Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

That's the key, as it's not so much 'minimal storytelling' as it is a general 'cleanup' form having read through the entire story—thus you know which story threads never 'played out' (i.e. were never successfully completed), yet 'scenery' is considered 'setting a story in a specific time and place', and like character development, are just as vital—if not more so—than the plot itself is.

One is making a story feel 'real' or 'authentic', no matter how unreal the story universe (by sharing the common values most often cherished in each separate universe) and the other is simply sweeping up all the things we first planned planned to develop, yet never did.

And, at least for me, I try to focus on keeping my stories shorter, rather than routinely writing epics which essentially go on forever, though the dull, more boring segments, so in most cases, I instead jump from one 'episode' to another, to skip over those 'slower' segments entirely, just as I write a bar or restaurant scene, by leaping directly to the most vital elements of the dialogue, not the same-old, 'how's the wife and kids? Yeah, mine are fine too? So how's the job?'

That ends up being a LOT of text, which doesn't advance the story at all, as it's just 'filler', adding text for not real purpose at all.

Thus it's a more structured way of keeping the overall word-count down. You're not dropping anything essential to the story, you're just not wasting your readers valuable time, and instead you're writing concise text.

But, if you prefer those more roundabout story elements, than please read another story, as mine will only piss you off, anyway! ;)

Again, I never write for the masses, instead I write to challenge myself—writing the kinds of story no one else will, the more unusual, less orthodox, unusual stories I've long cherished.

That gets back to the 'do I bother downvoting a story I couldn't be bothered to read' theme, as most stories take time to find their 'voice', as they usually get better, the further into the story you continue.

Thus, for many of us, if we choose not to read a story, we simply don't vote at all. Then, when we finally check out the completed story, we get a fairer picture or the whole story, rather than just the roughest, broadest strokes.

as most stories take time to find their 'voice', as they usually get better, the further into the story you continue.

You said your writing is influenced by the publishing industry. That statement is not true in traditional publishing. You need to get the reader's attention quickly.

There's a famous librarian whose name I don't remember, but I guess is someone of importance in literature. Her rule-of-thumb is 90 pages. After 90 pages she either keeps reading or quits. Maybe because I'm a slow reader, but my threshold is less than 90 pages.

On SOL, I find the opposite to be true for long stories. Many start out good and then get boring.

50 makes sense. I seldom abandon stories. One of my examples of nearly doing so is Umberto Eco's Foucalt's Pendulum. Perhaps it was me at the time, but the first 50ish pages were painful.

The rest was blissful.

I have to wonder how many people bailed out before the going got good.

I never claimed to write traditional stories or even anything a traditional publisher would touch with a hundred-foot pole. I've always chose the stories that most challenge ME, so I opted to self-publish, as I had NO desire to write 'normal' stories.

However, I always intended to write the more 'literary stories', focusing on the higher-crafted, better-written stories. Whether I've succeeded on that has always been a matter of personal opinion, so I'm happy with my own, dedicated fan base, as I've NEVER once wanted to be 'Popular' either. As it just ain't who I IS!

I love writing a decent yarn, yet I prefer the stories which challenge me, both personally and how I view the world. So why would I care how many readers actively HATE me? They ain't MY readers!

And yes, on SOL, you also have great writers and horrendous writers, yet mostly we have those who write their stories to suit their own 'squicks' (i.e. their own perverted preference, so once again, it's easy to spot those stories we care to read, and which we don't want to be exposed to.

And yes, I've read many wonderfully written stories that actively turned my stomach, yet I still loved their beauty, wherever those stories carried me along.

In short, get over yourself. SOL readers will either adore or despise you, and in the end, there's really NOTHING you can do about it. As always, we each write to OUR readers, since we're most familiar with how they think and what they most desire in their stories.

As it is, I'm likely the LEAST popular SOL author, yet I'm proud of that, no matter what everyone else thinks of it.

