#Writing discourse

[scoldingdarjeeling]

Criticism is tolerated — so long as it doesn’t disrupt the perfectly curated consensus.

Since a Big Blogger™ offering writing wisdom decided to delete my comment, I’ll post it here instead — because honestly, that act speaks louder than any neatly worded advice.

Here’s what I wrote:

Funny how some people talk about 'newbies' with kindness while still keeping them outside the door — like they’re not ready to be heard until they’ve paid some imaginary dues. I’ve read ‘new’ writers who sound like thunder, and 'veterans' who echo like empty rooms. No — I don’t think you can tell who’s experienced and who’s not just from a fic. And maybe you shouldn’t try.

—I’m the big bad wolf.

[brettdoesdiscourse]

The thing that gets me about the people who are all "all fic authors should accept constructive criticism!" often just don't know what constructive criticism is. "Your fic was bad and I didn't like it" is not constructive criticism nor is "I don't like this trope/ship/dynamic"

[orion-nottson]

writing tfp megatron is honestly so difficult because while he is a charismatic, determined leader, eloquent, manipulative, disciplined, cunning, and a very very skilled warrior with expert battle prowess, he is also, fundamentally, the most unstable, unhinged 'con on the show. like think about it, megatron is prone to and embraces these violent fits of rage (i.e. the whole show), he's unbelievably and senselessly petty, has lapses in judgment and often makes poor or even irrational decisions (i.e. choosing starscream over dreadwing.......... starscream, feeding the nemesis dark energon, etc), he ultimately cares about no one but himself which is fine for a villain character, but is often logistically at the detriment to his own army, and he's a prideful, beyond arrogant, narrow-minded lunatic who has such an obsessive vendetta boner for one (1!) bot named *checks notes* optimus prime that he's willing to and often does shoot himself in the foot with the revenge-driven, power-hungry impulses that lead to him (and by extension, the entire decepticon army) failing in spectacularly bad ways! tfp megatron, for all of his strong qualities, is also so fucking impulsive and rash to his very core that it's nothing short of a miracle that the decepticon cause has existed for as long as it has. which makes writing him so so so paradoxical, because in one sentence i could, while staying in character, have him saying something so gothically poetic and in the next, realistically, have him do a 180 flip into a display of wrathful deceitfulness so intense it outburns the fucking sun. he's soooo interesting for this!!! like!!! take a pill!!! mood stabilizer!!!

[midgardianqueenreturns]

“Not every villain needs a redemption arc!”

Correct. However, who on earth is calling for ALL villains to be redeemed? Even the most pro-redemption folks can name villains they don’t think should be redeemed. Just because someone wants a redemption arc for a villain you don’t think needs it doesn’t mean they apply that to ALL villains. This argument is nothing but a disingenuous strawman.

[sailforvalinor]

Every time someone talks about the main character of a series (especially fantasy or children’s media) being “boring,” I have to wonder if y’all actually think the character is genuinely boring or if you think goodness and morality are boring

[papercranesong]

Reflections of a Fanfic Writer: What I Think About When I Think About Writing

I use AI as a tool in my writing. (For this post, I used it as a spellchecker). But when people tell me

“Writing with AI isn’t writing"

I hear this -

“Writing fanfic isn’t writing”

And I think about my friends and family, teachers and colleagues who would all ask me when I was going to 

Write something proper 

With my own characters 

And get it published 

And make money from it

as if writing fanfic in itself isn’t valid,

as if I can only call myself a writer if I publish novels with worlds and characters that are entirely my own creations.

And then I think about novels and what Jane Austen’s contemporaries told her, that 

“Writing novels isn’t writing”

Because they thought that writing was only valid if it was non-fiction,

and then I think about her Defence of the Novel in Northanger Abbey, where she writes,

“Although our productions have afforded more extensive and unaffected pleasure than those of any other literary corporation in the world, no species of composition has been so much decried. From pride, ignorance, or fashion, our foes are almost as many as our readers.  And while the abilities of the nine-hundredth abridger of the History of England, or of the man who collects and publishes in a volume some dozen lines of Milton, Pope, and Prior, with a paper from the Spectator, and a chapter from Sterne, are eulogised by a thousand pens -  there seems almost a general wish of decrying the capacity and undervaluing the labour of the novelist, and of slighting the performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them.”

