First off, Trondheim, I am reading yer story and I am working on an indepth critique or something. THIS IS NOT THE CRITQUE
TO CLARIFY: IM INSULTING MYSELF! THIS IS A LIST OF MISTAKES IVE MADE! BEAVIZ POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS POORLY WRITTEN AND COULD BE MISINTERPRETTED! TRONDHEIM, YOU DONT MAKE THESE MISTAKES. DONT THINK YOU DO. THESE ARE MISTAKES THAT I'VE MADE.
Alright, now on topic. Last night I was suffering from insomnia. I felt like writing, but I couldn't think of anything to write about. So I wrote about writing. Yep. Here's a biggass list of mistakes I've made in writing, why they're mistakes and what I/you should do if you end up making this mistake. This is all I have for now, but I might write about more mistakes later.
FYI I forgot to proofread this, so I apologize for typos and stuff.
LISTING THINGS
WHAT THIS IS: Sometimes when you're describing a setting, you want to give the reader a perfect mental image of EVERYTHING. You want them to see exactly what you see. So, you decide to tell them everything that's there. EXAMPLE: "In the zoo there were cages with stripped tigers, tall giraffes, floundering seals, bloodthirsty lions, massive elephants and bloated hippos." You've just listed a bunch of stuff instead of describing it.
WHY THIS IS BAD: Show don't tell. All you've done is told them what they're seeing. You should set up the environment for them and let them imagine the rest. Don't just list a bunch of animals; rather, describe stuff that sets up the location without explaining everything. Include details that make 'em unique. Like a mangy tiger prowling back and forth at the edge of his cage or an ape gorging himself on some popcorn spilled into his cage. I dunno, just don't list stuff. You can describe a room without telling everything that's in it.
BEING AFRAID TO USE THE WORD SAID
WHAT THIS IS: So you're writing this bigass dialogue and it occurs to you that it's starting to seem repetitive. Bob said blah then Sally said blah then James said blah then Bob said blah. You decide, "The word 'said' is too overused and repetitive! My work is unique, bold and new! It doesn't need words like 'said'!" So you look up 'said' in the Thesaurus and start rewriting the scene. It ends up something like this.
EXAMPLE: Bob questioned, "Why would you do that?"
"Because!" James ejaculated, still sobbing. "I had to!"
"Perhaps," Linda enunciated, chomping on a long, firm cigar. "Perhaps not."
"Pleaaase, pleeeeaaase, pleeeeeeaaaaase don't kill me! I had to!" James abjured, his eyes foggy with tears of profound wetness.
"We have no choice!" Bob affirmed, removing his hidden pistol from his pants. With one quick pull of the stainless steel trigger, James' brains were blown out the back of his head. Suddenly Bob lamented, "
WE DIDN'T HAVE
TO DO THIS!
WE DIDN'T HAVE
TO!" He sobbed soggy tears.
WHY THIS IS BAD: It sounds idiotic. There's a reason all published authors use the word 'said'; its alternatives are stupid. Now it's okay to use an alternative every once and awhile, but use 'said' at least 90% of the time. When I read back through my old works where I never use the word 'said' I feel very embarrassed for myself. In fact, now I'll take the time to thank the many people who have critiqued on my work for not being too hard on me. Gawd, some of the stuff I've posted here is absolute gak.
THINKING YOU CAN JUST DESCRIBE CHARACTERS
WHAT THIS IS: You've come up with this brilliant main character that's all indepth and well written with its own personality and everything. Now its time to introduce the character to the story. You really want the readers to get a feel for the character and know who he/she is. So you start writing. EXAMPLE: "Linda was a fiery, no nonsense red head with scores of kills under her name. At her very mention the High Lords would quake with fear. Despite her impatience and legendary wrath, she had a soft spot for her seven year old son, Bob and her eight year old son Bobby."
WHY THIS IS BAD: At first glance this doesn't always seem too bad (though my example is pretty bad). A lot of good authors will describe a character's reputation and background in their introduction. But the difference is that they don't describe the character's personality. For a character's personality, remember SHOW DONT TELL. If Linda is really angry, then have her tear some guy's head off and shove it down another guy's throat. If Linda loves her children, have her spending quality time with 'em. If Linda is afraid of the dark, then have her go into a dark place and be afraid. But don't just say she's afraid of the dark as soon as the readers meet her.