I was responding to your comment, "as most stories take time to find their 'voice'" and previous comments that I can't provide a direct quote that your writing is guided by what we find in traditional publishing.

I may have misunderstood you, but I assumed we shared a belief. I don't write what I would write if I were trying to be traditionally published, but I try to write how those traditionally published stories are written.

When I did try to traditionally publish, the feedback from the publisher's submission editor was eye-opening. Since I had never been formally trained in writing fiction, it was new to me. I spent years studying the craft of writing fiction, reading about things like, show, don't tell, active rather than passive voice, head-hopping, verbs bring a story to life (not adverbs), don't write purple prose, etc.

So although I write what I want to write, I keep the above advice in mind when crafting a story. That's what I thought you said you did. And because I thought you said that, I was surprised that you said it was okay for "stories to take their time to find their 'voice'." The people whose advice I take when writing would disagree. Some say you have to hook the reader with the first sentence or first paragraph. That's bullshit. But you do have to get them interested in the plot and especially the characters for them to keep reading.

Yeah, we think along the same lines, yet as you said, I generally like to develop my stories more slowly, establish what's normal, before the initial 'instigating event', so readers can see the impact of that instigating event.

Yet when you 'start with an action scene', the focus is entirely different. I seek to attract curious readers in the whole story, not use a specific 'hook' to draw them in immediately. Again, I prefer writing unusual stories, but beginning the story slowly generally works better for me, while it probably wouldn't for most authors.

I usually count on my writing and my nonstandard development to attract readers to my stories, since I tend to focus on new approaches. Again, I write the stories which most 'challenge me', not the traditional stories everyone else expects to see. Thus my readers tend to appreciate my approach, yet sometimes, more traditional readers don't appreciate my slower, slow-development approach.

Like you, most of my fans also loved Zombie Leza yet the blowback from those who've never read any of my stories, convinced me some bridges are just too far for most to easily cross.

Luckily, both Sci-Fi and Fantasy, my usual genres, take more time to start, due to the 'world building' required to set them up. So those genres are more about 'the meaning of life' issues, allowing me to wax philosophically. Again, fans of traditional horror stories have NO interest in those alternate ways of writing, they want the more traditional horror tropes, not dealing with shifting perspectives.

So, the next time I try an 'alternate horror' story, I simply won't label it as a "Horror" story. ;)

I think rules like "start with action" doesn't necessarily mean action, more so start with the story happening and then fill in back story as you go, rather than dumping world building on them before they figure out what the story they're reading is. (although there are exceptions. I find pure action stories, meaning not sci-fi or fantasy or genre's like that, do best with actual action beats up front to set the tone)

I think rules like "start with action" doesn't necessarily mean action

Some 'writing experts' suggest exactly that, but I think it's more a case of giving the reader a reason for wanting to read more. That can take many forms, interesting characters for example. I dislike flashforwards.

AJ

One of the things that really annoy me is authors who cut themselves off from their readers by not allowing comments.

I don't allow comments, but not because of negativeness. It's for other reasons. But I welcome feedback (emails) and reply to every one. And I don't remember ever getting an email feedback that I felt attacked me or my writing.

My response is somewhat similar. That is, if I begin reading a story and stumble over numerous incorrect word choices, misspellings, and poor syntax, I simply quit reading. If an author cannot be bothered with running the text through a text editor (those associated with various word-processing programs or even free versions of options such as Grammarly; there are usually three running at any one time on my writing), then I can't be bothered with continuing to read it. I can't take the jarring.

Of course, various text-editing options require the writer to understand the recommendations they make, and that understanding requires knowledge of simple aspects like spelling and the meanings and uses of individual similar or somewhat similar words. However, relatively complex aspects of grammar and syntax can come into play, although nothing beyond what I learned in US high schools; the kind of stuff one really should not leave general education (under-19 yo) without, but most people seem able to manage just that.

Yes, I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but writing/reading and conversation are dependent upon the writer/speaker and the reader/listener being on the same page.