-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NeoGAF Creative Writing Challenge #183 - "Last Call"
- Thread starter Cyan
- Start date
- Status
So you mean another thread to talk about this thread? Seems a bit overkill. I mean there is absolutely no reason not to have this kind of discussion in here. Just because people rarely do it doesn't mean that there is a rule against it or that it is frowned upon (far from it actually). I just feel like yet another thread would only lead to confusion and would vanish into the depths of the OT even faster than the challenge one's do between peak times.
FlowersisBritish
fleurs n'est pas britannique
Yeah, and there is also the writing OT(that ashes already posted a link to) that also exists for this kind of stuff, even if we rarely talk about it there.
I'm for it.
I'm very keen to get criticism for my writing generally! (it's an invaluable tool for improving). Anyway, good advice, and I totally agree, these challenges are fab for experimenting.
Mm. Well I don't know how to defend the proposition (which I just found interesting, not necessarily right) without seeming to attack just about everyone, now
so I won't.
I'm very keen to get criticism for my writing generally! (it's an invaluable tool for improving). Anyway, good advice, and I totally agree, these challenges are fab for experimenting.
Mm. Well I don't know how to defend the proposition (which I just found interesting, not necessarily right) without seeming to attack just about everyone, now
so I won't.I admit I totally overthink things
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
Hmm. I don't believe there would be much to talk about in terms of "pretentiousness" as most people use it though. Most of the time, it really is an anti-intellectualist reflex stemming from ignorance rather than experience. At the time, someone wrote that the first season of True Detective was bad for being pretentious in the sense that it openly engaged in philosophy. Imagine that, blaming a TV show for engaging in the most human of all human abilities aka a writer's goddamn job (you can call it human condition, spiritual, ascesis, analysis, human truths, or whatever you want, but it's all the same fucking thing: rethinking the present in some way or form. No matter which genre or how down to Earth it might be).
Here's an article where someone dealing with that particular kind of craptastic naysayer:
http://thepointmag.com/2014/criticism/doubters
Though personally I would summarized to "they're either idiots or assholes", but obviously being polite about it is the nicer thing to do. I don't have the patience for it.
What the naysayers obviously meant to imply was that it engaged in shallow, poorly understood philosophy much like the average YA novel will do. Good recent example of this: The 5th wave. "How do you get rid of a species" and other tropes right of the YA checklist. Things tend to be tropes because they are clichés without any reflective thought by the author that tell you they at least tried to avoid it. "this is how the worlds ends", definitely isn't. "...began the rest of my life" also isn't, yet I've seen both as serious start and ending sentences in YA novels (once in the same novel actually). Now, your first and last sentence are pretty much the most important ones in your work, so if you used a cliché for them, there's no way that you have anything worthwhile to say about the present, or in general. Compare that to something like the first paragraph of Lolita (not my example, but whoever I robbed this notion from), which immediately grabs the attention and captures what it's going to be about with its playful use of language (or rather the implication of playfulness by using "Lo-lee-ta" in a distinctly childlike manner at the end of it, whereas the rest is an adult perspective. So you immediately get the distance and difference between the narrator and the referred object):
It's also a good example of making obviously horrible people seem likeable at the same time. But despite the controversial nature of this story, it is definitely not cliché. You may not like the subject (and you probably should be a bit revolted), but it is good use of language and unique. Now this is a very down-to-earth type example and as such can avoid claims of pretentiousness and have a larger amount of readers.
But even with the use of full-on quotes from philosophy that doesn't mean you suddenly became pretentious. True Detective avoids that by making it central to both Cohle's character and his development through time, which was an aspect of the narrative in this case, so it worked to its benefit. So we can tell it's somewhat pretentious in quoting philosophy, but it isn't doing so for no reason, unlike the common use of the T.S. Elliot quote "this is how the world ends" (ironically the full quote where it's repeated three times and only then goes into 'not with a bang' is used in King's own TV adaptation of The Stand as a title card, but that's as far as it goes there). Or the way that Farcry 2 has all its character audio-speedreading through Nietsche.
