lessersaints

[lessersaints]

The linguistics of horror

There’s a very distinct pattern in what one might, if one were being… incautious, name “Internet horror-speak,” a particular patois that’s arisen in the latest years of this very era, a peculiar dialect lashed together from the flesh of Lovecraft and the sinew of internet culture and the bones of… something bony. Okay so I’m probably not going to be able to keep that gag up. It’s the language of Dread Singles

HOT SINGLES IN YOUR AREA, TRAVELING THE SUNKEN WAYS, DRINKING FROM THE LIPS OF THE LOW ONES, WISHING THEY’D WORN MORE SENSIBLE SHOES

and Welcome to Night Vale

Mayor Pamela Winchell The fences in the caves. A heart throbbing for what it cannot have. A heart not having what it needs to throb. The fences in the caves. Heat from below and above, but all is cold betwixt. The fences in the caves. The fences in the caves.

to which I refer.

What interests me though is that’s there’s a very distinct pattern and sort of grammar to how this Internet Horror-Speak (hereafter IHS) works, one I’ve been trying to work out for a while now. There are some very obvious patterns, as well as some subtle ones I’m not sure how to put into words. These are the rules I’ve sussed out, though:

One of the most important rules, and I think the one that might be the most surprising to a lot of people, is to use simple, mundane language. Empurpling the narrative with gratuitous polysyllabisms and grandiose prose is actually wholly deleterious to the desired effect. This actually makes a lot of sense. Purple prose has a serious abstracting effect, in that it draws the audience away from the action and makes it sound more like they’re listening to a story. So using purple prose to describe your indescribable horrors can make them feel less real, where using everyday language helps connect the audience and make them feel more like there’s some grotesque violation of normalcy going on

Use fewer ‘s-constructions. Say “the blood of the fallen,” not “the fallen’s blood;” “the intestines of dawn” not “dawn’s intestines.” This is a less solid rule, and it’s still possible to have a powerfully creepy effect with the ‘s-construction, particularly if the construction comes sentence-finally: “They beat them with sticks around which were wrapped dawn’s intestines,” but “They wrapped the intestines of dawn around thick oaken sticks.”

Use older words. “For” instead of “because,” “kin” for “family,” etc. If this makes them shorter than their modern counterparts, all the more effective.

Don’t use commas with conjunctions, just string conjunctions together. So “They laughed and writhed and screamed and died in the gaze of a smiling god,” but not *”They laughed, writhed, screamed, and died in the gaze of a smiling god.” This one’s variable, but I see the former more than the latter and to me it feels like it has more impact and is more visceral. The latter sounds more planned out, more official, more normal.

Use old-fashioned constructions. “The”+[adjective] constructions are a favorite, as are “the [adjective] one(s).” “The laughing ones steal away the dreams of the hopeful and feast on the teeth of the indolent,” “There are no innocent in this place, for to gaze on the Ancient Ones is to know that innocence is a lie, that blood and fear and corruption are the engines of all that breathes.”

Break word associations. If I start a sentence with “The toaster,” you’re probably going to expect something like, “the toasted fell off the counter,” or “the toasted exploded,” not “the toasted laughed” or “the toaster bled.” There are words we associate with animate things and words we associate with inanimate things, and mixing them up can lead to weird mental reactions. It’s why things like “SPANK HAIR — LICK EYES — WHISPER INTO ASS” are so funny. They make us build associations that we didn’t have previously. A toaster isn’t a thing that bleeds, and hair isn’t something you spank, so putting those words together tends to slightly mess with people and throw off our reading. Welcome to Night Vale does this SO MUCH.

Cecil Wednesday has been canceled due to a scheduling error

Cecil Here’s something odd: there is a cat hovering in the men’s bathroom at the radio station here

Cecil Alert! The sheriff’s secret police are searching for a fugitive named Hiram McDaniels, who escaped custody last night following a 9 PM arrest. McDaniels is described as a five-headed dragon

Last but not least, be vague. Let your words imply terrible and alien machinations at play, let them hint at vast supernatural tableaux of incomprehensible splendor and horror hanging just out of sight waiting to be glimpsed, but don’t ever explicitly tell anybody what’s going on. I put this one last because even though it’s the most important, it’s the most obvious, and I think everybody already knows this about horror. But it’s worth noting that IHS generally dials this up way higher, to the point where it’s hard or impossible to tell what parts are literal or metaphorical. Take this sub-par example:

Moving through the ashen ways of eons past, realms of fire and smoke and emptiness rising up and twisting around its path the beast walked on, burning all it perceived.

One on level, it’s possible that we’re talking about a minotaur arsonist who’s taking to the backroads during a forest fire to avoid the cops. On the other, we could be talking about some incomprehensible eldritch abomination warping its way through infernal dimensions outside space and time, ravaging worlds at its passing. Or anything between. I think this is probably the single most salient feature of IHS: its utter vagueness, and lack of proper context to distinguish the metaphorical from the literal.

But anyway. This is a fascinating memetic phenomenon and one I’d love to see some proper research done on this, beyond the idle musings of a lazy linguist with too much on her hands to spend time analyzing hard data.

[lessersaints]

Does anyone have suggestions when you can’t write the viewpoint of a specific character? What do you do to get to know your characters better, to figure them out?

[lessersaints]

[lessersaints]

A Quick(ish) Comprehensive Guide to Writing in Third Person Limited

When we write, one of the very first aspects we consider is the perspective of the story. Is it in first person? Second person? Third person? Third person point-of-view is arguably the most flexible perspective, but that also makes it difficult to fully grasp and harness.

~~~

INTRODUCTION

Let's begin with the fundamental questions: what is third person and why do people use it?

> What is Third Person POV?

Third person POV is simply a narrative style in which the narrator has a broader view of all the characters and their thoughts. Unlike first person, which is seen through the eyes of one person, calling for the use of pronouns such as I, me, or my, third person uses pronouns such as he, she, or they to refer to everyone, including themselves. As the reader, we aren't meshed into the main character and viewing the story that way. Instead, we're moreso hovering from above and observing collective events, actions, and even thoughts.

There are three MAIN types of this perspective: third person omniscient, third person objective and third person limited.

Omniscient is where the narrator knows everything about the characters, events, and emotions, revealing many, if not all, of these aspects of the readers.

Objective is when the narrator focuses solely on the actions and behaviors of the characters, without providing insight to thoughts or emotions. It's an objective narration style.

Limited is where the narrator focuses on one character (which would likely be the protagonist) and centers the story around that character.

> Why Use Third Person?

To put it simply, third person can allow you to write more. You have access to multiple POVs and there is often less bias. In first person, the narrator is the character, which can cause warped views influenced by their bias.

However, for third person, the narrator is an external voice (oftentimes you), so while there can be some bias depending on the character you're hovering, there is significantly less.

***

THE BASICS

In this post, I won't be talking too much about third person omniscient because it's more uncommon in writing. Instead, I will be talking about a popular variant of third person limited in which we use the POVs of multiple characters one at a time.

> Using the Correct Pronouns

In first person, we use the pronouns "I, me, my, we, etc." to describe the narrator. In second person, we use the pronouns "you, your, etc." to describe the protagonist. In third person, we use the pronouns "she, he, they, etc." to describe the protagonist.

Avoid using first or second person pronouns unless you're writing thoughts or dialogue.

> Making the POV Clear

Since we're using the perspectives of different characters (at different times), it's imperative to clarify who the perspective belongs to. You can do this simply by listing the POV before writing the part or by starting a new paragraph, which begins with a sentence starting in active voice by the focused character.

EXAMPLES

Lexi's POV: She was astounded when she realized that... V.S. Lexi was astounded when she realized that...

Both examples are in third person and evidently centered around Lexi.

> Be Consistent

Be consistent with pronouns; unless you're writing thoughts and/or dialogue, make sure you're always using third person pronouns to address everything. It's easy to let it slip, but it's important not to.

Ex:

WRONG: She stares at the mirror. My hair is kind of messy, so I grab the brush. CORRECT: She stares at the mirror. Her hair is kind of messy, so she grabs the brush.

Another thing to consider is keeping the type of third person POV consistent. If you're writing in third person limited, don't suddenly switch to omniscient. Granted, many readers may not be able to identify this kind of mistake, but it's good to practice consistency!