HIS PERSONALITY TYPE IS AWESOME
WHAT THIS IS: Warhammer
40k is about awesome people. And those awesome people are really interesting and cool to read about. Thus some people make the misconception that
ff they want they're characters to be cool and interesting, they need to be awesome. Then they assume that being awesome is all a character needs. EXAMPLE: "Bob turned towards Abaddon with murder in his eyes. With one swift roundhouse kick he killed all of the Traitor Legions. The Eye of Terror was so bruised that it sealed up, saving the Imperium. Then Bob killed the Imperium for no clear reason because his author forgot to give him a motivation of any sort. Afterwards he ate all the Tau. And the Sisters of Battle because why not?"
WHY THIS IS BAD: It's okay to have badass characters (though if you make them too badass it'll hurt the story). However, badass characters need to have personalities. And motivations. The audience will get bored pretty quickly if all there is to the character is his badassitude.
STARTING WITH THE STORY WITH THE MOST BORING PART
WHAT THIS IS: This is a really bizarre mistake. I cannot fathom why I've ever made it. Maybe I'm just a lot dumber than I think I am. Now I'm going to get back to talking in 2nd person, because it makes me feel less bad about myself and makes it more applicable to helping you. Alright, so you've come up with a great idea for a story. It's about badass Bob and Linda, two bounty hunters, tracking down rogue Inquisitor James. Along the way they're forced to confront the worst the galaxy has to offer, as well as their most inner fears and doubts (Bob has begun to doubt the morality of his violent way of life and Linda is still mortified by the dark). You look at one of those fancy
story chart things and somehow decide that it means the story has to start off on a boring note. So you decide to begin with some pointless exposition and maybe a boring scene on a train or something. Then the story can get really violent later.
EXAMPLE: "Linda leaned against the window sill, bored out of her mind. Normally bounty hunting was a very exciting occupation that would make for a great movie or book. But today she was just sitting on a train, being bored. She ordered a coffee from one of those train attendant people. It tasted boring but she sipped it anyways because this part is supposed to be boring. At this point no one was even reading but Linda was still sitting there, being bored. She wondered how her kids, Bob and Bobby, were doing. They were always having exciting adventures. But her she was, sitting on a train, being bored.
WHY THIS IS BAD: The point of writing is getting the reader to read. They won't read if your story starts out like that. A story should start on the first significant, interesting event in the plot. Not a pointless scene that establishes nothing, just so that you can strictly adhere to the
plot chart thingy. Gawd I feel like a horrible writer. I hope I'm not still that bad.
DICTIONARIES ARE FOR DONKEY-CAVES
WHAT THIS IS: You found an awesome sounding word, like 'munificent' or 'phantasmagorical' or 'carnal'. It sounds awesome; you just have to use it. But you're not 100% sure what it means. Oh well, you can just use it where it sounds right. The readers won't care. In fact, they'll probably laud you on your staggeringly stupendous vocabulary. EXAMPLE: "James examined his munificent phantasmagorical, bristling with weapons of all sorts. A long, slender cannon made of other cannons was the forefront of the carnal weapon. He chuckled diabolically, churning his dastardly mustache. Those eccentric bounty hunters Bob and Linda would soon be masticating themselves in fear. He chuckled again.
WHY THIS IS MUNIFICENT: The readers will notice. By god they will notice. They might not comment on it, but they will notice. If you use the wrong word too many times, they'll stop reading too.
I WILL USE MY GRAND WORKS TO INFORM THE PEOPLE ABOUT POLITICS
WHAT THIS IS: Your story is all cool and popular. Then for some stupid reason you decide to include politics. EXAMPLE: "Linda reholstered her pistol and chomped down on one of her signature cigars. 'The only thing worse than the Nazi pedophile Chaos Astartes Dark Eldar Dragon I just killed,' she asserted. 'Is a democrat. RON PAUL 2012!'"
WHY THIS IS BAD: You'll lose any reader who disagrees with you. What if all of your readers were democrats and they were offended by the above comment? What if all your readers were republicans and they were understandably irked when you called them 'sociopathic zombies'? For the record I'm a democrat, but I try to keep that out of my stories now (though I used to include politics because I'm sometimes really stupid). Writing shouldn't be about politics (unless your story is a political one).
HE POOPED LIKE A FLAMING DUMPTRUCK
WHAT THIS IS: Good stories use "literary devices" like metaphors and similies and personification and gak. So you decide to include a metaphor/similie. And you write something like this. EXAMPLE: "Bob was a roaring hippo, swinging at the traitor like an enraged duck. Following the battle, he pooped like a flaming dumptruck. 'That does it,' he inquired bravely. 'No more battle laxatives.'"
WHY THIS IS BAD: Because its bad. This is what happens when you forget to proofread your work and make sure everything makes sense. These days I still forget to proofread my work, so poorly thought out sentences like these are still a problem for me. PROOFREAD YOUR WORKS.
