/lit/ - Literature

13 IS AN UNLUCKY NUMBER YOU FUCKING ROASTIE WHORE!!!!

>You do avoid these 13 writing mistakes, right anon?

>is my tattoo in the shot?

I like tattoos on woman

>>16077728
I like fire on woman

>>16077728
That tattoo though is absolutely terrible and looks fucking horrible. Get some taste virgin

>>16077728
me too but not that one
>>16077744
checked and high T

>>16077744
Yeah, we are no longer going to be replying too each other. Next time someone says something you disagree with try talking to them the way you would in person. I will be leaving you in this thread and having fun with anons that use anonymity to have MATURE dialogue. Bye.

>>16077693
Does she have tattoos in her pussy?

>>16077777
quints absolutely DEMAND to be answered

>>16077777
HOLY FUCING QUINTS

>>16077777
Checked

>>16077693
What are these mistakes?

>>16077728
You have very poor tastes.
>>16077753
You do too.

tattoos are disgusting and originated in slaves. I am glad people are seeing through this disgusting nigger trend

>>16077728
I like virgins and the ones with tattoos aren't them

>>16077777
If you penetrate a woman, it is only because thousands of tiny glands synthesize a mucus from piss and by-products of fat burning, which makes her "moist". Biochemically, it is underarm perspiration mixed with urine and some fat, pretty much the most disgusting thing a person can produce on their own, apart from menstrual blood. If a woman does not maintain adequate hygiene, this blood will settle deep inside her and rot. Of course, you hardly notice it because special bacteria break down the blood, but strictly speaking, it is accumulating in the woman. To sum up, if you enter a woman, you will sting into a sea of rotting blood, sweat, piss and fat.

>>16077940
Stop, my penis can only get so erect

>>16077940
Dios mio...I haven't coomed myself like this in months

>>16077940
Women's snatches are disgusting enough that you didn't have to make shit up

>>16077940
go on

>>16077693
Probably. What are the mistakes?

>>16077958
The description says
>Tropes Vs clichés
>Showing Vs telling
>Flowery writing
>Wordy writing
>Povs
>Stakes and conflicts
>Mimicking style from different time
>Hook
>Plot
I don't know what she actually means with most of these though desu

>>16078074
>Hook
I suppose leaving Captain Hook out of children's lit would be a mistake

>>16078074
>Plot

>>16078074
Ah, seems pretty obvious just going by that, I take she means:
>Tropes Vs clichés
"It's not bad to use tropes, but one needs to know these are tropes so one doesn't write in cliches."
>Showing vs telling
"Don't tell X was happy. Show it in actions or at least facial expressions."
>flowery writing/wordy writing
"Purple prose is either for complete beginners or pros who can handle it."
>povs
"No, your novel probably doesn't need 20 different POVs."
>stakes
"If there are nothing at stake and no conflicts, why should the reader read on?"
>"Mimicking style from different time"
You're not Joyce, Lovecraft or McCarthy. Don't be a fanboy who parrots shit that worked back in the day because it doesn't work now."
>Hook
That one seems more tricky to guess but I suppose it's about "grab attention of the reader right away"
>plot
"Don't write meandering shit that goes nowhere."

Sounds all like pretty good advice to keep in mind. Hardly material for 14 minutes though. Obvious things missing seems to be "don't write passive prose" and "cut filter words".

>>16078074
you should use NO words when writing just make a movie bro

>>16078108
She just googled a few "basic writing mistakes" articles and made a video of it to advertise her female face talking and moving in a camera as an advertisement to get men to give her money.

>>16078120
And seeing all the simps here talking about her instead of the topic – I'd say it worked. Good for her.

>>16078123
You sound like the simp though.

>>16078150
Show don't tell, anon.

>>16078108
>don't write passive prose

>>16078108
>you're not joyce
T-thanks for reminding me

>>16078173
It's beginners advice not hard rules, nigga. If you can make it work, you're not a "newbie". Most likely, you can't make it work and write lifeless shit. One easy way to change it, would be switching to active prose.

>>16078202
Active prose is autistic shit and only absolute retards would write strictly in passive. And only even bigger retards would suggest it, even as advice.