***

GENERAL TIPS

Now, let's discuss some general ideas to keep in mind when writing in third person limited.

> Use Names

You might be thinking what? No duh I have to use names, but I'm being dead serious. In third person, you might find yourself writing out names of characters more often than when you might be using first person. This is because pronouns get confusing. If there are two girls talking, then which one is 'she'? Remember that your protagonist is also an outside character.

Use names, use different ways to identify people (the taller student, the younger employee, etc.), because even if you know who is who, the readers might not.

> Objectiveness

One of the pros of using third person to storytell is the objectiveness that it grants. First person comes with many biases, which can warp how the reader views the characters, actions, and events of the story.

However, in third person, you want your narrator to be as unbiased as possible. Be objective. Describe things as they are. Sure, sometimes a character's opinion might influence the story, but it shouldn't be too excessive.

> Be Descriptive

I'm sure I've said this only about one million times now, but third person POV is broad. You can talk about anyone, anything, and you can even explain events unrelated and outside of your protagonist's bubble, which you normally can't do in first person.

So be descriptive. You don't have to worry about how a specific may view something because we're in third person. There's so much more for you to describe, you just have to take advantage of it.

You can describe your protagonist's enemy with both distaste and detached neutrality; you can describe minute details of a tree without making your main character seem overdramatic--you just have to do it.

***

ADDITIONAL TIPS

> When to Change Perspectives

In third person limited POV, it's common and often necessary to change the character the narrator hovers around. This is because only following the protagonist is, well, quite limited. So, when do we change which character we follow?

Show Events Outside of the Protagonist: If you have part of the cast (such as the antagonist) that's taking action outside of what the MC is aware of, and you want to show what's happening, this is a good time to switch perspectives! ----

Show Different Reactions to the Same Event: Let's say an intense incident just occurred that affected multiple people. Switching perspectives here can be quite useful because it allows you to show how different characters handle and view the same situation. This also helpful because it gives the reader deeper insight to the characters!

> Incorporating Character

I talked about this alone in a separate post, but I'll reiterate it again. Many people believe that third person POV is less interesting because there's "less personality" in its writing compared to first person.

This is mainly due to the standard objectivity that comes with third person, but it doesn't mean you can't include hints of character within your writing outside of dialogue and thoughts.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to word choice and a bit of sentence structure. Different words and phrases have different connotations, and though it seems like a very subtle detail to focus on, it does impact your writing.

Try to use vocabulary that fits the character you're hovering. Vocabulary that they might use.

If you're writing from the perspective of an angrier character, maybe you'll use cruder language during their section. If it's a more dramatic character, perhaps you'll use more theatrical language and flowy sentence structures mixed with choppy ones.

EX:

1. He felt stupidly annoyed at the man's assumptions. 2. He felt irritated at the man's assumptions. 3. He felt fed up with the man's assumptions.

Those three examples all have similar meanings and identical sentence structures. However, you'll notice that there are slightly different connotations per each sentence.

For number one, it sounds like the character is upset that he's so annoyed. This offers the idea that the character feels he shouldn't be as annoyed as he is, quietly hinting that he isn't the type to get ruffled easily or at least, not towards such assumptions.

For number two, the statement is very direct. The character is irritated. He might not be as displeased as number one or three, but he is still annoyed. However, the forwardness of the statement might suggest that he's a pretty straightforward guy who's expresses his emotions frankly.

Lastly, for number three, the character sounds more tired and possibly angry. He's done with the assumptions. It can be assumed that he's the type who's more likely to take action than the other two.

