General writing discussion thread

[c_nordlander]

We've had Simpsons fanfics dealing with dark topics and crappy futures/AUs here before. My suggestion is, start writing and see where it takes you! We can always tell you if it's going too far.

I should clarify: dark humour is a way some people cope with bad situations, so it's possible that someone would crack a joke in a tense or nasty situation (either to another character, or in their own head). But it will depend on the situation or character.

I was actually thinking about, well, all sorts of dark story elements. The advice I'd give to any aspiring writer: don't throw something in to create more drama, or because you feel it's required of the story. Actually, that goes for anything, not just weighty topics.

But yeah, that's definitely one of them.

[Nidotamer]

Oh! Well, iirc, a lot of the older fics and pics are missing, I guess it was a change of attachment systems or something. Though if they remain, I would like to know what some of those are, just to get an idea of how they've been done. I think the closest I've actually been able to read was on some old mst fics and dear god I'm in no way planning to look down that route. Also probably doesn't count because in those cases the "dark themes" were purely the author's twisted psyche more than the actual fic.

I'm also trying to figure out something that quickly became a nightmare. Basically realizing a couple of ideas and plans were kind of intertwined in a way that'd either leave readers lost or repeat stuff completely if they were separate... but because they involve multiple characters would also mean constant pov-switching if they were together and also still be very hard to timeline properly. I guess the best I have is implying some story stuff in the ones where they're not the focus or something like that. :V

[missy_misery]

Oh yeah, I've definitely read fandom darkfic before! I say go for it!

[c_nordlander]

More a rant than anything, but sometimes it feels like writers hear some advice and take it as a cast-iron rule that should be followed off a cliff.

For example, "use the character's name or 's/he' rather than descriptions like 'the fair-haired man'" is *good* advice, because very few people are actually bothered by repeated names or pronouns, whereas coming up with new descriptions every time comes off as tryhard. However, some writers seem to go in the opposite direction and find inorganic ways to introduce the character's name really early, even though it actually makes sense to use "the fair-haired man" or equivalent when the viewpoint character doesn't know their name. In short, following the guideline off a cliff instead of thinking about why it exists and why there may be a good reason to disregard it.

[SirMustapha]

I love the term "follow advice off a cliff". I think, unfortunately, many people just follow advice blindly because they've come to expect easy and absolute answers from any problem. Any time an answer to a question begins with "depends," some people just turn off and go look somewhere else for a "Learn to become a novelist in 15 minutes" YouTube video.

Interestingly enough, in the case of the "fair-haired man," this advice is so common that it sometimes has names. In the Fimfiction writing guide, it's called "The Lavender Unicorn Syndrome". Yeah. Though, to be fair, the guide just advises authors against relying too heavily on this device when it's not needed (which is what you refer to as well); if we know the character's name, just refer to them by name or by a pronoun, and that's it--though the writing style sometimes can allow a bit of colour and poetry. Also, now I'm curious to see what kinds of inorganic kinds of introduction writers find to avoid that "problem"--just out of morbid curiosity, really.

But I guess this is just a symptom of a larger and more insidious problem, which affects everything including writing (I've seen similar examples of that in the music theory subreddit): people will make a hyperliteral reading of everything, and when you say "this sometimes is a good idea," someone will read it as "this is absolutely mandatory and you'll go to jail if you don't do it". Even when you try to be didactic, someone will misinterpret you; I mean, interpretative skills? Is there an app for that?

Another (rather unrelated, I guess) bit of advice I remember seeing on that Fimfiction guide is recommending us not to use words like "seems" and "looks," because that adds uncertainty, and because we're authors and we're making things happen, we should be definitive in our descriptions... and, well, I largely disagree with that. I guess, as a very general guideline, being too assertive is "better" than being too vague, but vagueness has expressive power! What if "seeming" instead of "being" is a result of the POV character's perception, and we want to transfer the reader's uncertainty to the reader? What if a tinge of vagueness adds a dreamlike or hallucinatory flavour to the text? What if it adds mystery, intrigue, curiosity? Again, I think that's the kind of advice that can be easily followed off a cliff; I dunno, it seems fishy to me.

EDIT: also, from a stylistic point of view; when I write, I don't like to think that I'm "making things happen". I see myself as a witness of a creative process that's largely subconscious; and those many conscious decisions do happen, I feel better about my writing when it rises spontaneously, without direct intervention. So, if something "seems" like anything to my conscious eye, then it should only seem like it in writing. As an artist, I want my subconscious to remain a mystery.

[c_nordlander]

It's usually called "burly detective syndrome" by people who aren't pony fans.

