Larian Studios Forums General Chat The Writing Thread !

Lowkey, I bow to your dissenting opinion.

To clarify, I have no general objection towards long posts. Nor to the voicing of strong and differing opinions. But I would prefer them to be kept factual - and I did get the impression (possibly falsely) of some personal animosity creeping in the last discussions.

ad 1) I concur, and endorse, that non-constructive criticism can be a killer - in writing reviews as much as in life. Though I cannot complain in that respect in Winterfox's comments towards me and my input. His comments were factually stating his personal opinion, which were up to me to accept or decline.

ad 2) Emotional history certainly impacts, and should. Emotional state does also, but maybe should not. That is my purely personal feeling, of course - but trying to convey a strong feeling in writing, so that others can understand (and share) it, others who, while reading it, are in a completely different state of mind, seems very hard to do. To me, that is not so much a question of not finding the energy - actually one may be full of energy at that moment - but the state of mind may make you say things, that you would not want to, or not in the way you would want to (There is a reason why there is the rule, that you should not write a complaint before having slept over at least one night)

ad 3A) A rethorical question? A failure to read - very probably not. A failure to appreciate, respectively to question oneself as to whether the author's intent was understood correctly - maybe.

As to the author's responsibility - as a reader I appreciate books where the author leaves room for my imagination, and does not describe everything in detail. However the balance must be carefully weighed as to what I (reader) need to know, and what is just nice to know in order not to have to challenge my imagination (which some may not want to). But IMO, this should not extend to weaknesses (e.g. logical flaws).

ad 3B) Correct spelling and grammar, as well as a structured text, make reading easier - especially if you are doing it in a foreign language. I would expect an author to make a honest effort - none of us is without typos.

I do not think that this would as such restrict the development of ideas - it is just a tedious effort, that has no creative touch, and usually is the hard work after the creativity.

The writing style is possibly something different, as this is very personal and close to what and how you may speak. I think, it ddepends on the purpose of your writing - if you want to address a wider audience, then sticking closer to the "norm" would be more appropriate.
(For example, in forums like this, you every now and then encounter some terrible chatter slang - that probably is common knowledge to any experienced chatter - but I fail to understand the question at times, and I am not the only one, so cannot help (though help is, what is sought)

So - no, I do not think the two ideas need to be in opposition, and yes, actually there should be both. Ideas can be developped as one pleases, and style may be whatever the author is comfortable with - but in the end I want the author to respect me as a reader, and facilitate my reading, respectively in a foreign language just make it possible. When publishing, it may be OK to let the editor do the "dirty work", but what if YOU are the publisher? You do proof read your posts, do you not? Why? Because you care for your readers? Because you do not want them to think of you as an illiterate moron? Because you have respect for your own language?

Is it better to write something awful than nothing at all? For whom? The author? - May be; For me, the reader? - No! But then who judges, whether it is awful or not? Right or wrong - it is me!

Glance, have you ever read autistic writing? Some were on the bestseller lists for quite some time in Germany. For the English readers, I'll just translate the titles - only the last 2 were originally English

Axel Brauns: Buntschatten und Fledermäuse (Colour-shadows and bats) => 20something yrs IMO
Birger Sellin: Ich will kein Inmich mehr sein (I don't want to be an In-Myself anymore) => 20 yrs old at that time
Katja Rohde: Ich, Igelkind (I, hedgehog-child) => 25 yrs old
Dietmar Zöller: Ich gebe nicht auf (I won't give up) => 2nd book. First one: "Wenn ich mit euch reden könnte" (If I could talk to you), I think, he started at 14-16 yrs, not sure
Temple Grandin: Ich bin die Anthropologin auf dem Mars (Emergence, labeled autistic) - USA? The German title referred to the fact that Oliver Sacks had mentioned her story until she wrote it herself
Temple Grandin: thinking in pictures
Donna Williams: ich könnte verschwinden, wenn du mich berührst (Nobody, nowhere) - and her 2nd title, Somebody, somewhere - Australia. I have no clue at what age she started, as the first book describes childhood and high school. She's over 70 yrs now

Why I list them? These books have one thing in common: they lead into very strange worlds - structure, grammar, formalism would have destroyed these strange worlds we can never really visit ourselves, without guidance by these authors. Publishers/editors did a tremendously good job in treating these worlds carefully and with respect; leaving word creations as they were, taking their own grammar rules as an axiom, allowing these autists to play with words and determine new definitions. Some parts were unwieldy - difficult to access. But bestseller lists (meaning it sold!) proved, publishers/editors were on the right track and had found gems: Brauns, Sellin and Zöller were German BS titles - Grandin and Williams were BS on an international level. I hope Brauns will be translated one day.