Anyway, when j'accuse-ing someone of pretentiousness what we generally mean is empty, hollow phrases or words used only because they were heard somewhere and sounded cool without understanding their actual content, referent, or intended contextual meaning. The hardcore example of this is of course the postmodern essay generator, which churns out something that sounds like something, would probably be something if translated by member of the same language community (discipline), but ultimately only barely manages to hide its fluffy lack of significance behind big, important sounding words. I've already namedropped the master of doing the polar opposite, of saying the big stuff with the very smallest of words, and that is of course (and presumably among others) Stephen King. Even if he might know when he's being full of shit, no reader would ever be able to tell.
I'm definitely not on that level. I like big words and I cannot lie.
Here's an article where someone dealing with that particular kind of craptastic naysayer:
http://thepointmag.com/2014/criticism/doubters
Though personally I would summarized to "they're either idiots or assholes", but obviously being polite about it is the nicer thing to do. I don't have the patience for it.
What the naysayers obviously meant to imply was that it engaged in shallow, poorly understood philosophy much like the average YA novel will do. Good recent example of this: The 5th wave. "How do you get rid of a species" and other tropes right of the YA checklist. Things tend to be tropes because they are clichés without any reflective thought by the author that tell you they at least tried to avoid it. "this is how the worlds ends", definitely isn't. "...began the rest of my life" also isn't, yet I've seen both as serious start and ending sentences in YA novels (once in the same novel actually). Now, your first and last sentence are pretty much the most important ones in your work, so if you used a cliché for them, there's no way that you have anything worthwhile to say about the present, or in general. Compare that to something like the first paragraph of Lolita (not my example, but whoever I robbed this notion from), which immediately grabs the attention and captures what it's going to be about with its playful use of language (or rather the implication of playfulness by using "Lo-lee-ta" in a distinctly childlike manner at the end of it, whereas the rest is an adult perspective. So you immediately get the distance and difference between the narrator and the referred object):
It's also a good example of making obviously horrible people seem likeable at the same time. But despite the controversial nature of this story, it is definitely not cliché. You may not like the subject (and you probably should be a bit revolted), but it is good use of language and unique. Now this is a very down-to-earth type example and as such can avoid claims of pretentiousness and have a larger amount of readers.
But even with the use of full-on quotes from philosophy that doesn't mean you suddenly became pretentious. True Detective avoids that by making it central to both Cohle's character and his development through time, which was an aspect of the narrative in this case, so it worked to its benefit. So we can tell it's somewhat pretentious in quoting philosophy, but it isn't doing so for no reason, unlike the common use of the T.S. Elliot quote "this is how the world ends" (ironically the full quote where it's repeated three times and only then goes into 'not with a bang' is used in King's own TV adaptation of The Stand as a title card, but that's as far as it goes there). Or the way that Farcry 2 has all its character audio-speedreading through Nietsche.
Anyway, when j'accuse-ing someone of pretentiousness what we generally mean is empty, hollow phrases or words used only because they were heard somewhere and sounded cool without understanding their actual content, referent, or intended contextual meaning. The hardcore example of this is of course the postmodern essay generator, which churns out something that sounds like something, would probably be something if translated by member of the same language community (discipline), but ultimately only barely manages to hide its fluffy lack of significance behind big, important sounding words. I've already namedropped the master of doing the polar opposite, of saying the big stuff with the very smallest of words, and that is of course (and presumably among others) Stephen King. Even if he might know when he's being full of shit, no reader would ever be able to tell.
I'm definitely not on that level. I like big words and I cannot lie.
I have to admit, I've not read Lolita, although it's on my list to read. However, just from reading that paragraph, I get a great sense of the story, and yet without even much of the story being told to begin with. It is a beautiful selection of words that describe something so well, that no word is wasted. That's kind of an ideal, I think, to shoot for. To be so natural with your words that each one is selected primarily because it is the most effective to describe the situation. No more, and no less. That is my opinion, anyway.
I also want to play with the idea of saying less, and yet implying more. It is merely another form of the same style, just with a different objective. It's dangerous, though, as you risk the possibility of going over the reader's head completely or giving them the wrong idea. It is more a fascination than anything, though, and probably should only be used in carefully chosen situations.
