Writing Advice Thread

Here are some practices you can start immediately if you want to learn to be a good writer. I’ve collected these ideas from good writers, some here might say they are pleb-tier or middlebrow, but I think these types are actually easier to learn from because of someone is too good it’s like they are magic, you can’t really learn from them you’re just in awe of them. These are the things that I have learned and tried to implement myself. I’d like to hear your thoughts and what has worked for you.

1. read a short story every night, Ray Bradbury used to do this. One of my writing mentors told me it takes reading 1000 great short stories before you can write one good one yourself, because you really have to finely tune your brain so that you don’t think cliche, shit stuff is actually good. This is why people think stuff like “Ready Player One” is good, because they’ve never even read a good book, or they jumped straight into the deep end and tried something way too complicated and hated it
2. Write one short story every week for a year, Bradbury gave this advice and said it’s basically inevitable that you will come up with something good by the end, I think some writing lessons you just have to learn by trying to write and making mistakes, I’ve read a ton of classics but even looking at my fiction from a year ago when I really started writing in earnest, I am in shock at how bad I was and the stupid stuff I did
3. Don’t just read good fiction, copy it yourself. Hunter S. Thompson used to copy out The Great Gatsby on his typewriter so that he could feel the rhythm of what good prose felt like. A contemporary writer I like who writes literary fiction, Donald Ray Pollock, would copy by hand a short story or a chapter of a novel every week (Cormac McCarthy being one author he learned from) for similar reasons. This is also a way of reading that is even more engaging to your mind, not only are you looking at text, you are creating it as well. It’s like another level of subconsciously training.
4. be patient, if you write a story and think it’s good, and then come later and think it’s shit, realize that it is part of the process. Make it your goal to produce 10 drafts before you even start thinking about calling it a complete work. Even James Joyce wrote every single day for years on end and only produced 1 short story collection, 3 novels, 1 play, and some much less praised poems. That’s not very much, you can’t even imagine what unique and interesting work you might produce if you persevered like Joyce. It is a war of attrition people.

Attached: 855890E1-723F-4AFF-AE57-3C78FB18B064.jpg (294x475, 63K)

Cont.

5. write on a schedule to avoid burnout. Hemingway would always stop for the day while he still knew what was coming next, so that he wouldn’t feel as intimidated when he returned the next day. He would write about 500 words and then quit. Over a years time that would be about the length of a 400-500 page novel give or take, that’s plenty of material to work with. It’s better to write everyday than worry for weeks and then pop off 3k words in a day (what I used to do). Henry Miller said, “Work according to program and not according to mood. Stop at the appointed time!” and I think this reflects the same principle, if you write till you drop, you won’t want to get back to work on your writing everyday, you’ll avoid it. Paul Auster said a good day for him was writing one page of good prose, 2 if he was really on a roll, and snybmore than that and the quality seemed to drop. John Steinbeck (Who, for a pretty literary writer, was quite prolific) said, “Abandon the idea that you are ever going to finish. Lose track of the 400 pages and write just one page for each day.” Just stick to the schedule and save a bit so you have ammunition for next time you sit down to write.

>because you really have to finely tune your brain so that you don’t think cliche, shit stuff is actually good.

stopped reading there

I wish there were more threads like this OP. Bless you.

Here are somethings I've been toying with, a mix of exercises and techniques.

1. For plotting, sometimes you might come up with an ending first. You can then work backward, basically asking yourself what causes/conditions you would need to immediately and irreversibly effect the ending. You work step by step backward, asking the same question, until you hit a point which can serve as the beginning.

2. For training dialogue you can use something similar to the Franklin method. Copy down some dialogue you like (old screenplays are a decent source). Write down a paragraph describing the set up of the scene and the character's motivations. Put aside for a few days. Then try to recreate the dialogue from set up and motivations. Compare with source to see where you went wrong. Repeat.