Just an example - I'm trying to display how creative writing and not naming formalism as the God of Language and Literature can be seen.
Kiya

Glance, read the German reviews in amazon.de, please - these reviews might explain better what I mean.

Clarification of one small point WF is a she not a he... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
only other thing i can say is nicely put.... Lowkey, and SirGlanceAlot <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif" alt="" />

No Kiya, I have never ever tried "acoustic books". I concede, it never tempted me to try, maybe because I am old (from the good 1956 vintage <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />) and love reading too much (or is it just a habit?).

I will seriously consider your recommendations.

However, though in absence of personal experience, one thought strikes me:

Are these books originally developped to be acoustic books, or not? Because it seems to me, that this would make a big difference. Though I so far did not enjoy people reading loud to me (since my grandfather, before I could read <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> - but then my impatience of wanting to know how the story goes on motivated me to learn to read early) - I did, and do, enjoy radio plays, where various "actors" speak the respective characters. You see the difference? (And not only because not everybody is a good "loud reader" = speaker)

Naming form and norm a God would certainly be contrary to my beliefs. But I do believe that they are sensible and valuable tools. And to create an own and original, though deviating form would IMO still require the knowledge of the norm. To ME (!), there is a difference between purposefully and in full knowledge ignoring the normal form in order to make a point, to create a certain feeling or even simply to try versus plain ignorance. And I also think, that a reader feels the difference.

Nono, not acoustic => books written by autists. (Autisten, Autismus, Glance - wie in Rainman) - does it ring a bell: Asperger Syndrome maybe?

Could it be you went to amazon and found Axel Brauns on CD? Nono, I mean real books, paper and print. Autists are people who have retired from the world you and I know, or have never entered it. They live in a world of their own.

http://www.autismus.de/autismus/frm_autismus.htm

here, a link for you, in German. Autists are highly specialised individuals, some are mathematical geniuses, others communicate in strange paintings and drawings, some are retarded, due to our dualism to define what is "normal" - and some, very few are able to transport and describe their world in words. But not in words and usage as we know - look at the word "Buntschatten". You know, it doesn't exist in our language - it combines something that is impossible in RL, the RL we know. Colour+shadow. I wouldn't know how to translate his book - as he defined the words we know in a totally new manner, created new words. And still, this word has a strange, fascinating beauty for me, maybe transported as "rainbow shadows"? Or "shadow rainbows"?


The interesting thing with autists is this => they do not know the norm, Glance. They are not able to accept our norms. Birger Sellin was a phenomenon when he started to write, in a phonetical manner - using strange associations.

Yes, it's called a mental disorder - no wonder, we have to determine norms and rules about what is normal, hm? We, the "healthy" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/suspicion.gif" alt="" />

Another thing: Remember the war that lasted 30 yrs in Western Europe? (30jähriger Krieg) Remember how the German language was at the ground then? Too many foreign conquerors had invaded this land, language was a mixture out of French, English, Swedish, kitchen-Latin etc. Remember the founding of a society to save and clean the German language? Let alone the last spelling reform a few yrs ago, changing grammar as well - and will be changed if protests go on? So... what is proper grammar/spelling/etc.? Where does carelessness start - or when is creativity a tool to change language formalism?

Ever tried Dada poetry and literature in German? (okok, I'm becoming cruel now <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" /> ) Take a lot of books out of the 70es, where writing in capital letters became unmodern - run-ons were hip, on the dot and in <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" /> Try books written by Jelinek out of that time... but be prepared feel your nails roll up <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" /> - hey... and what about Peter Handke? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" /> No, certainly you don't have to like them. I'm just naming examples where the German language was twisted, changed - a try to change.


