EPT
Story I wrote
| Blogs > CaucasianAsian |
CaucasianAsian
Korea (South)11577 Posts
| ||
|
numLoCK
Canada1416 Posts
| ||
|
Thratur
Canada917 Posts
| ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
| ||
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
| ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On January 30 2010 05:33 Chill wrote: I think the idea is extremely cliched. I feel like I've read lines like "The beauty of life isn’t what you achieve doing. Instead, it is the fact that it all ends. Death brings meaning to everything you do." directly before. Perhaps My Blog? It seemed less cliche when i wrote it. | ||
|
d3_crescentia
United States4054 Posts
| ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
Otherwise good job and thanks for sharing! | ||
|
samachking
Bahrain4949 Posts
| ||
|
Severedevil
United States4838 Posts
Also, fuck third person objective. What the hell sense does it make to describe a scene from no one's perspective? | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On January 30 2010 06:04 Severedevil wrote: It's not really a story. Though I dunno what kind of story you can squeeze in if this extremely short piece is 500 words too long. Also, fuck third person objective. What the hell sense does it make to describe a scene from no one's perspective? that's a bit of a juvenile approach no? you can't fathom that a message can best be interpreted from the gleaning of observations vs the ideas being made explicit? Sometimes interpretation is part of the experience. | ||
|
CaucasianAsian
Korea (South)11577 Posts
On January 30 2010 06:04 Severedevil wrote: It's not really a story. Though I dunno what kind of story you can squeeze in if this extremely short piece is 500 words too long. Also, fuck third person objective. What the hell sense does it make to describe a scene from no one's perspective? Same way with Hemmingways 'White Elephants'. It is to be percieved by an on-looker and not by feeling one of the characters. The same way if you're eating in a resturaunt and you're overhearing other peoples conversation. You don't know the whole story, and have to fill in the gaps that you don't understand. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 30 2010 06:20 CaucasianAsian wrote: Same way with Hemmingways 'White Elephants'. It is to be percieved by an on-looker and not by feeling one of the characters. The same way if you're eating in a resturaunt and you're overhearing other peoples conversation. You don't know the whole story, and have to fill in the gaps that you don't understand. Hmm, that's not quite what Third Person Objective is... Rather, third person objective is the PoV of an outside narrator, but it's not limited to a remote, unfeeling observer. In fact, the narrative voice itself can become a character in the story. Third Person objective purely means that you can't get into the mental aspect of the characters IN the story. 3rd person objective can actually be a very fun perspective to use. Also, the narrator can know more than both of the characters in the story. 3rd person omniscient is still a 3rd person objective as long as the omniscient narrator does not speak about what the characters are thinking. Also, to the people saying that you can't do much story in 500 words, I beg to differ. I've seen some amazing depth in flash fiction less than 500 words. To the OP's story: The story is hard to get into mostly because the characters are not very sympathetic. It's hard to do a suicide story in a short medium. Mostly because it's so anathema to human nature, the writer has to work hard to sell the believability of someone wanting to suicide. You provided a motivation ie lost family, job, etc but it's such a cliche reason that the audience is not engaged. Remember, writing needs to be engaging. It needs to stimulate the readers' minds. The story really doesn't have any stimulating material in it other than the guy who can't die. But that too is a rather overdone concept and overall this story just didn't have much emotional impact. The prose, diction, and verb tenses also had a lot of rough patches. I'd also ask the teacher to help you with dialogue tags, how to do them, and how to punctuate them as there are a number of errors here and there in how you used them. But writing technique is easy. The important thing is that your story didn't have quite enough emotional provocation, unique characterization, or plot conflicts to really engender a satisfying read. Still, this is the joy of writing. Getting better and learning more about the craft and utilizing your creativity every time you try.  | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On January 30 2010 05:33 Chill wrote: I think the idea is extremely cliched. I feel like I've read lines like "The beauty of life isn’t what you achieve doing. Instead, it is the fact that it all ends. Death brings meaning to everything you do." directly before. It's pretty old philosophy. I think it's Nietzsche "Without death time would be meaningless." edit: or not Take death for example. A great deal of our effort goes into avoiding it. We make extraordinary efforts to delay it and often consider its intrusion a tragic event. Yet we'd find it hard to live without it. Death gives meaning to our lives. It gives importance and value to time. Time would become meaningless if there were too much of it. If death were indefinitely put off, the human psyche would end up, well, like the gambler in the "Twilight Zone" episode. - Ray Kurzweil But I know someone said it before even this guy... I should who because I've been learning about it T.T | ||
|
CaucasianAsian
Korea (South)11577 Posts
On January 30 2010 07:41 StorkHwaiting wrote: Hmm, that's not quite what Third Person Objective is... Rather, third person objective is the PoV of an outside narrator, but it's not limited to a remote, unfeeling observer. In fact, the narrative voice itself can become a character in the story. Third Person objective purely means that you can't get into the mental aspect of the characters IN the story. 3rd person objective can actually be a very fun perspective to use. Also, the narrator can know more than both of the characters in the story. 3rd person omniscient is still a 3rd person objective as long as the omniscient narrator does not speak about what the characters are thinking. Also, to the people saying that you can't do much story in 500 words, I beg to differ. I've seen some amazing depth in flash fiction less than 500 words. To the OP's story: The story is hard to get into mostly because the characters are not very sympathetic. It's hard to do a suicide story in a short medium. Mostly because it's so anathema to human nature, the writer has to work hard to sell the believability of someone wanting to suicide. You provided a motivation ie lost family, job, etc but it's such a cliche reason that the audience is not engaged. Remember, writing needs to be engaging. It needs to stimulate the readers' minds. The story really doesn't have any stimulating material in it other than the guy who can't die. But that too is a rather overdone concept and overall this story just didn't have much emotional impact. The prose, diction, and verb tenses also had a lot of rough patches. I'd also ask the teacher to help you with dialogue tags, how to do them, and how to punctuate them as there are a number of errors here and there in how you used them. But writing technique is easy. The important thing is that your story didn't have quite enough emotional provocation, unique characterization, or plot conflicts to really engender a satisfying read. Still, this is the joy of writing. Getting better and learning more about the craft and utilizing your creativity every time you try. thanks for a great response | ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
