upvote

points

by cwnyth17 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Defenestresque10 hours ago|
next
[-]
For the curious, the rest of the types:

Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.

Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.

Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.

Every sentence must do one of two things—reveal character or advance the action.

Start as close to the end as possible.

Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them—in order that the reader may see what they are made of.

Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.

Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To heck with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.

The greatest American short story writer of my generation was Flannery O'Connor (1925-1964). She broke practically every one of my rules but the first. Great writers tend to do that.

reply
upvoteby assimpleaspossi8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
>>Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.

This, too, is the problem with movies and TV shows today. They worry so much about offending anyone they lose the interest of everyone. When was the last time you laughed hard and out loud?

reply
upvoteby thunky8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.

I've been noticing for a while now this is missing in most modern tv shows. It makes the show feel pointless.

reply
upvoteby cobbzilla16 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Is there no room for describing the setting? Must every utterance that sets the atmosphere also advance the plot or reveal character? Is there no room for mood?
reply
upvoteby nkrisc9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
What is the purpose of the setting if not to reveal character or advance the plot?

I don’t need to know the color of the walls if it does neither.

reply
upvoteby root_axis7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Framed that way you could characterize anything as ultimately serving the characters or plot.
reply
upvoteby nkrisc7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not really. There are infinite insignificant details that could be included that should not be included because they do neither in any meaningful way.
reply
upvoteby alt18710 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
describing the setting should (ideally) be done through a character's interaction with the setting.

if you're developing some sort of dystopia where everyone is heavily medicated, better to show a character casually take the medication rather than describe it.

of course, that's not a rule set in stone. you can do whatever the fuck you want.

reply
upvoteby hombre_fatal16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> Is there no room for describing the setting? Is there no room for mood?

You mean the character of a place?

reply
upvoteby cobbzilla15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
sure, setting and character are the same thing
reply
upvoteby bryanrasmussen14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
the implication is that if mood is the character of the place then those sentences that set mood are advancing character.
reply
upvoteby josephg10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Some authors rarely describe a place objectively. We see a space through the eyes of the characters - and in doing so, we learn about our characters as we learn about the space they inhabit.
reply
upvoteby bryanrasmussen8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
sure, if a character is in some narrative role; however I would argue that no author ever describes a place objectively, especially not a completely fictional place. The question really is if the unobjective description serves a coherent narrative purpose.
reply
upvoteby IsTom13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
He's very efficient with prose and I find it a joy to read (well, given what he's writing about it's not always joy, but still). I'm not sure he's following that rule 100% of the time, but it's close. Depending on the setting, you can often describe it through characters' actions or how it shapes them.
reply
upvoteby righthand11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The “mood” should reflect the character not the author’s desire to detail out the room.
reply
upvoteby brigandish12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Setting would provide the context for action or characterisation to occur in a meaningful way, or provoke it, so it is necessary part of both (if done for either of those purposes). Given that, the charitable interpretation would be to only provide enough description of the setting for that.
reply