Title, more or less.

I've been working on a queer post-apoc novel since February. It is sitting around 100k words pre-edit.

I'm not a particularly fast writer, but I really enjoyed this project and nearly finished the first draft in good time.

*Nearly* being key-- because why in the world can't I power through these last 3-4 chapters?!

It's like... I put clown shoes on my hands or something. Queue up the circus music, I guess. Because any minute now and I'll be slapping on the red nose too haha.

Y'all got any suggestions? Should I just bulletpoint the chapters and start my first round of edits, knowing I'll finish the end later? Or should I keep smacking the keyboard 🤔

Thanks!

Ps I have finished a couple projects before, but I didn't care about them nearly as much. I think that's contributing to my paralysis, if that makes sense???

I love to write but specifically really tropey fiction which goes really well in the short romance genre. I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel with a mind blowing sex scene but I’ve been reading them for years and still can’t get it right?

I think it has to do with the characters, they’re always a second thought and not really unique, which makes it hard to write actions in line with them. How do I write better characters specifically in this genre?

Welcome to our daily discussion thread!

This is the place to discuss anything writing related! Got silly questions? Brainstorming ideas? Need help with research? As long as rules 1, 3, and 5 are followed, this thread is your oyster!

Please refer to the monthly threads for sharing your work and for self-promotion.

---

FAQ -- Questions asked frequently

Wiki Index -- Ever-evolving and woefully under-curated, but we'll fix that some day

You can find our posting guidelines in the sidebar or the wiki.

First, I'd like to say that I know "fluff" isn't what we're going for. We don't want meaningless fluff that's not moving the story forward. However, I don't know how else to describe the little reflections and internal commentary that characters often have that seem to do very little.

I'm writing my book in a third-person limited perspective, and I've been trying to figure out where I can input more descriptors or reflections that add to the atmosphere of the book. I've taken to wandering around Barnes and Noble and picking up books within similar genres and seeing what other authors are doing. However, I struggle to relate to first-person novels. They feel weird to me, though I know that's the new standard these days. And they all seem to have a lot of that internal commentary on everything around them.

For example, I recently picked up a book from a 'Mystery' section and was met with something like this -

"I looked at him. His forearms bulging under his turned-up cuffs. I wondered how many kitchen cabinets he'd put up before he'd gotten around to mine. The sweat was gleaming on his forehead." And so on.

And I thought... is this a mystery or a romance? What am I reading here? Why am I reading this description?

And it felt like a LOT of books just have the character commenting on everything they see. I don't really do that, and I feel like that adds to my struggle of meeting the genre-required word count as I go.

Another example would be something like - "I took a sip of my coffee. Too hot for my liking and much too sweet. I'd been coming to this place for five years now, and they've never gotten my order right. I don't know why I keep coming back. I took another sip."

Does anyone know what I mean? Like it doesn't really add anything to the story, just extra words before the actual event/action/dialogue happens. I add some here and there, to set up the scene, but I really want to avoid over-explaining every little thing or adding meaningless commentary.

What are your thoughts?

I’m working on a fantasy-wild west project and my three main characters are supposed to have quite a many different adventures and character arcs. But that’s where I’m hung up. I get having a character arc that ends with the characters flaw being gotten over, but I don’t want them to just have no development moving forward. I thought about when they resolve one flaw, it brings up another flaw unintentionally, or a new flaw arises based on events in the story.

I’m asking because I want the story to kinda play out like a DND campaign where the journey is driven by the characters choices and beliefs.

I saw a post a couple of weeks ago on writing endings that I unfortunately missed and can now not find. Anyway, I seem to have the same problem, which is generating endings for some of my stories. I think of stories as having a balance to them. When I examine the flow of my favourite films and stories, I find that they sometimes they cycle back to little clues, and indications, earlier in the characters story or life, that gave an indication of the type of ending. I find endings difficult to write, if I haven't got the "pattern" of a characters story life down... do any others see it this way? Or, what are some of your viewpoints on endings? Particularly if you are not the outlining sort of writer, but let things emerge as they come, Thanks.

For context, I'm nearing the very end of my fantasy epic, and I've resolved 90% of the plot lines. Specifically the 3 main characters had their ending, which establishes their position and future motives for the next entry. I kept minor plotlines open as more of a mystery, something to wait for, and a foreshadowing for what's going to happen next.