I also want to play with the idea of saying less, and yet implying more. It is merely another form of the same style, just with a different objective. It's dangerous, though, as you risk the possibility of going over the reader's head completely or giving them the wrong idea. It is more a fascination than anything, though, and probably should only be used in carefully chosen situations.
Nabokov loved words. I think his romance with language bleeds through every line in that book. I remember reading it and thinking, this guy is writing about a love affair with English.
MilkBeard, check out Charles Baxter's "The Art of Subtext."
Think of writing as having three levels:
One is the literal, superficial level, "Frank walked to the bar."
Two is the inferential, subtextual level. Here meaning is implicit. Words have a deeper meaning at least one character is aware of, "Frank thought of his mistress and told his wife, 'You're the only woman I truly love.'"
Three is the evaluative, authorial level. Here no characters are aware of the deeper meaning, though they may feel one is there. This is the level where we can interpret the motivation of the author. This is the realm of nature, and of god, "Frank held his wife's hand and watched the tree splinter and fall; this tree they had planted on their wedding day; this tree they had put into the earth, as they did their child."
In most stories, try not to convey any big-picture ideas on level one. Level one tells us only what we need to knowit's not that interesting. Level two is where characters tell their own stories, and where we get the most information about relationship and motivation. Level three is where we connect character and plot to larger ideas, and where the author may conjure images or ideas that relate to and reinforce the theme.
Check out the stories of Raymond Carver. Check out Cathedral.
Metaphor is able to say a lot with a little. Nearly the entire last section of Cathedral exists on level three, which is most obscured, and yet the meaning could not be clearer.
The quintessential example of third level story might be the end of James Joyce's The Dead. (Ashes, back me up here.) It presents a unifying vision of the world without ever saying that explicitly, but the meaning is so vivid and direct that you can hardly tell Joyce is, basically, describing a mere landscape.
MilkBeard, check out Charles Baxter's "The Art of Subtext."
Think of writing as having three levels:
One is the literal, superficial level, "Frank walked to the bar."
Two is the inferential, subtextual level. Here meaning is implicit. Words have a deeper meaning at least one character is aware of, "Frank thought of his mistress and told his wife, 'You're the only woman I truly love.'"
Three is the evaluative, authorial level. Here no characters are aware of the deeper meaning, though they may feel one is there. This is the level where we can interpret the motivation of the author. This is the realm of nature, and of god, "Frank held his wife's hand and watched the tree splinter and fall; this tree they had planted on their wedding day; this tree they had put into the earth, as they did their child."
In most stories, try not to convey any big-picture ideas on level one. Level one tells us only what we need to knowit's not that interesting. Level two is where characters tell their own stories, and where we get the most information about relationship and motivation. Level three is where we connect character and plot to larger ideas, and where the author may conjure images or ideas that relate to and reinforce the theme.
Check out the stories of Raymond Carver. Check out Cathedral.
Metaphor is able to say a lot with a little. Nearly the entire last section of Cathedral exists on level three, which is most obscured, and yet the meaning could not be clearer.
The quintessential example of third level story might be the end of James Joyce's The Dead. (Ashes, back me up here.) It presents a unifying vision of the world without ever saying that explicitly, but the meaning is so vivid and direct that you can hardly tell Joyce is, basically, describing a mere landscape.
The Dead is my second favourite short story of all time with Chekhov's Misery being first. But it's hard to do what Joyce does though. You know make the mundane extraordinary.
On The Dead, what I think some people miss is it's placement in The Dubliners. It's the last story. The finale. The culmination.
Lately, I've had flannery o'connor on my mind when thinking about short stories. I've not much to add to that except that more folks should read what she wrote and separately also try to take in some of what she spoke about writing itself.
On The Dead, what I think some people miss is it's placement in The Dubliners. It's the last story. The finale. The culmination.
Lately, I've had flannery o'connor on my mind when thinking about short stories. I've not much to add to that except that more folks should read what she wrote and separately also try to take in some of what she spoke about writing itself.
Refer to post 66.
Great post, Crunched (please refer to post #61). Lots of books etc have been mentioned in this thread I now want to look up.
This is it, though. The artists using these phrases likely think they do understand them. There's a certain contempt which comes with the label 'pretentious'. Anyway, I just looked up where I came across the idea, and it was a review of a book. Pretentiousness: Why It Matters, by Dan Fox.