I pretty much agree with you about looks/seems as well. If you're writing closely from a character's POV, sometimes they are going to think about what something "seems like," because they're not going to be sure. And as a writer, you should respect that.

EDIT: also, from a stylistic point of view; when I write, I don't like to think that I'm "making things happen". I see myself as a witness of a creative process that's largely subconscious; and those many conscious decisions do happen, I feel better about my writing when it rises spontaneously, without direct intervention. So, if something "seems" like anything to my conscious eye, then it should only seem like it in writing. As an artist, I want my subconscious to remain a mystery.

Yes, this is exactly how I work as well.

[Nidotamer]

I was gonna say, "seems like" and other uncertain terms are a good thing. Not just because I sorta kinda seem like I look like I maybe use uncertain phrases in general. I feel like writing works best when it does put you smack-dab in their head rather than just a play-by-play of what's going on and it's obviously a good thing there. I mean, if it's a dark room and the character's unsure of what they see if anything what do you do? Forfeit all descriptions? Straight-up lie to the reader? Uncertainty is something that can't really be avoided in the right situation. And with no uncertainty uh... where's the tension? Especially if it's something like horror.

[c_nordlander]

Agree 100%, May.

It just shouldn't be overused to the extent where it seems like everything in the story is fuzzy and uncertain. Which I guess brings me back to my original point.

[Nidotamer]

Okay so one of these I was talking about to Fernie, the others just occurred to me.

So, the one I was saying to Fernie! Levity. It's really fucking underrated and I'd argue almost essential to good storytelling. I was thinking about how some horror movies didn't really get to me much even though they can be relentless while John Carpenter's The Thing is still really good to me despite having some comedic moments... and actually I just explained the probable reason why. We adapt in many ways, especially body temperature and that's a good analogy. Stay in one temperature for long enough and barring lethal conditions we'll get used to it. What's unbearably warm to a Brit is probably cold to an Auzzie.

So if there's no levity, we can just get used to it. Probably also why angst fics that have literally nothing nice happen get boring and most of us lose the will to care. It's like, yeah, shit sucks, we're used to it. Action scenes are great, 90+ minutes of nothing but action is utterly boring. In a way the tension and diffusion both compliment each other well. Kinda like how Rollercoasters get boring if it's all loops with no breaks.
-
Another thing on a similar topic. I'm kinda finding myself liking more... loose ideas of characterization. I guess comparing the very earliest seasons of the Simpsons to the later ones helped but Undertale&Deltarune might have sold it. The varying routes show how characters react to different situations and often come off very different to the usual. Papyrus is "haha funny skeleton" but default but he also tries to get Undyne to befriend the player despite her obvious anti-you bias or during the genocide route, he drops his guard completely trying to give you a chance to turn things around even if it most likely kills him. Not the only example by any means but characters not always acting one way all the time might literally be what makes them multi-faceted.

There's of course a line where a chracter is OOC but I think that's how they react to the same situations or their core beliefs. Like I'd say for classic!Lisa standards, it feels horribly OOC for her to write off everyone else as inferiors, or vapid/shallow for doing more typically girl stuff. This is the same person that hunted down Stacy Lovell to make a doll to inspire other girls to greater heights. But in "There's no disgrace like Home" it's certainly odd nowadays that Homer comes off the more responsible one. But actually, it's not OOC at all, he's clearly trying to impress Mr Burns and is upset at his family for screwing it up as much as they did. Marge is tyically patient or even passive but Brush With Greatness has her throwing out Mr Burns in a rage and Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish had her also screw over Burns' political career. Both times might seem OOC but given the situation, it's not it's just her patience had been stressed to its breaking point. Mr Burns himself is a cold tyrant but when he learns he's about to lose everything in Two Cars, ect? He's reduced to a pitiful sobbing wreck. Him being generous would be wildly OOC but somehow it feels natural in "Dancing Homer" when he and Homer actually start hitting it off really well in a situation where he can loosen up (if only so much)

Okay given how Flanderized everyone is and how they've been discarded and worse, I'm not giving credit as something intentional but it might be why I find Sherri and Terri so fascinating even in the modern era. They do fall into those ruts sometimes but, again probably not on purpose, they've been able to go between cunning to spiteful to goobers to sometimes even friendly and... it doesn't feel entirely unfitting. It'd be possible to tie it all up and most of it would make sense... aside from deliberately watching something they know will kill them and not being the least bit concerned about that. Again, there's limits.