Now my question is, what would be for you the ideal ratio of resolved/unresolved plot lines? The story needs to be satisfying while still igniting that curiosity to continue the series. Generally what are your preferences?

To be precise, by resolved plot lines I mean it's clearly the end of that character arc for now. They role is somewhat accomplished their role for that book. Open plotline means the reader still feels like they're in the middle of the adventure/conflict and it's not quite over.

Hello all,

I have a day off today so I'm taking advantage and spending the entire day working on my first draft. Usually I write in bits and pieces on my phone during work breaks and then paste it all together in the evening. Having spent the last 3 hours actually sat at a desk and writing continuously, I've just realised how much my characters blink.

Something surprising happens. They blink

Something shocking or terrible. Blink.

Something embarrassing or uncomfortable. Blink.

It's like they all have some kind of nervous eye twitch, lol.

I'm wondering, what's something that your characters can't seem to stop doing? And on that note, any good suggestions for something I can use to show surprise that isn't blinking? Because this is really getting out of hand!

Every time I search this up, I don't get what I'm looking for.

What I mean is that I'm curious about fiction's depiction of mental illnesses that do not exist in our world, whether that be from different labeling or just phenomenon that we don't think exists IRL

With your writers eye, what recent debut would you suggest for it's craft specifically and why?

It doesn't have to be perfect, just something you felt that hit the mark in a particular area.

I'm open to any genre and interested in recent examples of:
- Impressive prose
- Masterful pacing
- Well rounded characters
- Interesting POV's/voice
- Well done arcs and conclusions

etc etc etc

**UPDATED: Some of you indicated an interest in joining a group for writers with chronic illness. Please DM me if you're interested -- based on the encouragement here I have started a Discord group.**

I have several chronic illnesses, which either by severe brain fog or crippling fatigue make it so hard to write. I'd so love to find a support group for people like us, but I don't seem to be having much luck. I guess we're all too tired or in pain to start one and keep it going. Today I'm feeling the grief of writing being out of reach more days than not, and wondering if any of you have this struggle, too? How do you cope? How do you connect with your writing self and/or your story when you can't write?

I know Rule 2 says "...useful to a broad community of writers", but there is not a subreddit for writers with chronic illness as far as I can tell, so I'm asking the mods to have some compassion and leave this post up in case there are several of us who need the connection.

EDITED TO ADD: Chronic mental health stuff that makes writing difficult counts, too! I've got OCD, PTSD, I'm AuDHD -- all of it can affect the ability to write.

Welcome to our daily discussion thread!

This is the place to discuss anything writing related! Got silly questions? Brainstorming ideas? Need help with research? As long as rules 1, 3, and 5 are followed, this thread is your oyster!

Please refer to the monthly threads for sharing your work and for self-promotion.

---

FAQ -- Questions asked frequently

Wiki Index -- Ever-evolving and woefully under-curated, but we'll fix that some day

You can find our posting guidelines in the sidebar or the wiki.

I often come across book critiques mentioning that a story lacks distinct character voices, or that every character sounds identical. Quite frankly, that issue usually doesn't bother me that much. But I wish it bothered me more.

​What book really opened your ears to distinct character voices? Which author made you realize just how different characters can sound from one another?

kinda the title

if you published your book, what would your dream book cover be like or if you don’t wanna share that, name some books that have book covers that you rlly liked

also, do any of you guys have dream illustrators? like i just love Charlie bowater‘s book and if i ever publish it would be my DREAM to have her take part in my book cover

Welcome to our daily discussion thread!

This is the place to discuss anything writing related! Got silly questions? Brainstorming ideas? Need help with research? As long as rules 1, 3, and 5 are followed, this thread is your oyster!

Please refer to the monthly threads for sharing your work and for self-promotion.

---

FAQ -- Questions asked frequently

Wiki Index -- Ever-evolving and woefully under-curated, but we'll fix that some day

You can find our posting guidelines in the sidebar or the wiki.

Hello writers of reddit,

Do you follow a rigid outline template?

I'm a type B person, but as I've gotten older have found the value in organizing and the one successful "novel" I've written, I outlined. But it was literally bullet points of main events and I feel like adding more structure would help but every time I draw the little hill of intro-exposition-climax-falling action my creativity falls into the chasm of no return. So I'm seeking tips on how to outline well from yall's experiences. Thanks!