It was this section:
This is it, though. The artists using these phrases likely think they do understand them. There's a certain contempt which comes with the label 'pretentious'. Anyway, I just looked up where I came across the idea, and it was a review of a book. Pretentiousness: Why It Matters, by Dan Fox.
I pulled it rather out of context, so I'm in danger of revealing my initial post as pretentious by the definition above lol.
I think it implies the idea elsewhere as well, it's mostly about how calling things pretentious is lazy, and that by its nature all art is pretentious. It's quite an interesting review, it has some stuff to say about flowery language
So how are people's stories coming along? Haven't started yet? Stumped? Or have you already hammered out a first draft?
I'm about halfway through the initial write-down. My story keeps changing a little bit as I go. It is a drastically different style from my last story, although no less experimental.
I'm about halfway through the initial write-down. My story keeps changing a little bit as I go. It is a drastically different style from my last story, although no less experimental.
Third draft. Probably get another 5 passes in before due date.
Hey gaf, first time entering one of these challenges. The topic gave me the kick up the arse necessary to bang out this idea for a story that's been rolling in my head for a while, so thanks Cyan!
Call
I've got it to a state I'm basically proud of. There's still a lot I'd change about it, but if anyone's kind enough to throw some critique my way it would help a lot. Cheers!
edit: oh forgot to put the word cout: 1837
Call
I've got it to a state I'm basically proud of. There's still a lot I'd change about it, but if anyone's kind enough to throw some critique my way it would help a lot. Cheers!
edit: oh forgot to put the word cout: 1837
Spaceships!
Pew pew pew!
You still have a week, you needn't rush anything : )
But some thoughts:
Pew pew pew!
You still have a week, you needn't rush anything : )
But some thoughts:
* Ending a sentence with "C, D, E" and starting the next with "A" winds up reading as "C, D, E, A" at first, which engenders confusion since he's trying to get to F.
* Verb tense changes at the second paragraph, then again at the third. Happens repeatedly throughout the rest.
* Lots of technical errors. Missing/misplaced punctuation, extra/missing words, inconsistent paragraph spacing and indentation.
* Dialogue was natural sounding, even if I would quibble with formatting.
* The conflict is pretty anemic. Mark's goal is to attend the funeral, which may be denied to him, so he at least has something at stake in this. But his only obstacle is obtaining Haley's permission, which she immediately grants when asked. There's not even benevolent antagonism at play here. It works as a piece of character development from a larger piece, but doesn't have the bones to stand alone on its own.
* Verb tense changes at the second paragraph, then again at the third. Happens repeatedly throughout the rest.
* Lots of technical errors. Missing/misplaced punctuation, extra/missing words, inconsistent paragraph spacing and indentation.
* Dialogue was natural sounding, even if I would quibble with formatting.
* The conflict is pretty anemic. Mark's goal is to attend the funeral, which may be denied to him, so he at least has something at stake in this. But his only obstacle is obtaining Haley's permission, which she immediately grants when asked. There's not even benevolent antagonism at play here. It works as a piece of character development from a larger piece, but doesn't have the bones to stand alone on its own.
Yesssssss.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
should make for an epic BBQ. But hey, you wrote a goddamn epic BBQ. Or novel, depending on how you still feel about it. It's more than I've ever written, I'll tell you that much. Excluding bitching on the internet, of course.
Also, I was thinking the other day how boring exploding spaceships are (oh hi Mike). I'm starting to understand why Douglas Adams included remarks about that in Mostly Harmless, and why Star Trek has become dull: tension dies quickly when you can just blow everything the fuck up. And more importantly, it quickly goes over into power fantasy. Like: NO, I HAVE THE BIGGER PE- I MEAN GUN. This kind of happens in every JJ Abrams movie now too. "oh no, there is a bigger thing"... yeah, so? Are we supposed to be excited by an arbitrary raise in power level? I realize I say this as someone currently enjoying a username very much related to power level bullshit, but it's really boring when you don't plot around it. All those jobbers and sub-battles are there to create characters and arcs for them, not to just have cool-aid guy show up and blow everyone the fuck up.