I've heard the philosophy before, infact i'm a firm believer in it. I liked what you've tried to do, though I feel it lacked anything new. Furthermore it didn't seem to flow very well. Few problems with the technical side, cadences and so forth. I have no doubt this will improve greatly as you continue to write. I do hope you continue to write, and keep posting your stories here. Cheers! | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On January 30 2010 07:41 StorkHwaiting wrote: Hmm, that's not quite what Third Person Objective is... Rather, third person objective is the PoV of an outside narrator, but it's not limited to a remote, unfeeling observer. In fact, the narrative voice itself can become a character in the story. Third Person objective purely means that you can't get into the mental aspect of the characters IN the story. 3rd person objective can actually be a very fun perspective to use. Also, the narrator can know more than both of the characters in the story. 3rd person omniscient is still a 3rd person objective as long as the omniscient narrator does not speak about what the characters are thinking. Also, to the people saying that you can't do much story in 500 words, I beg to differ. I've seen some amazing depth in flash fiction less than 500 words. To the OP's story: The story is hard to get into mostly because the characters are not very sympathetic. It's hard to do a suicide story in a short medium. Mostly because it's so anathema to human nature, the writer has to work hard to sell the believability of someone wanting to suicide. You provided a motivation ie lost family, job, etc but it's such a cliche reason that the audience is not engaged. Remember, writing needs to be engaging. It needs to stimulate the readers' minds. The story really doesn't have any stimulating material in it other than the guy who can't die. But that too is a rather overdone concept and overall this story just didn't have much emotional impact. The prose, diction, and verb tenses also had a lot of rough patches. I'd also ask the teacher to help you with dialogue tags, how to do them, and how to punctuate them as there are a number of errors here and there in how you used them. But writing technique is easy. The important thing is that your story didn't have quite enough emotional provocation, unique characterization, or plot conflicts to really engender a satisfying read. Still, this is the joy of writing. Getting better and learning more about the craft and utilizing your creativity every time you try. i found your response very patronizing | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On January 30 2010 07:41 StorkHwaiting wrote: The prose, diction, and verb tenses also had a lot of rough patches. I'd also ask the teacher to help you with dialogue tags, how to do them, and how to punctuate them as there are a number of errors here and there in how you used them. I am also trying to improve my writing and i don't have a teacher to consult. One of the areas i struggle with are dialogue tags. Could you point out the passages that you are referring to? | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Don't ask me what I'm being right now | ||
|
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
On January 30 2010 09:10 Mora wrote: I am also trying to improve my writing and i don't have a teacher to consult. One of the areas i struggle with are dialogue tags. Could you point out the passages that you are referring to? Just look it up on the internet. Technical stuff doesn't need a teacher, only self-motivation. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4838 Posts
On January 30 2010 06:16 Mora wrote: that's a bit of a juvenile approach no? you can't fathom that a message can best be interpreted from the gleaning of observations vs the ideas being made explicit? Sometimes interpretation is part of the experience. I found your response very patronizing. Details are relevant only as they are dramatized, and in my experience, 'interpretation' is a shield for imprecision or lazy dramatization. (Much as 'suspense' or 'surprise' are common excuses for denying necessary information. Though they're occasionally valid.) Observation requires an observer, who is either the author (BAD!) or a narrator character. For coherency's sake, that narrator character needs to have observed the scene it describes, which inherently puts the narrator in the scene. You can get around this by making your story be a story that a narrator-character is fabricating themselves, but then you're asking me to judge that story on lowered standards due to its framing. On January 30 2010 07:41 StorkHwaiting wrote: It's hard to do a suicide story in a short medium. A dead character is a finished product. We the audience need to know them fully. A living character is still changing, and we have time to meet them. (Ignore this if the death isn't meant to carry impact. In The Lottery, we don't give a shit about the character who dies... only the manner in which they're killed.) | ||
|
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
1.) Trust yourself. Read your story and ask yourself if you would pay money to read it. Respond accordingly. 2.) Read the works of geniuses that are applicable to your writing ambitions. Don't read lesser writers at first, they will confuse you; but, you also must enjoy reading whatever it is you decide upon as being genius. Style is the absence of other styles. You are what you read. 3.) The barometer of who is a lesser writer, or what you would be willing to pay money for, is you. Therefore, you need to know what you like and why. If you can't explain your tastes, then they don't exist. 4.) Argue to the point of violence regarding artistic matters. Taste in art is completely arbitrary anyway, there's no reason to be timid about how you feel. Censoring yourself in conversation has an inevitable effect on your thoughts. 5.) + Show Spoiler + Boom. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
My pleasure CA, best of luck with your writing | ||
| ||
