He's A Big Baby Who Needs Constant Snuggles

HA I just got a super positive rejection! I’ll put it under the cut (because it might get long), but this is genuinely helpful writing advice

Keep reading

i love characters who are always like fear not, i shall take care of this problem for you….. by sacrificing myself!! and everyone else is like i swear to god if you pull this shit again i’ll kill you

Encouragment for writers that I know seems discouraging at first but I promise it’s motivational-

• Those emotional scenes you’ve planned will never be as good on page as they are in your head. To YOU. Your audience, however, is eating it up. Just because you can’t articulate the emotion of a scene to your satisfaction doesn’t mean it’s not impacting the reader. 

• Sometimes a sentence, a paragraph, or even a whole scene will not be salvagable. Either it wasn’t necessary to the story to begin with, or you can put it to the side and re-write it later, but for now it’s gotta go. It doesn’t make you a bad writer to have to trim, it makes you a good writer to know to trim.

• There are several stories just like yours. And that’s okay, there’s no story in existence of completely original concepts. What makes your story “original” is that it’s yours. No one else can write your story the way you can.

• You have writing weaknesses. Everyone does. But don’t accept your writing weaknesses as unchanging facts about yourself. Don’t be content with being crap at description, dialogue, world building, etc. Writers that are comfortable being crap at things won’t improve, and that’s not you. It’s going to burn, but work that muscle. I promise you’ll like the outcome.

okay sorry, one other thing annoyed me about that writing class. one of the students is this super clean-cut doctor who works at an HIV clinic, and he asked the prof "do you ever get distracted while reading books, because you find yourself analyzing the craft of them instead of sinking into the story?"

and she said "no," and turned away. and the whole class laughed awkwardly, bc it was a pretty abrupt and dismissive answer. so then she turned back to him and said "you wouldn't ask a musician if they get distracted listening to songs. they just enjoy the music."

but I dunno, I'm a newbie writer with only one (scheduled-to-be-published) book under my belt, but I get distracted sometimes when I'm reading. if I find I'm not sinking into a block of text, I'll squint at it and be like "okay, they're using too much passive voice, that's why my brain isn't grabbing on to it." so I'm sorry Mr. HIV doctor, I thought your question was reasonable!

Putting books on hold at the library has the same thrill of ordering books online, but with the added benefit of not losing any money over titles I might not enjoy.

10/10 would recommend.

Also. ALSO.

Plot…and action…are DIFFERENT THINGS. 

I’m making up assignments from when I was woefully ill a few weeks ago, and that was a week of amazing readings, one of which laid out this very thing. Actions are the concrete events that happen, while plot is the non-concrete, the thematic - what changes. You can explain the plot of a story without even touching on the individual actions within it.

Actions: John Watson awakes from nightmares of the war to a small, bleak rental room. His therapist presses on what he’s written on his blog, and he says nothing interesting ever happens to him. John meets an old friend in the park, his friend takes him to the lab at St. Barts where he introduces him to Sherlock Holmes, a genius who needs a roommate. When John goes to see the flat, Sherlock takes him along to a crime scene to which he’s been summoned by the Met. Blah blah blah etcetera, John figures out who the killer is just in time and races to the scene, shooting the cabbie before Sherlock can take the potentially poisoned pill. They walk off together, talking about dinner.

Plot: Veteran John Watson is struggling to adjust to civilian life until he meets Sherlock Holmes, the world’s only consulting detective, who offers him reason to live - the war against crime being waged on London’s streets - and a friendship that will define them both. 

The first is a point by point description of what happens; the second is the heart of the story - why what happens matters - and it’s a bit more wibbly wobbly and open to interpretation. A good fic summary, story pitch, movie review, etc. focuses mainly, if not entirely, on the plot and not the actions.

I was talking about this with a writer-friend, and we sat in her parked car for like five minutes miming head explosions at each other and going, “HOLY CRAP. THEY’RE DIFFERENT” and “I KNOW, RIGHT?” and “I NEVER THOUGH ABOUT IT BEFORE” and “I KNOW, RIGHT.”  So, yeah. Actions and plot. Different things. I’m going to want to kiss that essay on its stupid essay face the next time I’m writing a plot summary.

Anyway if you see this you have to reblog and tag with a delight from ur day -- even the littlest thing counts

alright, I’m annoyed with the class that I’m taking. it’s about writing novels, and I thought it would have cool stuff about balancing your narrative and developing themes etc, but instead she spent the first class talking about how every book fits into the Hero’s Journey (the monomyth template). and I was somewhat of a contrarian, and said “can you give us examples of books that don’t fit into this template?” and she said “no. because all books fit.”

but I dunno man, I just finished reading this Korean book where the plot is just the character having a string of hookups and reflecting on them without changing in any way. I don’t know if it’s possible to contort that into the Hero’s Journey.

A goblin and an elf have decided to defy tradition and get married. Their ceremony will be held in the magical forest in accordance with elven tradition.

Discussions of what "counts" as "canon" queer representation fall apart the second you start talking about media older than about five years or so. If your only metric for "canon queerness" is a character looking directly into the camera and explaining their identity in specific, modern, US-American-English terminology, you're not going to get a good picture of what queer media looks like. If your barometer for what counts as "canon" requires two characters of the same gender to kiss on-screen, you're not going to get a good picture of what queer media looks like.

Dr. Septimus Pretorius (portrayed by Ernest Thesiger in 1935's Bride of Frankenstein) was never going to look directly into the camera and explain his sexuality in 2024 terms, but he remains an icon in queer media history. You cannot look at that character (blatantly queer-coded in the manner of the time, played by a queer man in a film directed by another queer man) and tell me that he isn't a part of queer media history.

To be honest, even when discussing modern queer media, I would argue that the popular idea of what "counts" as "canon" is very narrow and flawed. I've seen multiple posts in the past few days that say the Nimona movie is "implied" trans representation, and I just...no, y'all, it's not "implied," it's an allegory. The entire damn movie is about transgender struggle, and the original comic is deeply tied into N.D. Stevenson's own queer journey. It isn't subtle. You cannot look at that movie and pretend that it isn't about trans struggle. It's blatant, and to say that Nimona "isn't canonically trans" is a take that misses the story's entire message, and the blatant queerphobia that almost kept the movie from happening. (I wrote a five thousand word essay about the topic.)

Queer themes, queer coding, queer exploration, and queer representation can all exist in a piece of media that doesn't seem to have "canon queer characters" on the surface. Most queer characters are never going to be able to explicitly state their specific identity labels, be it due to censorship or just due to the fact that scenes like that don't fit in some narratives. Some stories aren't conducive to a big "so what's your identity?" scene.

Explicit, undeniable, "this is my identity in no uncertain terms" scenes are very important and radical, and I'm not saying they shouldn't ever exist. I am saying that you can't consider those scenes the only way for queerness in a piece of media to be "canon."