>>16078220
Try reading a book that wasn't written before you were born, mate. Active prose is pretty much the modern standard.

>>16077940
nice try but arousal suppresses disgust. you can explain the most disgusting shit to some of these people but as soon as the arousal comes in they'd slurp on a doodie for a pussy sniff

Imagine following any rules for writing lmao. Get on my level, plebs. I'm the avant garde, I don't follow rules, I create them.

>>16078259
And yet you just followed all the rules.

>>16078274
.

>>16078289
>t. lacks commitment

>>16077940
>piss
This doesn't even make sense. The vagina isn't connected to the urethra and pussy juice comes from the pussy. The moisture isn't urine unless she's pissed herself.
>fat burning
The byproducts of this can be found in pretty much all bodily fluids of both sexes.
>this blood will settle deep inside her and rot
The only way blood could start rotting inside the pussy is if she literally plugged herself up for a long period of time. Pussy juice is mucus though, but the rest of this is just bullshit.

Follow the guide faggot
https://youtu.be/OzQLt0X4aX8

>>16077777
checked

>>16078570
stop shilling that faggot

>>16078318
the coochie understander has logged on

>>16078586
I need more views to afford more salad

>>16078601
Based

>>16077728
Mistake #1

>>16077940
>>16077954
being gay is nothing to be ashamed of

>>16077693
give me six tenths of a reason why i should take writing advice from a youtuber

>>16077940
Yuck. Going to stick to boys now, thanks.

this roastie is the reason why modern literature is such a shitshow. This is the type of agent that aggressively searches for "marketable" fiction. Any story that slowly builds up is instantly rejected. These types only want "slap in the face" fiction, where the fist page hits you like "yo dis book be in ebonics and we at the hospital cuz my momma be dyin n sheet." Anything more subtle than that is fucking TRASH to these YA-peddlers and they have no authority to offer advice to anyone.

>>16078108
Did you add the swearing or is she swearing in the video? Either way I really hate it, it’s so uncouth. Imagine if that kind of writing was a part of your everyday language. Yikes. And, by the way, I always write like an 18th Century man of letters so I will absolutely be disregarding her advice to the opposite effect.

>>16077693
>Video about mistakes to avoid
>Disgusting tattoo
Imagine listening to that thing tell you about mistakes to avoid.

>>16077693
Why didn't she include #1 "Don't be a white male 'cause my exclusively white female far left BLM colleagues will throw you in the trash"?

>>16077940
who cares faggot

>>16078074
>Wordy writing
*Wordly writing
ftfy

>>16078108
>don't write passive prose
What is passive prose?

>>16078784
To be fair, she admits that her channel is addressed at genre-fiction aspiring authors. She said in one of her videos that if you intend to write something more personal and substantial then her videos aren't for you.

He jumped into the car. The car was jumped into.

Active prose. Passive prose.

>>16079243
And that should be obvious from just one glance at it. This thread is baiting.

Is there a bigger red flag than tattoos on a woman? It screams daddy issues.

>>16079459
I bet she has an onlyfans page. If anyone in this thread finds it I'll buy in and post her nudes here.

>>16078234
>modern standard
Genuinely KYS, reddit trend chaser

>>16079265
Huh. Seems like avoiding one or the other would be pretty idiotic then.

>>16077807
Watch the video or fuck off, retard.

>>16077693
>half the video is complaining about using too many words or complex words
What did genrefags mean by this?

>>16079607
Yeah. It is.

People think active voice is more immediate and more exciting, which it sort of is. Writing entirely in passive voice is kind of weird, I think Ray Bradbury did a short story about Salvador Dali in passive voice. But actively hunting for sentences in passive voice and eliminating them is kind of stupid.

>>16079529
Face it, in a world itching for VR and inundated in first person video games—which outsell movies—which outsell books: the future is active tense.

>>16078108
14 minutes really isn't long enough. That stuff takes time to hammer into your brain, that's why they have beginning, intermediate, and advanced fiction writing in colleges.