3. For books you've already read, trying reading them backwards and paying attention to the structure.

4. Keep a log dialogue or bits of prose or ideas that you come up with, you can peruse them when you're stuck. Likewise a log of prose you like from other authors for inspiration. (using the export feature in google play books is a godsend for this)

5. Take short naps while you write, 20-25 minutes. Coen brothers apparently do this religiously.

Explain?

Quality thread, keep it coming.

>Keep a log dialogue or bits of prose or ideas that you come up with, you can peruse them when you're stuck. Likewise a log of prose you like from other authors for inspiration. (using the export feature in google play books is a godsend for this)

I like this, I used to copy out sentences I like from books onto little scraps of paper I would keep in my wallet, when that got to be a mess I got a notebook and recouped them on some nice lines paper and sometimes I will just read through a couple pages every so often.

never been published, still in uni and write infrequently.. r8 my practice (student specific?)

1. keep a notebook with you at all times and/or a dedicated writing notes folder on your phone. when an idea flashes across your mind, be it a story idea, a haiku or a string of words you like, write it down. I often go back and develop on these ideas when I have some time to write but dont have anything in mind.

2. Similarly, Keep a book in your bag and/or books on your phone. Maybe you only get through half a page on a short bus ride, but that's better than nothing.

3. Take care of yourself and strive to make writing a disciplined practice, not an overwhelming obsession. You will become a better writer simply by becoming a better you, so watch your substance intake, care for your mental health, surround yourself with people who care about you, exercise, get outdoors, get enough rest, etc.

best wishes user, I look forward to reading your work some day.

>Want to write good dialogue but im autistic and don't understand normal conversation
help

Attached: CknZvXdXAAAimPy.jpg (1022x477, 83K)

Bump

>giving advice on writing if you aren't a published or lauded writer

Why do people do this? How can I trust any of the advice here if none of you have any credentials? Are you that arrogant to think you actually have advice people can use despite being writing amateurs?

Best advice- don't listen to fucking advice from losers on Yea Forums, read Paris Review interviews or biographies of writers, write shit whatever your own way.

Normal conversation is boring. It should be understandable, yet compelling. Not mundane for the sake of relatability. It should always show character, crystal-clear defined.

>I literally can't read

Attached: 1549558332841.png (645x729, 107K)

Anyone have any recommend books about writing? Been reading through a whole bunch. Dave King's Self-Editing for Fiction Writers was probably one of the better ones. Sol Stein was decent too.

Attached: 1548792298207.png (1755x2283, 2.25M)

Even if you reference a few habits from other authors, it still completely ignores the fact that every author has habits based on their own personality and it works differently for everyone-
other than obvious common sense stuff like read a lot and write a lot. Thus you need to know the context of how their mind and life clicks for it to make sense. These tips are no different than the shit you see on clickbait sites like brain pickings. It is either dead obvious advice or it gives random habits that may or may not apply to different people.

And so far no one has actually talked about the meats and bolts of narratives and prose with concrete analysis- the stuff that is actuay at the core of how to be a good writer. Its like an art teacher spending all his time talking about what cushion to use when drawing, rather than going into details about colour theory or anatomy. Threads like this are of less utility than crit threads or threads that actually analyze the specific word choices and narrative structures of good works and go deep into specific texts.

not him but kill yourself. this brand of cinicism is overused and cringe.

your like, expecting us to come and say "based and redpilled, op btfo" when we be like lmaaao what a nerd

a woman made this

probably. i don't get why women get so butthurt about men being "sexist". like, sweetie, if you were the superior sex, you'd make fun of males. girls make fun of virgins and low status males all the time. it's just human nature, to step on those below us

Nope. I just want people to stop wasting time. Do you really want a thread full of vague ambiguous general advice and habits like "write consistently everyday" and ?

And stop seeing everything as this immaturish "btfo" shit. Not everything is about bullshit social currency.

If you guys wish, I can torrent Neil Gaimans's masterclass. It's comfy, but nothing groundbreaking.

Another thing: download/buy a website and app blocker. I use Cold Turkey and it's great.