And then I think about the act of writing itself, and I remember what Socrates told Plato, that

writing destroys the memory and weakens the mind

“If men learn [the art of writing], it will implant forgetfulness in their souls: they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks.” (Phaedrus) 

And then finally,

I think about Rainer Maria Rilke, and his words to a writer struggling with self-doubt -

“There is only one thing you should do. Go into yourself. Find out the reason that commands you to write; see whether it has spread its roots into the very depths of your heart; confess to yourself whether you would have to die if you were forbidden to write. This most of all: ask yourself in the most silent hour of your night: must I write? Dig into yourself for a deep answer. And if this answer rings out in assent, if you meet this solemn question with a strong, simple “I must,” then build your life in accordance with this necessity; your whole life, even into its humblest and most indifferent hour, must become a sign and witness to this impulse.” (Letters to a Young Poet)

Or as Sister Mary Clarence paraphrased Rilke in Sister Act 2 (love that film) -

“If, when you wake up in the morning, you can think of nothing but writing - then you are a writer.”

And then I think -

No matter what I choose to write about 

Or how I choose to write it

Or the tool I use to write it with -

If I’m writing it – then it’s writing.

Writing is writing.

(And a word of caution - 

“Your writing isn’t valid” can so easily become 

You aren’t valid 

And if you’re not valid then you’re somehow seen as less than human -

and when we start dehumanising people it makes it easier for us to justify how we treat them).

In this discussion about AI, let’s keep treating each other as human beings.

(For more on this topic check out my FAQ of an AI-using fanfic writer here)

[fox-daddy]

૮꒰ “ . . ꒱ა

{ Referencing this post: https://www.tumblr.com/fox-daddy/757860410537984000/this-is-how-i-view-the-tags-at-this-point-x-gn?source=share }

I feel like it's really easy to slip into writing for/catering to fem readers, even if you write for gn readers, without realising sometimes . . . Can imagine it frustrates the hell out of readers. So, if you have time, could you give advice for writers on that bit? Stuff they shouldn't do or stuff they should do more of when writing fics so its inclusive to all? (Stuff to definitely avoid)

Totally understandable if you'd rather not answer this!

It definitely is easy to slip into writing female or male characters if that is what you mainly write. This is definitely a situation where theirs multiple different answers depending on who you ask. As someone who used to write majority female characters and then male their are some things you can do that can help.

The biggest give away and biggest no, no in my opinion; check your pronouns. CTRL+F is a great tool or if your on phone the 3 dots on the side where favorites are and it's called the find tool. I have misgendered nonbinary characters a lot by mistake, heck I've misgendered myself. To avoid accidently writing female or male characters that is the most important thing to edit out of the drafts.

Is a point people might argue on but feminine clothing like dresses and skirts. I know nonbinary/masc people can pull of dresses, my proof;

The problem with dresses with reader x is for it to pull off in my opinion it has to match the character which is extremely hard to do with a by design open character like a reader. The character above is already thought of as a very 'gender is a social construct' character so him wearing a dress make sense. But I'd avoid using feminine clothes since it's hard to do right with nonbinary characters. (small note after the next point)

3. make up goes along with the point above. I don't think it's super girly and a lot of male and nonbinary characters wear make up but a lot also feel insecure about make up and hating it. The fact I know kids around 12 years old that steal fake eyelashes because of how expensive and expected it is for woman fashion- it's a whole issue but I'd treat it the same as dresses can do it with characters but would honestly suggest steering clear if it's a reader character.

With both dresses and make up having a note at the start can also do a lot of help. Since it tells people who aren't comfortable hey this is going to be in here because gender is a construct and nonbinary people look just as good in make up and dresses then men and women.