>>16078108
>>16079168
>>16078173
I think he means you shouldn't write in passive voice. That's to say, don't write something like, "This was done by me," you should write, "I did this." Passive voice creates a sort of pothole in what should be a carefully paved road (the job of a writer is to put all his efforts into his writing but make it look effortless, and this is demonstrated in show vs tell), and it interrupts the momentum of the narrative. Besides this, it's largely considered bad writing, even in basic college composition courses, because it's inconsistent and sloppy.

Technically, passive voice can be used as an effective rhetorical device, but you first have to know how to use it. So, as I'm assuming none of us here have been published, I'd take any writing advice I can get in what NOT to do, until you've learned how to use a no-no to your advantage.

Pic semi-related.

>>16077693
There's a very subtle tattoo on her arm. It's hard to miss it, if you're not looking for it

>>16079871
> I'm assuming none of us here have been published
Does self-published count?

>>16079885
No

>>16079871
I have a short story and a poem published, but that's it. Currently working on a short story or novella (I can't tell which yet, until I feel it's done and can edit) but realised I switched tenses a few times. I keep making newbie mistakes, it's really irritating.

>>16079905
You are fucked by yourself

>>16078234
>>16078202
>>16078108
Stop saying "prose", you dickhead. It's "voice", as in "active/passive voice". Funnily enough, to use the word "prose" is to use vague language, which is precisely why passive voice is so discouraged.

>>16079885
Doubtful. That could openly display exactly what makes your writing seem amateur. If you really want to perfect your craft, I suggest avoiding publishing in the near future (or if you need that instant gratification, use a pseudonym), and get off 4chan and read books on fiction writing or join a better community, because this place is extremely toxic and largely wrong when it comes to giving advice. Or at least enroll in a fiction writing course at your local college or something. You need an experienced instructor to help guide your writing, show what you're doing wrong, and help bring out the strengths in your writing.

The best possible advice on writing which no one gives is surrendering your ego. There are plenty of things, fancy prose for instance, which you will have to sacrifice in order to make a story work. Lots of folk here say, very ignorantly, that plot doesn't matter. You have to remember that you're writing stories, not philosophical treatises. Even if your story's purpose is to express some philosophical disposition, the fiction-writing aspect is your primary concern, because that's the vehicle with which you're delivering those ideas. So your plot has to be perfect, no matter how lowbrow you think plot may be. There is a reason why the great writers write fiction.

But back to the ego thing. You'll write a passage that moves in a way you can't understand, and you almost obsess over it because you felt so good writing it, you were convinced it had to have come from divine inspiration. But then you remember you're writing a 1st person story about an impoverished 16-year-old girl, who would never use the word "indeed" or even "however". This is just one example of the sacrifices you have to make. Another example is your confidence. Don't be afraid to take advice. You'll be steadfast in some of your writing habits, but you'll have to break a lot of those off. What you think makes your writing unique to yourself you'll find is exactly what's keeping you from your potentialities.

>>16079921
I figured I'd lump you in, too.

>>16079980
I'm >>16079921, and I found that college creative writing courses sucked and taught me nothing. I was top of my class in poetry and got a distinction for a novel writing course. They literally taught me nothing, but they bumped up my grades while I could bludge and practice my writing skills on my own.

I'll take your comments about plot very seriously, since I've always struggled with it. The three act story arc from Aristotle has always been my go-to, but it's fairly simplistic. What are your thoughts on Vonnegut's plot diagrams?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOGru_4z1Vc

>>16080022
I guess it depends on which college and which instructor. So in that case, yeah, the best you can do is read secondary material, unless you can find a way to ask a published author to help you out. And don't worry, they aren't going to teach how to write their way, rather, in a manner of speaking, help dig you out a thorny labyrinth.

Also, I struggle really badly with plot, too, in reading/TV as well as writing. Part of this has to do with bad memory. I've found taking notes is probably the best way to form your own understanding of a story you're reading. First read the story as is, then read it again with a pen in hand. Write down certain plot beats which you find essential and look at them all at once, and you can get a sense of plot unity.

>>16080022
>>16080084
Also, haven't read into Vonnegut, but I'll definitely give that video a shot. I'm always looking for more perspectives, thanks anon.