I agree about ignorance and carelessness the way you meant it (not bothering to write correctly) - but in this case (link), I don't agree about ignorance due to formalistic tyranny. And I will give you an example - you will have to take the page before it as well:

Please, read the Quezi posts from 32842 on, 32851, 32891, 32897, 32907, click here reading the rest is up to you - as I was offended by the "GrammarNazi" expression she used.

This member writes in a phonetical manner and explains why he does it. Or, as HEF put it, compares music to speech. I found Quezi's post difficult to read, but he put thinking into it, he chose an individual way, he even explained. I call this creativity. Of course, you could say: "in order to read/understand I would have preferred proper grammar/spelling etc". But I didn't. I accepted his choice and mumbled his posts slowly under my breath - I understood the core. I not only understood, I was fascinated. It's a pity, Quezi didn't write more. In case you wonder about formalistic tyranny => you can read the responses, specially of our young literate, WF (calling herself an "aspiring writer" in that thread). Well, and the content of what he was trying to say, got lost along the way, formalism killed it IMO.

Pity, in my case - I was deprived of learning more, I could not follow his invitation into his world of phonetical language - I did not care for the Diablo discussion, but I was fascinated about the way he wrote. I only have these few posts - and still have the feeling of loss at times <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" /> I wish, I had spoken up at that time <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cry.gif" alt="" /> - yeah, I'm probably weird, I take every opportunity to join an invitation to play with language - as I take language: a living tool, not part of the Ten Commandments.


Kiya

PS. 1956? Yep, a good year, my birth one as well <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />

"Norm", "Normality" ist just a general agreement among some people on what they consider to be "normal". Nothing more.

Oops (phonetical writing! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />), my misunderstanding completely <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />

Yes, I have heard of autism, no need to become that elaborate, but thanks anyway.

But then, we have no difference of opinions:

- if it is purposeful, creative or simply the only way you can express yourself, it is to be respected (irrespective of whether one actually likes it or not);

- if it is disregard, carelessness or ignorance, it deserves criticism (constructive - and one must be able to bear a deviating opinion)

But let's not restrict anything to form only. This is just one indicator, an obvious one, granted, but usually accompanied by others. As Lowkey asked about "tolerable" weaknesses - careless language is also
- the medieval hero does not say "Okay!"
- he does not measure his paces by the "meter" (though I would not know how old the "yard" is for the English)
- he may not even measure his time by minute and second
- could he ever have heard of stainless steel, or other than woolen fabric? (Yes, I know silk is very old also)

Depending on the context, these and similar flaws occur often enough - and maybe I am among the few that catch them at times - but if and when I do, it irritates me. Is this restricting creativity, if you point it out? I think not - it's polishing, optimizing, but not necessarily distorting style.

But the most important issue to be kept in mind relating to critics and criticism is tolerance - very rarely is there only one, absolute truth for any- and everybody. If a discussion transforms into a "circle debate", then it's time for at least one of the parties to simply stop the stubborn and pointless fight for the last word.

@ Jurak: noted!

@ Winterfox: my sincere apologies, Milady!

Nope, pointing it out is not restricting creativity, certainly not. I gather, you meant it as a suggestion, so the author is free to take or leave it? Persisting is restrictive. Persisting on it, even if the author explains why she/he does it. This not only irritates me, but angers and hurts me as well.


Yes, I agree fully - tolerance is a road into both directions.


Point taken fully, Glance. <whispers> if I'm not the one to stop <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" /> On a more serious note, I can't promise this, Glance. I'm trying for several yrs now to free myself from the formalistic writing trap in my own writing, as I consider it bloodless, too artificial. So, if I see individuals already going this path, I feel encouraged to hobble on a bit more and learn to swim free. If I see them attacked (not pointed out, ok?) I feel myself slipping back into the formalistic trap. It has a great power.