I mean, isn't that how people are? I love "dumbass" humour but some days I'm in no mood for it. Maybe I'm cutesy but if it occurs to me, I'm also incredibly morbid. And so on. And hey, that's just me being me. Characters should have some consistent values but being flexible is what makes them human. Or to borrow from a recent example, Mabel of Gravity Falls. Often she's a doofy comic-relief kind of character and takes the "crazy" part of boy crazy a bit far yet she's still distressed by Gideon's advances and both him and the Gnomes have seen why they shouldn't have gotten on her bad side and that she's not as stupid as she often comes off. Again, that makes her interesting!
-
Lastly, I just figured out why I like three particular characters so much for very similar reasons. Papyrus (sorry, Chris!), Rarity and Allison.

Like, Papyrus is no doubt a total egotist. In his skull there's nobody who'll ever be as great as him. And I tend to hate egotists. But actually, he thinks everyone else is great too and is easily one of the kindest monsters... the only one who literally cannot ever kill the player. He's always trying to make everyone around him as best as they can be even at his own risk. Rarity surrounds herself in fabulosity but not only is it not to the ludicrous extent of irl rich people but if anyone less well off needs something, she'll give it if she can. IIRC she doesn't even have a special reason, it's just not in her nature to shut out somepony that needs help even if she likes to spoil herself too. Allison is the "Superior rival" archetype but she's not some cocky bitch over it. Heck even most "nice rival" types I've seen are also of the hopelessly-behind variety but not her.

Basically, it's always nice when writers can find archetypes and traits that could make someone hateable but warp it in a way where it does the opposite!

okay that's enough text my fingers are hurting.

[c_nordlander]

Regarding characterisation, I think you are 100% right. I wouldn't even call that "loose" characterisation; I'd call it "complex." Some writers seem to be of the opinion that characters should be as simple and one-dimensional as possible (worst writing advice I've ever seen was that you should be able to describe your characters in one word. Not five, not three, one.) But people are immensely deep. Just think about yourself, or the people you know best. In fact, fiction can barely approximate the complexity of real people (unless you're writing a 1,500 page novel), but it can create a good illusion.

Obviously, as you yourself point out, you shouldn't go too far in either direction. You should have at least some idea of what the character is like, and where the scope of their normal behaviour begins and ends.

One of the best pieces of writing advice Graham ever gave me was when I was complaining about being unable to pin my main character down. He said: "That just means they're a complex character."

tl;dr: people are very deep and complex; fictional characters should be too.

[Nidotamer]

... okay yeah one word is like, horrible advice. Even characters as not especially developed as the Mario cast at least can be described with a *few* words at minimum.

With the whole minds-eye stuff I'd been thinking of getting down character details proper and this has been changing my way of thinking about it. Like, the idea of rather than listing down personality traits instead going into core beliefs that take a bit of elborating.

Like S2 Mr Burns, actually really fascinating. He's cruel and malicious, yes. But rather than listing those, it feels more apt to say that he, for instance, is prideful and with the constant yes-man reinforcement of Smithers, his wealth and authority over the likes of Homer he takes it as a free pass to be as demanding and abusive as possible. Rather than a checklist personality trait, said values can be tested and brought down. As just another crowd member in "Dancing Homer" he's able to loosen up (but only until Homer starts making a public spectacle, again, pride) or being reduced to a pitiful sobbing wreck when he's about to lose it all. But those same things make him isolated, in "Old Man and the Lisa" without them, he comes off like just some spacey old man but because he's been so priviledged he also has barely experienced a thing for himself. There's different sides to Burnsie but they all tie together when thinking about personal values rather than checklists of character traits.

Or like Rarity! She'll lose it if she gets dirty or something in her business is going badly yet remains almost unflappable in a real crisis like managing to free herself in her own way when kidnapped by the Diamond Dogs. None of those are OOC when instead of thinking in terms like "fussy" or whatever instead it's more like she puts a lot of importance on dignity. Getting her mane turned green is an affron to that every bit as much as, say, having to be rescued like a helpless damsel.

Like putting it this way I think gives me a way more flexible idea for characters to be a lot more dynamic. Like thinking about Allison. Her time in Lisa's Rival could be pinned as "level headed/ect" but maybe more dynamic would be that she likes to have some control over the situation. Sarah pushing her around isn't exactly pleasant but it's not unpredictable either, and she can at least get back up and wash herself off. Wheras she's completely lost when her diorama's switched because the entire situation is completely out of her hands and there's nothing she's able to do about it.

Actually, I think it's possible details like this that make her such a popular character to use in fanworks. Compared even to more popular guest characters like Hank Scorpio. She's just written more like... a person. Probably the same applies to Ruth and Laura Powers too...