I haven't even read the thread but yes, i'd easily take that over some cynical faggot pretending to be the higher intellect around. "i just want people to stop wasting time" Kill yourself, my man.
>And stop seeing everything as this immaturish "btfo" shit. Not everything is about bullshit social currency.
You are on a social media website, even if a distorted one. Whether you'll want to acknowledge that or not, everything you do here is for social currency.

Here it is. I'll probably leave it up for the next 48 hours or so.

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:5b825da00cad1872d0ed716eb063e286b7758131&dn=Neil%20Gaiman%20Teaches%20The%20Art%20Of%20Storytelling

Attached: neil_gaiman_masterclass-compressor.jpg (600x483, 38K)

I'm looking for something on analyzing prose, like a book or a course in which they analyze authors and how they achieved their prose, tone, imagery and things like that.

He was right and youre both retarded

I am right and you are all retards.

That’s why I tried to give examples from other writers

>I'd easily take that about some cynical faggot...

The point is that there isn't anything to take. How are you going to apply the previous user's brilliant advice of "dialogue should always show character, crystal-clear defined"? And do you need someone to tell you to "watch your substance intake, care for your mental health, surround yourself with people who care about you, exercise, get outdoors, get enough rest, etc..." ?

I wish I even had some target to be skeptical or cynical about.

Thanks man, to return the favour here's a series of really good classiscs lecture, I've been seeding this one for a couple of months because of how good I think it is:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:782F5C3D44DBB8860426D53A7652B112211B32BF&dn=History%20of%20World%20Literature

You're the reason why they only hire dumb anglo cucks in english schools

Since you mentioned Ready Player One, lets get into the nuts and bolts then:

"I never blamed my mom for the way things were. She was a victim of fate and cruel circumstance, like everyone else. Her generation had it the hardest. She’d been born into a world of plenty, then had to watch it all slowly vanish. More than anything, I remember feeling sorry for her. She was depressed all the time, and taking drugs seemed to be the only thing she truly enjoyed. Of course, they were what eventually killed her. When I was eleven years old, she shot a bad batch of something into her arm and died on our ratty fold-out sofa bed while listening to music on an old mp3 player I’d repaired and given to her the previous Christmas"

That is from RP1 and this is from Bradbury's The April Witch

"Into the air, over the valleys, under the stars, above a river, a pond, a road, flew Cecy. Invisible as new spring winds, fresh as the breath of clover rising from twilight fields, she flew. She soared in doves as soft as white ermine, stopped in trees and lived in blossoms, showering away in petals when the breeze blew. She perched in a limegreen frog, cool as mint by a shining pool. She trotted in a brambly dog and barked to hear echoes from the sides of distant barns. She lived in new April grasses, in sweet clear liquids rising from the musky earth.

It's spring, thought Cecy. I'll be in every living thing in the world tonight."

So why do you think the former is cliche shit stuff, and what do you think of the latter?

Come on, are those even comparable?

Wasn't asking you to compare. I was asking what you think. I think hearing how someone justifies minute lexical choices, and elucidates creative decisions specifically is way more informative than listing plain advice.

Incideny I think the RP1 excerpt is definitely cliched because of stuff like "victim of fate and cruel circumstance" and "her generatiom had it the hardest". These are stereotypical descriptions of poverty. The last detail of the mother dying while listening to an mp3 player gifted by the son is the most interesting detail which may be utilized more poetically and less melodramatically in better hands.

Bradbury's prose is superior, but he does has some cliched images in here.

RP1 basically uses no descriptive, emotive, or allusive language until the last sentence of the quote. It gives you what you should take away from the passage instead of letting you do that yourself, he didn’t blame is mother, she was poor and her generation had it hard, he felt sorry for her, she was depressed, she only enjoyed taking drugs.

Bradbury doesn’t say what to take away like that, he throws sights and senses at you right off the bat, and expresses how quickly everything is passing the character, he doesn’t say “she loved to fly,” he says she was as fresh as the breath of clover rising from twilight fields, “she perched, she trotted, she lived” it’s playful language. RP1 doesn’t do that, it delivers the emotions and things you are supposed to take away prepackaged. If you say, “he was depressed” I can’t feel the characters depression, and it also doesn’t show any understanding of what it feels like or looks like to be depressed.

That’s what I notice right away.

So you said that RP1 is bad because, basically, it tells and not shows?

Then what do you think of this part from Chekhov's Lady and the Dog?

"He was under forty, but he had a daughter already twelve years old, and two sons at school. He had been married young, when he was a student in his second year, and by now his wife seemed half as old again as he. She was a tall, erect woman with dark eyebrows, staid and dignified, and, as she said of herself, intellectual. She read a great deal, used phonetic spelling, called her husband, not Dmitri, but Dimitri, and he secretly considered her unintelligent, narrow, inelegant, was afraid of her, and did not like to be at home. He had begun being unfaithful to her long ago — had been unfaithful to her often, and, probably on that account, almost always spoke ill of women, and when they were talked about in his presence, used to call them “the lower race.”

It seemed to him that he had been so schooled by bitter experience that he might call them what he liked, and yet he could not get on for two days together without “the lower race.” In the society of men he was bored and not himself, with them he was cold and uncommunicative; but when he was in the company of women he felt free, and knew what to say to them and how to behave; and he was at ease with them even when he was silent. In his appearance, in his character, in his whole nature, there was something attractive and elusive which allured women and disposed them in his favour; he knew that, and some force seemed to draw him, too, to them."

Chekhov only describes the wife. But he tells you everything about the protagonist up front. Is this then bad writing too?

I think Chekov’s talent in “Lady with the Dog” becomes more evident as the story goes on, but even there I see him telling things that are not cliche, and showing details that create an image, in a different way than the RP1 quote. He doesn’t say “his wife was a plain but not ugly woman, who thought a bit too much of herself and lacked a feminine charm,” instead he uses unfeminine characteristics to try to show why the main character has fallen out of love, she is tall and has dark eyebrows, she was staid and dignified, she read a lot and did pedantic things for the sake of making herself appear intelligent like pronouncing her husband’s name Dimitri. I think for the sake of speed he “tells” the things that are less important, and “shows” the important stuff. He also goes against cliche by presenting a paradox in the characters psychology, he says that he looks down on women, but he cannot get along with men, and he finds himself much more open in the presence of the people whom he seemingly dislikes. This allows the rest of the story to explore why that paradox exists in him.

I actually think this kind of analysis is better done with a triplicate comparison. First compare good to bad, then immediately compare with your own writing while the "lesson" is still fresh.

I agree with the part that its strength comes from relaying character traits in a way that is not cliche, and using irony and paradox to add layers to even plain descriptions of emotion. Yet I disagree with what you said about this part being not important. Its extremely important because of how deftly it sets Dmitri up. Without him being depicted this way, the less of the story would have less impact- because this paragraph serves to illustrate Dmitri as somewhat of an ass, and hints that he has never experienced a proper love before. Chekhov then plays with expectations and pulls the rug out later by letting you empathize with the deep love he feels later. Every piece of the story fits together perfectly.

If I were to rank the 3 excerpts, this would definitely be number 1, although Bradbury's has better prose (ignoring the fact that this is a translation of course). It simply does more with less. In a mere two paragraphs you have a sense of not just one, but two characters, sketched with more depth of personality and nuance than the emotional manipulation RP1 is trying to pull. Bradbury is beautiful but serves mainly 1 purpose which is to give you the kinesthetic feel of the vampire girl possessing bits of the world. Chekhov's paragraph is a marvel of precision and psychology- he does not show but tells wonderfully. And of course he is a powerful shower as we when he wants to.

> did this so you should do, too!
Pure reddit. I don't even care if the advices are good.

why does my job have to have a camera settled right on me/ a manager on my dick every 55 seconds I could look past these things but the shit theyll give me

Thanks user

Good advice is good advice regardless of the source.

Good thread user. It's nice that you fleshed out your points with the experiences of great writers. I've been trying to write short stories for a while now using the "volume" approach but could never quite hit my stride. I will try the once a week method. Also, I really love Bradbury's shorts - kudos.