I simply wish for this: people feeling comfortable in formalism to lean back and smile at the others. Pointing out, in case the author has really made a lapsus linguae, so the author can rephrase or re-think. So, both sides can pursue their own paths in peace and cooperation. I don't think, I ask for too much.
Kiya

Examples =>
I like the word "cemetary", sound more complete than "-ery"
same for "independant", sounds incomplete, not rounded with "ent" (unfree)
Drows => the "s" gives a nice malicious hissing sound at the end, onomatopeic completion. Actually a "z" would add stinger poison, but... I consider a "z" proletarian in comparison to a sophisticated "s"
mental property (not meant as the law term) => property of the conscious, the mind, not the intellect (intellectual property)

As long as you don't make it a cementery <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />


The "proletarian" and "sophistcated" I have a problem with - to me "z" and "s" is nothing but a very clear phonetic distinction - and if I understand you correctly, you should be consequent and write "Drowzzz!" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

But I am a fan, not a fanatic - and certainly no missionary!
Hiss, as you please, Drow! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/kissyou.gif" alt="" />

Hmmmm, I don't know what happened but I posted in here yesterday - at least I thought I did - but I don't see my message. *scratches head* Maybe I didn't click the 'post' icon. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> At any rate, I've been MIA from this board for a while (have been in and out of hospital due to disability/illness) and it looks like I've got a ton of catching-up to do. Wow! You guys have been busy! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" />

So, looks like I better get to reading. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />


Oh, btw, this post is <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/offtopic.gif" alt="" /> in case you didn't notice by now. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Faralas <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mage.gif" alt="" />

Well, Glance, if I have your permission => Drowzzz it is <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" /> - though, this sounds a bit like "drowsy" now <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> Have to think about it.

About sophisticated and proletarian - was a joke between a member and me, because I wanted to know, why the American English changed a lot of nice "s" words into "z". And his explanation was: heated debate between linguistics during the Bostoner Tea Party, falsely labeled in history afterwards as a protest against taxes <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />
See? Phonetics is soooo important.


HEY! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" /> that's even better - you have a resting place for the dead and the cement (material for tombs) included, as well! May I take it? Please? Just with my "a" in it to round up? (I only hope, cement exists in English <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" /> )
Kiya

Wow, I thought I'd missed a ton of stuff! Shame I haven't...

Important stuff first - Faralas, I am sorry to hear you have been ill, and hope you are fully recovered now, or at the least are firmly on the way there.

***

Plowking - good luck with your story.

***

Lowkey...

Anyone who genuinely wants to be a GOOD writer needs the negative as much as the positive, if not more so. It is far too easy to get into the trap of thinking yourself capable when you are not if all you get is praise, or of becoming satisfied with mere adequacy.



No. Because I am not writing about me. The character's emotional history and state are vital; my own a distraction to be suppressed or ignored. The essential thing is to know your character so well that you become them while writing them - you feel what they feel.

Your emotional state may help dictate the type of stories you wish to write, but there is no greater trap than writing yourself instead of your character.



I read primarily to enjoy, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't also looking for ways to improve my own writing. I have found that the more you understand of writing technique, the more you become aware of plot holes and poor characterisation and things like that. Things I used to be able to ignore if I even noticed in the first place I cannot now miss. The downside of writing, I suppose.



Your readers will only stick around as long as they are enjoying what they read. If you fail to engage them, they will find something else. Why should anyone continue to read something they have no interest in, after all?

If you want other people to read and enjoy your work, you must give them a reason to do so - which usually means strong characterisation and a solid and intriguing plot. Any reader who is not wondering what happens next and does not like your character(s) will not return.



They are entirely compatible, and a part of the same thing. A good writing style requires (And even demands) a good grasp of the language you are writing in. A reader may forgive the odd error here and there, but a piece littered with errors is annoying, and distracts from the story immensely.



If you have ever read The Legend Of Althalas by David Eddings, you will know the answer to that question already. It is far, far better to write nothing - or if you must write rubbish, then not to let anyone else see it. You lose less readers that way.

I've written plenty of garbage in my time, but you won't ever see any of it on the web, I assure you - let alone in print!

Elliot, who decides that a work is awful or not? The reader, right? But "the reader" is not one taste only. If so, we would not have so many genres - and not so many MarySue genres (thinking of a few well sold authors, who really make money with cliches).

