviews: 1272
Sat Nov 28, 2015 6:31 pm
Rosendorn says...



Kyll's point reminded me— genres are such a marketing tactic that sometimes the blurb does not actually reflect the contents of the book. The Raven Boys by Maggie Stiefvater is marketed as paranormal romance, but it contains next to no romance and the plot is much more friendship/action plot. The next book in the series cuts out all mention of romance in the blurb and actually reflects the contents/tone, which is a carry through from the previous book. (It's a really good series if you want a complex story that reflects a ton about humanity)

However, they are considered "girl books" and, as a result, are pitched as supernatural romance because that's what the marketing department thinks sells to girls. The author loathes the blurb for Raven Boys and freely talks about the fact it was written as a sales pitch (along with how she highly dislikes the gender divide in marketing, but that's another issue). She's provided a few rewrites on her blog for what it's actually about, followed by "they wouldn't let me write it." (Which is true for blurbs and covers— you don't write or design your own if you traditionally publish, and this is usually a good thing; sales writing is a totally different beast than novel writing)

Which is, again, saying "just write and worry about this stuff later." Most of it in the actual publishing world is out of your hands, anyway, and as Kyll said you don't need to worry about it until querying.
A writer is a world trapped in a person— Victor Hugo

Ink is blood. Paper is bandages. The wounded press books to their heart to know they're not alone.
  








we went from advice to meth real quick
— ShadowVyper