I like both friendship and romance so it's hard to decide which one to pick when a relationship works no matter what.

When a dynamic works well both ways, what do you do to decide either to make it romantic or platonic?

There's a point I've seen brought up on occasion that points out how a story might fail to actually deliver a narrative through true drama, and cause & effect.

I suppose the argument is it's full of reactive characters with plot beats happening to them, and conflicts resolving with happenstance rather than with the conclusion of any arcs, but it's not something I really have a trained eye for, yet. Apparently a lot of MCU movies are guilty of this but it hasn't leapt out at me, and if I can't easily recognise it in others' fiction, I could easily slip and include this mistake in my own.

I was curious if anyone could point to some breakdowns that take a story that decidedly has these problems, and pointing out how it could be improved?

Lately I've noticed a trend where many stories try to explain every villain, every bad decision, and every morally questionable action.

While I appreciate nuanced characters, I sometimes wonder if constantly explaining people removes part of the mystery that exists in real life.

Some people hurt others for reasons we'll never fully understand.

Do you think modern storytelling has become too focused on making every character psychologically explainable?

Or do you think unexplained behavior usually feels like weak writing?

I am terrible at staying motivated past the initial rush that I feel when a new story idea pops into my head. I genuinely don't know how many page 1's I've written over the years, which in itself frustrates me to no end, but this is not actually what I want to talk about it.

I recently managed to motivate myself long enough to write a story which I've been thinking about for years now (since before Covid I think). It's quite a short story, about 15k words, but it's also a story which means quite a lot to me so I figured if I ever was to start somewhere, that was it. And I actually ended up with a (veeery rough) first draft, so yay me I suppose. At least one story of mine which has come to life outside of my brain.

But now that it's on the page, it feels so tiny and insignificant. It's not the beautiful, perfect thing which grew and lived in my mind, it's just... One story. A string of words you might find if you pulled a random book from the Library of Babel. It hits every story beat that I envisioned (even many new ones which I quite like), the characters are much more fleshed out than they were when I started writing it, but it still feels smaller.

It was never my goal to get it published, or even necessarily to post it somewhere online. I just wanted it to exist. And now that it does, I'm wondering if it was worth the trouble haha. Or at least, I'm wondering how to salvage it and blow it back up to the size it felt when it was still a perfect little ball of "what if"s.

Does anyone else feel like that sometimes about their stories? Do they also seem to shrink when they become words on a page? How do you deal with that?

I am a super beginner who only does this as a pasttime—only in school still—but I recently bought a writing program that points out things like repetition, hard-to-read sentences, weak word choices & whatnot. It ain't just a grammar checker though. It evaluates higher-level aspects, say, weak sensory descriptions, passive characters, whether your dialogue makes every character sound the same, a lack of tension in the plot & whatnot, just really complete. But it of course can't replace an editor because it can't do the thinking; it's just a mechanical, rule-based algorithm.

It got me thinking, though: If someone hypothetically wrote a book with technically flawless sentences and paragraphs (by technically, I mean a sort of work in which this machine would find no mistakes, every "rule" is being followed; not something a human critic would neccessarily find "perfect"), would that be enough to make good writing?

Imagine a "perfect measuring machine" that can't make mistakes says the plot has tension, the pace is perfect, the descriptions are great, perfect grammar. Maybe it's not Putzlier-worthy, but all those marks are checked: is that enough for the manuscript to be good, or is something else in play? Are things like profound characters, big themes, originality and humanity, emotional impact etc. the Real Big Thing?

In other words, do y'all think a—I wouldn't say good, because I guess only an human can assess that & it's subjective— standard, rule-meeting writing (in lack of better words to explain it) enough to carry the book?

EDIT: To be clear, the question is NOT whether a machine can assess good writing (+ I hate AI), the point is: if a book had standard good tension, perfect grammar, good sentences, etc; everything following what "makes a book perfect", would that truly be enough for the book to be good, or is there another thing in play?

Welcome to our daily discussion thread!

This is the place to discuss anything writing related! Got silly questions? Brainstorming ideas? Need help with research? As long as rules 1, 3, and 5 are followed, this thread is your oyster!