I agree with Lowkey here - it is better to write something awful than nothing at all, why? You can improve then. Ok, I would not put something on the web in the public area if I consider it awful, but test this with persons I know. Or - look for a site that has cliched plots/chars as well, so my cliche would fit in this.


Hm, there are authors who use their own state and express this in a story. If I may use a bestseller example here: Seybold (Lovely bones). The way she wrote it, it became very clear to me that she had a trauma - still a fascinating book. No, not "still", because she had a trauma, a fascinating book, very strong emotional impact on this reader at least - and on others reading/buying it. My suspicion became a fact after I read her 3rd book (psychological one) and she revealed what had happened to her in RL => rape and being stalked upon. In her 1st novel she wrote about a murdered child that was raped before and watched her family and the murderer out of her own "heaven". She wrote herself, her char was like a glove.


I agree fully, a predictable plot lets me put a book aside very quickly.

This is very true, Kiya <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> But genre aside, I think there are a number of things that make any story 'awful' by MOST reader's definitions - such as very poor characterisation and plot holes you can drive a fleet of lorries through.



I tend to delete the story and start again if it starts heading down the toilet. I have done this a few times, and probably will have to do it more times in the future.

I am never satisfied with anything I am writing that I think is a poor story, simply because I expect better of myself. If I set no standards for myself, I would have no impetus to improve <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



It can be done incredibly well, but the authors that do this are basically using their novels as a kind of catharsis. They are not truly writing fiction, nor are they writing about characters. These are at least semi-autobiographical.

That being said, this is indeed a grey area where what I said earlier does not apply. Obviously any writer who is basically writing themselves and not a fictional character at all must pay complete attention to their own emotions/eotional state.



I can stand a predictable plot if the characterisation is fantastic; or a superb plot with not so good characters, but two things will inevitably lose me as a reader - characters I cease to care about, and a story that goes nowhere.

http://www.despair.com/demotivators/in24x30prin.html

Elliot, dearest <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> - may I display my credo?

http://www.despair.com/demotivators/los24x30prin.html

aided by this, as well.
Kiya

LOL

Way cool, Kiya <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

I always prefer "If at first you don't succeed, give up" and "As one door closes so another slams in your face" but to each their own, I guess <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Kiya , copyrights not reserved, much less earned, so I have no permission to grant - maybe you should rather ask the English, its their language you are trying to "creatively re-form" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/question.gif" alt="" />
***

And how about:

There is light at the end of the tunnel!
(it's the train - fastly approaching)

English was my language for several yrs as well, Glance - and if I look at American/British/SA/Australian English: different spellings, meanings etc. - do you think this is a cp issue? No, I don't see my playing with letters and words as a reform <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> - thought never struck me. Just as my personal passtime to play without intending to insult? No, I asked you, cause "Drowzzz" and "cementery" is a nice pun IMO and came from you <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

If any native speaker is offended - sorry. I do this with the German language as well - just for fun <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" /> Hmm, maybe I need the identity card to get permission then? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

I like that phrase about "There is light at the end of the tunnel!" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />
Kiya

http://www.despair.com/demotivators/regret.html

can't resist again - I like a lot of these phrases <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

Kiya - I was not dead serious!
That's why I purposefully wrote "re-form", not "reform" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
(a slight, but meaningful difference was intended)

All languages are treated sloppily at times by their users, that's not my concern {aber ich lese den Zwiebelfisch mit Freude <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />}. My concern is communication, being understood, making a half way intelligent impression, showing off what I am (or what I would like you to think I am <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />). So language is to achieve something, but given that, it should achieve it without requiring extra explanations - This will not work 100% of the time, granted, but it's the general goal.

In my view, the difference is:
- "cementery" is just a little joke, self-explanatory in an appropriate context;
- "cemetery" and "cemetary" is YOUR "toy", YOUR rules, and is not obvious to an inadvertant reader, other than striking him as "mistake" at first glance. So, if you want to make a point, a statement, with the deviating spelling, you need to explain - and in that sense, I think it's second best option.


By the way, a very subtle point that, Elliot!

Thank you, Glance <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />