Common Writing Tips, Suggestions and Corrected Mistakes

[Chimeco]

I commonly see many of the same writing mistakes repeat themselves from author to author. I'd like to start this thread in the interest of better storytelling so that authors who want to improve on their material may come here and glean perhaps a tip or two in their quest to entertain us readers. None of us here are experts at this subject (at least I don't believe so), but hopefully you'll take our offered advice as earnest help from experienced writers who've made these mistakes and learned from them the hard way.

Maybe Brian can pin this to the board if everyone agrees.

1. Common Phrases
(just post the tips in numerical order)

This is a catch-all for common phrases. It concerns the use of clichés, as well as predictable descriptions.
Clichés are really a hard topic to discuss because everyone is guilty of using them. I sincerely believe that the use of a cliché at one point in any story is absolutely unavoidable. We've written countless tales and shared some very enduring ideas that catch our imagination. As time passes, we inevitably begin to repeat those same stories and ideas because we've either become fasinated by them, or we've literally reinvented the concept but are unaware that it's already been done.
Reinventing an idea vs. reusing that same idea are two very different animals also. You may not think so, however, it is an intrisic difference. This isn't to say that because you were unaware that the idea was circulating in the first place that it's ok for you to use it. What this says is that you'll need to evaluate your idea and decide whether it will be worth the potential criticism to keep it as is, or whether you should rewrite the passage or chapter entirely.
Reusing an idea is where you find problems typically beginning at. Let's take dragons as an example: Dragons, typically one of the fiercest creatures in mythology and fantasy. Countless books have used the idea of dragons to fascinate and horrify. Certainly they're interesting creatures to write about. If that is the focus of your story, then press on with pride. Yet, if you're borrowing the idea to enhance another idea, or to enhance the story itself, you need to step back and think about what you're doing. Because you're about to be typed. And because you've just become an author of the same old stuff.
And the same old stuff is ananthama to writers, to be avoided like the plague. Take this to heart folks. You will never find an author of the same old stuff on any bestseller list, unless it is a continuation of an original, bestselling story.
That said, I want to make a distinct point about the same old stuff. Drizzt Do'Urden, and the forgotten realms falls into this category. The point I want to make here is that it's intentional. The slew of forgotten realm writers are filling this hole, and are being paid good money to fill this hole. It's an important distinction to keep in mind, because this universe is super-saturated right now, and you will be competing with those very authors if you plan to borrow from that universe.
I think I've beaten this horse to death now. The other point I wanted to make was on predictable, cliché-ick descriptions, such as "an early morning sunrise". I'll try and keep this short.

Take this paragraph as an example:

[font=&quot]The elves held an archery tournament to see who would claim to be the best in the land.[/font]

You don't have to read this sentance to know what it's about to tell you. If you're an experienced sci-fi/fantasy reader, then you've likely read that very description somewhere in your youthful past anyway.
Take the time to make your story unique. Nothing good gets written in a days time. Any experienced author will gladly beguile you with his or her story of the time they got hung up on one word for a whole month and just couldn't continue past it because it was just one simple word! Aaarrgh!

And that's the gist of this entry. Good luck and I hope I've helped you out some.
[font=&quot][/font]

 

[tonic]

2. Start small not big.

This is one of my own philosphies, and I know many will disagree but I fervently stand behind it. It may be smart to think big but not to start that way. Unless your english skills are one hundred percent then I believe you should start small to hone your skills.

This is a tip for beginner writers. Don't jump into a novel, don't just start writing a bunch of chapters because most likely your writing isn't up to par. It would just be a huge waste of time, I'm not saying not to get your ideas in order for when you want to write a novel but from what I've seen, it's more beneficial to start smaller; such as short stories. That way you can discover what your readers like, discover your weaknesses and generally make your writing better.

Grammar is every beginners nightmare, it's still mine and I am no where near perfect. I'm still learning what's good, what isn't and what I excel at. If grammar is poor then it will take away form the story and that is the worst possible thing. By starting small you can improve your grammar skills, find the common mistakes you make and fix them.