Now, these are really simple examples, but you can see that the word changes do slightly alter the meaning of the sentence and evoke separate emotions based on the character of the perspective's owner.

If the character uses the word "excessively" instead of "very," we might think that the character is more eloquent.

Yes, all of these descriptions technically belong to the narrator, but there's no linear way to write the narrator. In this case, they act like a mirror, reflecting the voice of the character.

CONCLUSION

We're at the end! This was a MUCH larger post than I expected to write, so kudos to anyone who's read more than 50% of this LOL.

All in all, third person POV isn't actually terribly difficult to get the hang of. You'll need some practice, as with anything, but you'll understand it better the more you work on it--with or without my help!

The biggest point is to make sure your pronouns are in check. Don't use "I, me, my or you, yours, you're" unless you're writing dialogue or thoughts!

Hope this has been helpful! Reach out to me for any questions; I'd love to answer them!

Happy writing~

3hks <3

[lessersaints]

†

[lessersaints]

✨ HOW TO ACTUALLY START A BOOK

(no ✨vibes✨, just structure, stakes, and first-sentence sweat)

hello writer friends 💌 so you opened a doc. you sat down. you cracked your knuckles. maybe you even made a playlist or moodboard. and then… you stared at the blinking cursor like it personally insulted your entire bloodline.

here’s your intervention. this post is for when you want to write chapter one, but all you have is aesthetic, maybe a plot bunny, maybe a world idea, maybe nothing at all. here’s how to actually start a book, from structure to sentence one.

—

🌶️ STEP 1: THE SPICE BASE ~ “WHAT’S CHANGING?”

start with this question:

what changes in the protagonist’s life in the first 5–10 pages?

doesn’t have to be earth-shattering. they could get a letter, lose a job, run late, break a rule, wake up hungover in the wrong house. what matters is disruption. the opening of your book should mark a shift. if their day starts normal, it shouldn’t end that way.

🏁 opening chapters are about motion. forward movement. tension. momentum. if nothing is changing, your story isn’t starting, you’re just doing a prequel.

—

⚙️ STEP 2: THE CRUNCHY BITS - CHOOSE AN ENTRY POINT

there are 3 classic places to start a novel. each one works if you’re intentional:

The Day Everything Changes most popular. you drop us in right before or during the inciting incident. clean, fast, efficient.

pro: immediate stakes con: harder to sneak in worldbuilding or character grounding

The Calm Before the Storm starts slightly earlier. show the character’s “normal” life, then break it. useful if the change won’t make sense without context.

pro: space to introduce your character’s routine/flaws con: risky if it drags or feels like setup

The Aftermath drop us in after the big event and fill in gaps as we go. works well for thrillers, mysteries, or emotionally heavy plots.

pro: instant drama con: requires precision to avoid confusion

📝 pick one. commit. don’t blend them or you’ll write three intros at once and cry.

—

🧠 STEP 3: CHARACTER FIRST, ALWAYS

readers don’t care about your setting, your magic system, or your cool mafia politics unless they’re anchored in someone.

in the first scene, we need to know:

what this person wants

what’s bothering them (externally or internally)

one trait they lead with (bold, anxious, calculating, naive, etc.)

that’s it. just one want, one tension, one vibe. no bios. no monologues. no “they weren’t like other girls” essays. put them in a situation and show how they act.

—

⛓️ STEP 4: OPEN WITH FRICTION

first scenes should create questions, not answer them.

there should be tension between:

what the character wants vs. what they’re getting

what’s happening vs. what they expected

what’s being said vs. what’s being felt

you don’t need a gunshot or a car crash (unless you want one). you need conflict. tension = momentum = readers keep reading.

—

✏️ STEP 5: WRITE THE FIRST SENTENCE - THEN IGNORE IT

okay. now you write it.

no pressure. you’re not tattooing it on your soul. this isn’t the final line on the final page. you just need something.

tricks that work:

start in the middle of an action

start with a contradiction

start with something unexpected, funny, or sharp

start with a small lie or a weird detail

💬 examples:

“The body was exactly where she’d left it - rude.” “He was already two hours late to his own kidnapping.” “There was blood on the welcome mat. Again.” “They said don’t open the door. She opened it anyway.”

once you’ve got it? keep going. don’t revise yet. don’t edit. just build momentum.

you can come back and make it ✨iconic✨ later.

—

📦 BONUS: WHAT NOT TO DO IN YOUR OPENING

don’t start with a dream

don’t info-dump lore in paragraph one