[SirMustapha]

I can't help but notice that, whenever we're talking about art, there will always be contradictions and simplifications, but within the work of art and in its relation to the outside world. In a very general sense, a piece of art is a model of the world, and models are never perfect--otherwise they'd be exact replicas and not models. But some people seem gleefully unaware of those contradictions, and a lot of art advice is given as if they didn't exist.

One example: it's almost always taken for granted that stories have to be "realistic", or at least "believable" (i.e. if they have elements that are fantastical, supernatural, etc., they still have to "make sense" in a way), and that characters must be written in a realistic way. Yet, in the same breath, people will tell you to use three act structures in your writing.

Tell me: can you remember the last even in your life that followed a three act structure? Was there even a single one?

Real life doesn't obey those models; chains of events tend to be complex and chaotic, and very often it's hard to even know where you should start and end a story. The story of your life did not start when you were born, because you are affected today by things that happened centuries ago. The reason why three act structures exist is not because that's how real life works, but because it's a palatable and easily understandable model for building a story. It's a simplification, because life is not palatable and easily understandable. So there's an inherent contradiction between the common story structures and real life; but most people instead of addressing that contradiction and admitting that it exists, people tend to conceal it, as if they're as embarrassed of it as I'm embarrassed of the stories I wrote when I was a teenager. Hell, I see this in music even: there are contradictions between Western harmony and the nature of sound waves, but a lot of people talking about harmony as if it were perfectly attuned to nature and mathematics--and when that contradiction is addressed, it's often handwaved as insignificant.

I think what Chris is talking about is related to this: characterisation cannot accurately reflect the complexity of human nature. People are too complicated for fiction. I mean, when I think about it, if I were a character in an ongoing story, a lot of critics would claim that my recent forays into burlesque performance are "out of character". I jumped the shark in December 2020.

So, just as stories have to be simplified for human comprehension, characters have to be motivated and justified more explicitly and more clearly. Any actions that are not immediately apparent from the elements laid out might be just seen as "bad writing" instead of just some kind of complexity or a result of an unusual set of circumstances (I'm always reminded of how viewers will get angry when characters in horror movies do "dumb" things, like going up the stairs; however, in situations of actual life risk, we'd all act like bumbling idiots! If anything, I think those characters are way too smart way too often). Think about it: when someone you know (or you think you know) does something that's unexpected to you, do you get shocked, or just write an angry critique against the author of Real Life that they can't write character properly? People are unrealistic. Characters, however, have to be "realistic".

It's a pain in the ass, to be honest.

The real problem, however, is that, for the reader, it can be extremely hard, or even impossible, to know if the author is inserting a bit of intentional complexity and irrationality into the character, or if the author is blissfully unaware of such inconsistencies and just assuming that, as long as they treat the character as a "hero," then anything they do is "heroic". And this is, again, because stories are models: you might not be able to tell if a model is a bad simplification of life, or if it's just mirroring complexities that we'd rather remain ignorant about. I believe, if there's any word of advice that I could consider giving in relation to this, is: don't try to sell your characters as being one way or another. I believe many accusations of bad writing stem from the fact that the author is clearly painting their characters in colours that just don't fit, like having either the narrator or secondary characters talking about how "self-confident" the protagonist is, but then have them not do one single thing that's worthy of such label (I immediately remember Fifty Shades of Gray, in which Annabelle "Steele" doesn't seem to have a spine at all). I actually always feel a little frightened when I have a character describe another, because, even when it's completely justified by the scene and the nature of the dialogue, it feels like I'm just trying to convince the reader. And I remember that one of the things I did in writing this new version of The Formicide Gang is to have Carol, the narrator, give very few opinions on the other characters, save for things that are immediately apparent in what's going on, or that can be explained with a bit of backstory, for example. I believe Carol mentions Rita being strong willed and led by a strict sense of justice, but this is evidenced by things she does and feels in the story, and she acts in accordance to that in more than one occasion. On the other hand, whenever I have characters telling Daniel that he's a nice kid in an attempt to make him be a little less of an insecure little bitch, I always get worried that I'm overselling him... (I'll let you enjoy the delicious venom of those words in light of the fact that Daniel is essentially a self-insert)