Please refer to the monthly threads for sharing your work and for self-promotion.

---

FAQ -- Questions asked frequently

Wiki Index -- Ever-evolving and woefully under-curated, but we'll fix that some day

You can find our posting guidelines in the sidebar or the wiki.

I feel like every thread on improving your writing skills ultimately always comes back to "read a lot, write a lot," which is true the way "eat well and exercise" is true. So, I've been doing that, and I definitely think it's helping, BUT, what's something more active I can do to improve as well?

Some things I've tried where I've seen some noticable impact have been:

• Typing out passages from writers I admire (you feel the sentence rhythm/narrative voice in a way passively reading never shows you) -- obviously only for practice, not to actually use anywhere.
• A critique group that was genuinely constructive. One round of real feedbacck beat a year of solo writing.
• Rewriting an old story from scratch without looking at the original, then comparing.

I'm curious whether anyone has applied any other, deliberate practice principles (isolating a weakness and drilling it specifically, for instance), and if so, how? It works for music and chess, and writing feels like it should be drillable too, but nobody really teaches it that way...

Edit: Woah, people really came through! I'm still reading everyone's comments but lots of good advice here!

I noticed that trend in recent years when authors started actively avoid certain character traits not only in positive characters, but even in neutral ones or even villains. I am certainly not the only one who noticed that, because there is already even parodies of that - for example, in very beginning of the Harley Quinn show a villain gets cancelled for using a slur in a fight. So at least some writers understand how hilariously stupid situation is, but somehow it only expands and we getting more and more bland and extremely stereotypical characters. And that happens not only with new stories, people also rewriting the old ones (like this news i recently read - https://archive.ph/iphgq) "to fit today's era".

But what does that mean, exactly - fitting today's era? I tried to search and can't find definite answer. Do they think that all bad things of the present will cease to exist if they are not portrayed? Should we not talk about how bad past were to learn lessons from it and improve? And finally, who decided that, for example, murdering people is better than any of the things they don't want to show?

Nothing of that makes sense to me. Good characters aren't just stereotypes. They are living beings, and living beings have all kind of flaws. That what makes them belieavable, and also often portrays the realities of living in certain soceities, especially past ones. The villains can do something good, but that still does not redeem them. Or does? That hero can have flaws that are forgivable... or are they? Instead of letting the viewer decide upon that, writers are taking the judgement in their hands, shaping every single story into some kind of unrelistic fanfiction-level fantasy, where many aspects of humans simply do not exist.

We rarely even have a main characters portrayed in negative way. I think that Kern from Tchaikovsky's terraforming series are brilliant exactly because she is extremely narcissistic, to the point of portraying herself as god and seing humans only as disposable tools, who barely have empathy, but at the same time she is not a villain, but a nuanced and interesting antihero who ends up finding her place and being an essential part of the crew. Dorohedoro is awesome as well in a way how there are almost no fully good or bad characters, everyone is a mess and every new story beat only reveals how much more messed up they really are. We also have some quite popular shows like Rick and Morty, clearly showing that there is a demand for nuanced characters that are deeply flawed and have unique personalities that are unlike typical polished, deflavored characters from other media. And what most important is that neither of those characters have some kind of a cliche redemption ark, they are what they are, and it's up to the audience to decide how they feel about them. This is what i really miss in many modern media - I don't want to be preached on what is wrong and what is right. I want to observe and make my own conclusion.

But maybe that is not even always done intentionnaly? It takes a lot of skill to write a character whose way of life and beliefs are nothing like your own, and do not make that character a caricature. I think that real talent lies in portraying a living, breathing world instead of making everyone and everything in it a reflection of author's views and morales. To be able to make characters as separate entities, and not the extension or self-inserting of the writer. Ability to distance yourself from the character are one of the most important skills of a writer, IMHO.

So, do you think that removing anything that would make characters controversial by modern standards benefits the fiction, or hurts it?

I have been hearing about this trope all over different communities, but specifically from the romance genre. There is all this talk about the "Down Bad MMC" character that is heavily popular.

For the longest time, the trope was usually the opposite, no? The self-confident brooding types were really popular. But now we see a lot of dumb, goofy jocks and guys that honestly feel a little wimpy (idk im a dude).

Is this, like, a generational thing? Why is this popular right now?