>>16077770
Based matureposter

>>16079676
>>16079607
I think a big part of it is that reserch papers have a strong tendency to be in the passive voice which makes anything in the passive voice immediately dry and sterile for many people.

>>16078784
It has nothing to do with her or agents but the times we live in. Back in the day a book was one rare form of entertainment next to lynchings and getting syphilis. Now there are more books published in a year than a person could read in a lifetime, and they compete with all sorts of other media too. Unless you already have a brand trust, why should the reader bother going through pages and pages of some random rambling?

Serious question. Is there a straight man working in American publishing?

>>16081672
Going to MSWL I recall about 20% being male without indicating that they aren't hetero.

If you think about it, it's kinda given since women tend to get the shitty administrative jobs and men the stuff that actually pays.

>all this seething that straight white males can't get their books published
alright then, why don't we make our own publishing house? call it Pepe Publishing or /Lit/ Random House or some meme shit like that. i know for a fact there are plenty of people on this board that have drafts ready to be published. how much start up money would we need?

>>16081699
>drafts
>ready to be published
Based. Gotta love more subtle humour.

>>16081712
editing is for cucks. chads just write and write until the book is done then send it straight to the printing press.

People always list these rules of things to avoid, but when you a crack open a classic you see that the most esteemed writers are guilty of nearly every of these cardinal sins

>>16081732
Gotta know the rules to break the rules. And really, they are more of a set of guidances.

>>16079871
>Besides this, it's largely considered bad writing, even in basic college composition courses, because it's inconsistent and sloppy.
No, it's considered bad writing because it doesn't convey immediacy and action, and if your book isn't immediately in the reader's face with an action packed hook, you won't get published.
Every great work contains an enormous amount of passive voice and it is not reserved for special rare rhetoric devices.

Was it Hunter Thompson who re-typed some great novel to learn how to write? That's the actual way, these rules are all memes.

>>16078318
>The vagina isn't connected to the urethra
>The vagina isn't connected to the urethra
>The vagina isn't connected to the urethra
>The vagina isn't connected to the urethra

>>16077693

I knew her voice was going to be insufferable before I even typed it into the yt search bar and she does not disappoint

>>16081759
It is more that they understand language, which largely lacks rules, it is more about being able to convey the idea in the way you intend.

>>16078108
If you use cliches while telling, with a flowery wrting, 100000000 different povs, no conflict, mimicking a style from a different time, with multiple hooks and plots that go nowhere, you get a masterpiece.

>>16077693
Look at her body language.
Look at those tattoos.
Look at the eyes.

>>16077777
I was called here to witness these numerals.

>>16077940
Women are subhuman vermin.

>>16077816
Otzi the Iceman had tats. You nigger ape. Only niggers cant have tattoos. God damned primate.

>>16081762
I wanted to be the bigger man and abstain from calling you a retard, but it kept me awake and now I can't take it.

You're a retard. And a very, very badly misguided one.

>>16081799
It's not.

DON'T WATCH THAT VIDEO SHE IS USING ZIONIST KABALLAH NUMEROLOGY TO PUT A CURSE ON ALL VIEWERS, THE FLOWER IN HER TATTOO IS A 6 POINTED STAR REPRESENTING MOLOCH

>>16079871
The dislike of passive voice is just weird to me, there are many classics of literature that employ the passive voice all the time.

>>16084404
Based

>>16084426
And tons of works that employ flowery language, have low stakes, dozens of POVs and so on. It's not the point. Just because experts can make some techniques work doesn't mean beginners should try. Besides, a lot of classical works work despite and not because of crap like this.

>>16084516
>flowery language,
This is practically the only reason I even read novels so it is funny you're listing it as something negative. But in any case I don't agree that there is anything bad about passive voice in the first place, that would make it such that only experts can use it well. Maybe passive voice is bad for a specific type of novel that is more common or sells better today but that's not the same thing as it being bad in general. It's an entire grammatical form, it doesn't make much sense to just exclude it.