And yeah, describing a character in a single word is bullshit, and one of those reasons why I think giving art advice on the Internet should be banned (the irony is intentional). I mean, I believe most people understand that those descriptors when applied to people are only attempts at giving a crude picture of a certain aspect of a person under a certain circumstance. When I say Chris is extremely creative (even infuriatingly creative, I mean, dammit, it's not even fair), I mean that in regards to the pieces of art that I've seen from her (writing, games, drawings, etc). Does it mean that Chris is creative in every single area of her life? Does it mean that she gets up from bed in a different way ever single morning? ... well, I have no idea if she does, but I assume she doesn't? Still, I'm comfortable with saying Chris is "creative", because I don't mean that as an absolute, all-encompassing description of her entire person. I mean, even the person you are right now is not an absolute, all-encompassing description of your entire person, because today you're a little different from who you were yesterday, and a little different from who you'll be tomorrow. So, even considering that stories are simplifications, who on Earth would think that they're so oversimplified that you could describe a character with a single word? Well, I can describe whomever gave that "advice" with a single word: fuckwad.

And then, there are things that people consider "unrealistic" because of their own prejudices. That's the case of Rarity, and in fact, one of the reasons she's written like that is to directly confront that prejudice: that people with a heightened sense of aesthetic and fashion must be shallow and petty. I mean, let me list just a few examples of famous artists who were seriously into fashion and aesthetics, and were extremely intelligent and reportedly nice people: Freddie Mercury, David Bowie, Björk... Yeah, imagine that: those people love/loved fancy clothes and extravagant accessories, and they were/are extremely cultured and interesting people. But, when it comes to TV shows and cartoons, that would be "unrealistic," because have been conditioned to expect fashion to be equated with shallowness. Rarity is a reminder of, hey, you can treat a lack of aesthetic taste as a heinous crime, but still understand that other problems have much higher priorities and demand more serious treatment. Rarity is not shallow: she's passionate. She loves what she does, and is not afraid to show that. And, of course, this is an animated comedy show for children, so many exaggerations and distortions are perfectly explained by, y'know, comedy (this is something I think fans of the show very often forget--"Twilight's freak out in Lesson Zero clearly shows she's manic depressive and/or psychotic!", "... um, or maybe this is a comedy show for kids?").

... oh, god, what a rant. And I didn't even mention the levity bit. Suffice to say, again, because stories are models for reality, we usually expect some kind of balance of tone and elements of contrast. I mean, for someone who's going through a period of extreme depression, there might not be much "levity" In their life at all. However, if you want to depict that on a story, you really have to balance out the tone and the colours somehow, to really make the crippling depression come through. In the case of horror, the style of levity you want can also vary depending on the genre: The Thing specifically lends itself to comedic moments in a way that, for example, The Exorcist doesn't. However, The Exorcist also has elements of levity that are crucial to building its tension and momentum. But even then, it's still a pretty heavy and unrelenting movie in the seriousness of its narrative, and it works. it's what the story needs. There's a lot, lot, lot of nuance here to consider.

[Nidotamer]

Honestly that thing you mentioned about people being biased over things that make people seem "shallow" kinda reminds me of early seasons Lisa. Namely while people say "she could be a kid" I think I'd have to say "she could be girly" and was never treated like she was shallow or dumb for it. She could unironically enjoy happy little elves, be obsessed with ponies and have a brain. Lisa vs Malibu Stacy highlighted how it wasn't a contradiction that she'd like "girly" things but also be a passionate feminist, what with trying to get her own ideas for an empowering doll on the market. Then like a lot of the time she's not much if anything like that in modern seasons and anyone that does seem typically girlish for the time is invariably treated as vapid, stupid and possibly evil by default. It's like they fell hard into those exact mindsets.

And yeah, I do wanna have that kind of unexpected flexibility. What I was saying about out-of-character moments is less like going into burlesque and more like... hating music or something. Again, feels more like a matter of core interests in beliefs could be the "glue" that works. Like some days I'm gonna be nice, some days inspired, some days depressive or angry but if I suddenly hated bunnies you'd all be wondering what the hell happened to me, right?

Art advice.. kinda torn on that. I mean there's arsewipes who don't know what they're talking about but also sometimes there's a lot of things I see that I might've missed. For instance, of all the artbooks I've seen, not one of them has gone into, say, "how to respectfully depict (x)" unless that's the same template well-built dudes. Sometimes the human touch is sorely needed and professionals also don't always know what they're talking about.

[c_nordlander]

Being lazy and just dumping this link here, because I truly want to know your thoughts.

Professional romance novellists can write 3,000 words a day. This is how they do it.

[c_nordlander]

Random thought (which is what this thread is for): I seem to be obsessed with gorgons/Medusa lately. I've written three short stories about gorgons in the last year or so, plus other pieces that weren't on the exact subject, but still dealing with the idea of your gaze as a weapon that needs to be controlled so it doesn't destroy things. Just found that a bit odd.