So I think the most important thing to do to learn is you won't please everyone. Just trying to write for a different gender male, female and nonbinary is great, and a good way to help learn is to read about them. Starting to write nonbinary readers from female readers can be a shift like from writing male characters to female characters. Not everyone gets it right away. But try your hardest and be open to constructive criticism and if you can read some gender neutral stories and take notes on how it's different and how it's similar. Since makeup isn't as forced upon them as with girls and can be discouraged in the case of men.

With that said nobody has the right to abuse you because you got it wrong it's just really annoying to go onto the x reader tag and see a fanfic being she/her or he/him the entire way down from start to finish.

TLDR; make sure you use they/them pronouns, be aware of feminine associated clothes and read gender neutral stories and posts if you can. Even if you mess up or make a mistake nobody deserves to be berated and abused but try and take the constructive criticism on the chin do your best. And if you want to add more feminine associated stuff a simple note at the start can go a long way. Even as simple as; 'Reader wears a dress in this because gender is fake'

With that said this is open for any readers/writers to add their own opinions to. Did I miss anything? or disagree with me? tell me I think having a conversation is more important than 'do it my way and only my way'

[richardsphere]

Possibly controversial Queerbaiting Discourse

So yesterday i was wandering the Reddits (as you do), when i found someone saying that a media property and allegations of a relationship within it being Queerbait. As a central crux of this arguement, they said that because the pair in question cannonically do end up together, it in fact could never be considered “bait” And now i think that maybe, we should examine the definition of Queerbait a bit further. So let’s talk about Queerbaiting, As in the meaning of the Term not the history of the trope.

Full disclosure, Im not a Gay historian. I’m only what i’d call a Queer Sloth (”I know im somewhere on the flag, but i dont have the energy to figure out where”) so my takes might not be that great or well researched. But upon seeing people that say “if they legitimately end up together, its not bait”, i feel a responsibility to make it clear that I disagree sharply with that notion, it just means they’re fishing with live bait. I think the term Queerbaiting should not be defined by wether or not they get together, nor do i believe that “the two havent gotten together yet” suffices to define it as bait either. (after all, “will they/wont they” is a classic narrative trope, and a well written WT/WT story featuring LGTBQ+ characters is a well written relationship). And also a tragic romance where they never get together, shouldn’t be considered Bait just because they never get together. Tragedy is a valid narrative tradition that the LGBTQ community should not be exempted from either. I Instead i propose that the term Queerbaiting should be used to describe “We made them LGBTQ so the Community would give us Money, but we never put in the effort to actually sell the relationship”. Characters that are Queer (or implied to be) specificly because they knew it’d attract a starging under-represented group they could then financially exploit, with only the absolute minimal effort put into selling their relationship. Queerbaiting is simply the “minimum viable product” of writing being used to make a quick rainbow-coloured-buck.  It’s the act of writing the relationship without any real chemistry because the creators know that the LGBTQ community is starving for representation, and that a starving man will eat anything. ----Edit: I made an edit for clarity, original draft directly referenced the ship that was being used as an example in the prompting reddit-post, and led to confusion in readers thinking this post was about the pairing rather then about overly-narrow use of the term Queerbait,

[brettdoesdiscourse]

Some fics are just unenjoyable because of the POV they're written in and that's okay. Not everyone has to enjoy every kind of fanfic. That's the beauty of fanfiction, you can choose to read whatever you enjoy the most. Many people will not enjoy first or second POV fanfics, no matter what. It could be the most moving, the most beautifully crafted, piece of writing ever and many people will still not enjoy it.

No POV is "bad" or "good." But certain POVs are disliked by some readers and that's okay.

[genocidalfetus]

Don't tell writers, be they of fanfic or otherwise, who/what they can and cannot, should and should not, write about. Don't like what is written? Don't read it then!

[girlypopinspos]

I think it's relative. Two people can see where a story is going — one loves it, one hates it. There are no truly "good" or "bad" stories (or any forms of art); it's all just a matter of personal opinion depending on who you ask.

a hard pill to swallow: if an audience can pick up on where the story is going, it’s a good story.