don’t give me three pages of your OC making toast

don’t try to sound like a Victorian cryptid unless it’s on purpose

don’t introduce 7 named characters in one scene

don’t start with a quote unless you are 800% sure it slaps

be weird. be sharp. be specific. aim for interest, not perfection.

—

🏁 TL;DR (but make it ✨useful✨)

something in your MC’s life should change immediately

pick a structural entry point and stick to it

give us a person, not a setting

friction = good

first lines are disposable, just make them interesting

and if you needed a sign to just start the damn book, this is it.

💌 love, -rin t.

P.S. I made a free mini eBook about the 5 biggest mistakes writers make in the first 10 pages 👀 you can grab it here for FREE:

[lessersaints]

jp

[lessersaints]

What is the use of art? The answer to this question resides in a formula: “art is a prayer.” — Andrei Tarkovsky: Interviews, edited by John Gianvito Therein lies the enormous aid the work of art brings to the life of the one who must make it,—: that it is his epitome; the knot in the rosary at which his life recites a prayer, the ever-returning proof to himself of his unity and genuineness, which presents itself only to him while appearing anonymously to the outside, nameless, existing merely as necessity, as reality, as being— — Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters on Cézanne Art is a wound turned into light. — Georges Braque

[lessersaints]

think that everyone has their own personal theme in life

[lessersaints]

been thinking abt this a lot. A poetry professor once told me every poet has a particular emotion from which they write. It’s not what they write about, but what emerges from the writing. For instance, louise gluck posits that Richard Siken’s central emotion is panic. Even though the word is never spoken to or about, the poems are saturated with it. I think Mary Oliver can be characterized by relief. Anyway, i think having that recognizeable Emotion is a major mark of poetic voice & it’s development

[lessersaints]

you don’t have to write something good. you just have to write something unhinged enough to edit later

[lessersaints]

Alright lads, here's one for any and all writers: what are the top five things readers can basically always expect to see in your work?

[lessersaints]

Interesting how gothic always seems to deal with guilt. In European gothic it’s ofen about inbred bloodlines and walled-up secrets, the rich hiding what they’re ashamed of to keep up apperances. In, say, American Southern Gothic it’s about rich families rotting, rotting due to wealth built on slavery, like a house with bad foundations. Gothic takes a setting and shows the skull under the skin.

[lessersaints]

People, especially games, get eldritch madness wrong a lot and it’s really such a shame.

An ant doesn’t start babbling when they see a circuit board. They find it strange, to them it is a landscape of strange angles and humming monoliths. They may be scared, but that is not madness.

Madness comes when the ant, for a moment, can see as a human does.

It understands those markings are words, symbols with meaning, like a pheromone but infinitely more complex. It can travel unimaginable distances, to lands unlike anything it has seen before. It knows of mirth, embarrassment, love, concepts unimaginable before this moment, and then…

It’s an ant again.

Echoes of things it cannot comprehend swirl around its mind. It cannot make use of this knowledge, but it still remembers. How is it supposed to return to its life? The more the ant saw the harder it is for it to forget. It needs to see it again, understand again. It will do anything to show others, to show itself, nothing else in this tiny world matters.

This is madness.

[lessersaints]

betraying someone who trusts them deeply is one of the sexiest things a character can do its unparalleled. cause either the relationship is irrevocably changed and said character is completely at fault (guilt complex, hot) or it isnt and then both sides have to deal with the fact that they care about each other enough to overlook the betrayal (unceasing devotion, also hot)

[lessersaints]

There are the myths we inherit, and then there are myths we make for ourselves.

Katie Goh, Foreign Fruit: A Personal History of the Orange

[lessersaints]

i think that childhood best friends to enemies trope is the most tragic thing to ever exist bc like. we’ve both done unspeakable things to each other and there’s no getting back to what we were at the start of this but there’s a part of me that still knows you like no one else could ever possibly know you. the whole idea of trust and devotion turned to a mutual, burning hunger to destroy each other. I hate you this much because i loved you this much. drives me insane.