>>16084516
>>16079871
>duhh pretty words bad

>this thread

Umm... I don't

>>16084624
I mean, writing advice tends to be about "how to write that people are actually interested to read my novel" so one can't ignore commercial appeal, or lack of it that comes with passive voice which isn't used well. If you just write for yourself, there isn't much point in bothering with advice either way. If you actually care how the outside world perceives your work, being aware that some things generally don't work, doesn't hurt, even if you're hellbound on using these.

Adverbs are a technically correct grammatical form as well but still frowned upon. As would be some legalese.

The most common advice next to "show don't tell" is probably "one can skip all "rules" as long the execution is good". Just, if someone is still at the stage of their "writing career" when they look for advice, it's unlikely to be good.

>>16084656
In the hands of a beginner who can't use them effectively ... duh. Again, there are no hard rules. Feel free to describe something in two pages which could be said in a sentence; just don't act surprised if most don't care to read it.

>>16081699
This is literally the entire idea behind Lit Quarterly and, for what it is, it's been successful. I was in the first edition and got both good money and the permanent right to the title "published poet"

>>16084828
Here's the trouble with that. You never know when some whistle-blower is gonna make it out to be an exclusive whites only club and acuse it as promoting white nationalism. That's risky business. Only way I'd even consider publishing in that journal is if I were to use a pseudonym. Call me a schizo or a /pol/tard, I just don't want to face being ostracized and canceled.

>>16085713
If you are a /pol/tard shizo, you are basically uncancel-able though. It's a zoomer term for boycott and for that you need to have an audience which is sold on your views who gets turned off by the complete picture. Either by being a progressive who hates on niggers and trannies or a /pol/ak who secretly believes in supporting trannies and niggers. If the picture is consistent, the opposite group isn't going to read your shit in the first place.

>>16085752
I wish I could make something separate from all this shit, that anyone could read, or that there were still a sizeable number of people who weren't aware of or didn't care about it

>>16085766
It's not a realistic wish. Preferences of the audiences will never be as unified and whether your views are public or not, they are going to be obvious based on the topics you choose to write about, the topics you choose to ignore, how you handle the stuff and so on. Just write YOUR truth, it's likely to resonate with enough people either way. Getting the word out to reach them is the much harder part.

I'm gonna sacrifice my seed to this witch

>>16085848
dark magic

>>16077777

Apparently, yes

>>16078119

You should use NO words when writing just guttural symbols that vaguely represent your meaning.

>>16078108
>"Don't tell X was happy. Show it in actions or at least facial expressions.
This shit doesn't work as well on paper as it would on the screen or on stage. If the alternative to saying "he was happy" is a lengthy description of his face contorting into multiple grimaces, I'll take the one that's to the point.

>"No, your novel probably doesn't need 20 different POVs."
Meanwhile Martin's raking in the dosh while doing exactly that and not even particularly well.

>"Mimicking style from different time"
This can work extremely well if it has a point, Sorokin for example had a line of short stories mimicking the Soviet style of writing and turning them inside out into coprophilic exercises.

>>16077940
You joke, but this is very likely an honest opinion.

>>16085956
>show don't tell
Generally there is no reason to give too many descriptions either way, unless you want the stuff to be more vague or the viewpoint character to be a sperg who struggles to read people. "His eyes lit up" would be barely longer than "He was happy" and obvious in context, why they lit up. Something more complex like "she was my best friend" vs "making it obvious with interactions" would take longer but also give a much better description of their friendship, strengthening immersion. Plus as with everything else, there is always time and place to subvert the "rule".
>povs
GoT has just 8 POV characters either way sans the prologue. It's on the larger side but hardly crazy for a book of the size from an author that already has the readers and editors trust from previous works. Getting 300k words published without his credentials is going to be much harder than getting away with any broken "rule".
>This can work extremely well if it has a point
Goes for pretty much everything mentioned.

>>16077777

God has spoken.

>>16077728
i like it in porn but id never date a woman with a tattoo

>>16081699

At that point just self publish. It's not hard, the problem isn't the publishing but the advertising and promotion.

>>16077940

Thank you for the warning, I will from now on only put my penis inside assholes, considering they only contain human faeces.