[shyjusticewarrior]

At some point "fanfic can be as good as professional writing" became "fanfic should be as good as professional writing" and that's caused major damage to fandom spaces.

[001x456]

no you have to contribute to your fandom if you don't want it to die. most fandoms die because people say 'it's so sad watching the fandom die when the hype dies' without doing anything about it. I'm not saying you have to push out 100k word slow-burn fic, I'm not saying you have to make fan art or gif sets or edits or anything. I'm just saying we as a community should contribute to our fandom if we don't want it to die, and by contributing, I'm talking about giving kudos, commenting on your favorite fics, reblogging your favorite art and just talking about your favorite characters. that's enough to keep a fandom alive. that's the most effective way to keep a fandom alive in my humble opinion.

fandoms die because people stop talking about it, fandoms die because people stop engaging with fan content once the hype is gone. what I'm saying is, mainstream media's hype may be gone, but our fandom can stay alive and thriving if us as a community don't let it die.

[scoldingdarjeeling]

Please, refrain from doing this! It reflects poorly on us as writers...😬

It's little wonder that people are becoming increasingly hesitant to engage with written works... When someone pours their heart into a long, thoughtful, and detailed comment on a fic, only to be met with a sniffy response from the writer (or, as in OP's case, blocked for asking a question), it can be incredibly discouraging. Are we really in a place where we can become picky about a reader's experience? I've always seen that journey as something deeply subjective. If there is a significant gap between a reader’s interpretation and your original intent, it may indicate that the message you wanted to convey hasn't been communicated effectively. Don't like it? Change it. Let people in on what sort of feedback you're looking for. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Remember, feedback gives us life!

[mxxnlightwriting]

Maybe someone already said this in the reblogs, but I also believe this "self-insert" mentality in first person is another reason why so many FMCs get hated for simply... being a character and doing things, especially when they're not 100% good or have a personality (the biggest sin of all—I say this with sarcasm) or aren't what the reader deems as "correct" in their eyes.

So, when an author writes a morally grey woman, and the reader uses their personal compass to guide themselves through the story, and suddenly this character that they're projecting onto does a bad thing they wouldn't do, they're like "nope, this is not me therefore this is a BAD book and whoever likes it is a bad person."

Not only is that a terrible take to have on a piece of fiction, but it also shows a lack of compassion and media literacy on the reader's part.

I say compassion because, in my opinion, part of engaging with any sort of art is to ask questions while trying to find the answers within ourselves. Why did this character do this thing? What led them here? Was there another option for them? Can I empathise with them for making this choice or not?

Also, art doesn't have to be questioned to be understood, and not every book is made to be analysed, which is more than fine (all books are valid and I will not tolerate people criticising romance as a genre because some of you think it's not "intellectual" enough. This is not about you, either).

And I say media literacy because characters are not—and I can't stress this enough—people!! So using your moral compass to judge a character will not work because, once again, they're characters. They'll always be constricted by the rules of plot and not the rules of reality/real world (even when these characters live in our world).

And like, there's nothing wrong with wanting to find characters that you can relate to, especially when they're the main characters! That's why representation is so important—sometimes we need to see some sort of "us" in the media/art we engage with so we can find value and understanding in who we are as individuals. But you're not the main character of the books you're reading.

And if you want to be the main character of a book, maybe write an autobiography, I don't know.

wait do people read first person stories and think they're the ones in the story???

Saw people talking about not liking first person, which is fair, but their reasoning was like "I would not do that" and I don't understand that mindset.

First person stories are still about a character. A character making their own decisions. First person isn't about you???? At least I thought it wasn't. What am I missing? I've always seen first person as just a more in-depth look into a character's mind and stricter POV. Not as a reader stand-in.

[brettdoesdiscourse]

Got accused of mistreating people with speech impediments in real life because I said I prefer when speech impediments aren't written out in dialogue (like using "s-s-stuttering" in a character's dialogue rather than just saying, "they stuttered through it")

Bestie. I HAVE A SPEECH IMPEDIMENT.

Some of yall are way too comfortable making assumptions about others based on their fictional preferences and it makes you look like clowns.