Or being late, a la One-Punch Man. Which is kind of why I was thinking about that. Like if you had to continue a video game's plot after the biggest, toughest Bad has been dealt with. What do you do when you can't create tension from 'man versus god' because 'man' has switched places?
There's an essay by Stephen Minot about the origin of flash fiction, how there are five traditions that short-short stories fall into. He describes how writers are partial to the form they enjoy the most. I agree. I described conflict above, how I think it is important. Especially true once you start to extend beyond the 1,000 word mark. I tend to enjoy stories with some kind of conflict more than those without. But I don't know if it's fair to say all stories must display conflict as some kind of imperative. Minot talks through the types of stories where this may not be the case.
Would it be okay to share a couple of page of the essay? I don't know if that's allowed, or if that's in the same bag as magazine scans.
Would it be okay to share a couple of page of the essay? I don't know if that's allowed, or if that's in the same bag as magazine scans.
Hangout starts in half an hour. Standard quick recap: it's on Google Hangouts, and the format is ten minutes of chat, then thirty minutes of writing with mics muted, repeated until we've gone for two hours. Webcams aren't required, though several of us will have them. Mics are recommended but also not required, as you can use the text chat.
The hangout link is (quote to see):
Note that Google Hangouts recently moved to a new format, which doesn't include the text chat. If you want to switch back, hit the three dots in the upper right corner and choose the option to switch to the old version.
The hangout link is (quote to see):
Note that Google Hangouts recently moved to a new format, which doesn't include the text chat. If you want to switch back, hit the three dots in the upper right corner and choose the option to switch to the old version.
FlowersisBritish
fleurs n'est pas britannique
Also joining the first draft club. Next up, time to experiment with editing styles.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
I'll join you guys next time, now that I'm aware. Sounds like the perfect way to get some discipline into the writing process. (And a dose of that certainly couldn't hurt me!)
Only 'cause I'm not there to refuse to start writing because I'm not done yelling about Harry Potter and/or Star Wars.
I enjoyed the story quite a bit, and I'll have a more detailed critique later. One thing I will mention is that there are some grammar errors/typos in a few places in the story. A few of them make it hard to understand a few sentences.
Also, ending spoilers for people who haven't read it yet:
The final sentence is incomplete. I'm not sure if that was intended or an accident. It would fit with what he was saying at that given moment, but it is unclear to me. If it is intended, I would recommend making it more obvious.
It's intended.
I finished this up while in class, I'll go over and proof it again. Actually if you have time you could let me know what they are. ��
If it is during speech however, the grammar mistakes were intended.
Actually yeah, I'll remove it for now and reupload just a proof read version.
--
Yeah okay, thanks lol. I got this sorted now.
EDIT: old link is fixed, there actually were a few sentences that were incomplete because I was trying to size down the word count. =P
It's not so much British vs. American, at least with those examples you gave. There were a couple of instances that felt like it might have been edited down (to fit the word count like you said) and some words were cut from certain sentences or general syntax errors. It was just a few peppered throughout the story and didn't blend, as the rest of the story was edited well and understandable besides.
I have read through the story and it reads better now. However, there is one sentence here that has me scratching my head. Maybe it is a saying in British, I don't know, but I know what he's saying but the sentence doesn't really make sense grammatically:
"Yeah, bitch, there is only keep one bullet in the chamber."
But it comes together better now for sure.
and I suppose, the end makes more sense as my mind isn't questioning it because of previous syntax errors.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Thanks for spotting, I'm fixing it now. I read it over like a hundred times and didn't see that.
--
EDIT: Okay final fix I'll do, any more I'll leave it as poor writing. I didn't see the word "keep". Even when I read it back my brain kept on missing it haha
lol. This is why every writer needs an editor
. Sometimes I read my own shit many many times and miss stupid things. You can only read your own story so many times before the lines start to blur together.lol. This is why every writer needs an editor
After your detailed critique, I'll share my fact sheet with you. It's really a bunch of things that were made hard to catch since the cuts. =)
I almost think half of it works better with the cuts. Like, it reads differently the second time through now or something.
I mostly want to just test this style of writing because it's of the style I wanted to write a novel in.
Now hurry up and share yours!!
- Status