Don't just jump in there thinking your going to write the greatest novel that's going to be published. Most times it's not, it comes with practice. If you write daily, write anything then slowly your talent is going to show and you'll be able to harness the ability you have. (These are tips from my english teacher by the way) Also a positive of starting small is that it will give critiquers an easier time editing. Instead of jumping into a story they've never read about they'll be able to follow the path of a character (In regards to short stories)

So pretty much to sum it up. Don't write novels if your a beginner, write something smaller.

 

[aurelio]

There is the old adage "write what you know" and I think that is a good one to keep in mind, but how does that apply to writing fantasy or scifi?

I take it to mean that no matter how bizarre or different your imagined world is, your characters should be like the folks you know. A big yawn inducer for me is when a character is described only as a fantasy cliche. You know: the most earnest reluctant hero in the universe (who has powers he doesn't know he has - or worse, is "predestined") battles the most powerful evil guy in the universe to save the most beautiful princess in the universe. *yawn*

And mixing and matching, ie. making the princess the reluctant hero, etc, doesn't cut it either. Be observant and you'll discover your characters alive around you, then you can place them into your world. That way their actions and reactions will feel real and relatable. And if you are true to your characters, your story will take on a mind of it's own too, and you'll be pleasantly surprised by where they take you, which will mean your readers will also be pleasantly surprised when they read it.

 

[dustinzgirl]

I have a few questions.

Is it allright, from a publishers standpoint or editors or whatever to "make-up" words if they sound better?

Take this line:

[font=&quot]It was about two feet long, though seemed smaller when inside the box, and the rod was crowned with a circular piece of amber, carved with symbols he neither understood nor cared to look at for too long, because the symbols moved with their own shimmering goldness.

Goldness is not a word, but it seemed to fit in that sentance.

Also, with writing, how do you explain something that someone is doing in the past tense, for example:

[/font] Hesson shivered at that thought as it held a ring of truth to it. The truth is always more frightening than the imagined. He flung the rod across the floor, wishing for the filthy thing to be as far from himself as possible. It skittered with a ringing, bell-like sound across the floor, and came to a slow, slamming stop.

In the above, I go from past tense to present in the same sentance. Is that something that writers are not supposed to do or does it sound allright?

Thanks, I am new to this site and to writing, so any help is appreciated.

 

[Mark Robson]

There is the old adage "write what you know" and I think that is a good one to keep in mind, but how does that apply to writing fantasy or scifi?

I like this adage. It holds a nugget of truth, but I have my own spin on it - 'Write what you would like to read'. Inevitably, you will like a particular style of story. There may be certain elements, or ideas that you really liked from lots of different stories and not always even from the same genres. Bearing these in mind, write stories that you would like to read. If, having written your story, you enjoy reading it afterwards, then the odds are that others will too.

Edit: Sorry, Dustinzgirl, I'm not ignoring your post, I just hadn't read down the thread that far - that'll teach me to leap in and get carried away! I'll have a think about your questions and get back to you later.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Without being traditionally published, my viewpoint so far seems to be that the biggest problem most aspirants have is lack of professionalism - they simply lack a proper understanding both of what the market publishes, and how that process of publishing works.

The lack of understanding seems to be that many aspirants - at least in the early stages of their development - work with the idea that if you can string a story together, then it's good enough to be published...whatever.

This in my opinion sets up the aspirant as their own worst enemy - someone too wrapped up in themselves to learn a proper professional understanding and attitude required for success.

Perhaps most importantly - to myself, success requires some degree of compromise, and that comes as part of the parcel of professional discipline. Unfortunately, I feel a lot of aspirants destroy themselves on these pointers by demanding the publishing industry conform to personal ego.

I say these things as someone who has been through that stage myself, and my god, it seems ugly looking back.

 

[Paradox 99]

One of the most helpful tips I saw was about "weasel" words. These are words that writers tend to use unconciously, or when they simply can't find the write way to describe something.

Common weasels are "seems to", "almost like", "sort of" (the amount of times I've seen David Eddings use that one!)

I was shocked and embarrassed when I checked through my first novel and saw how many times I had done this. In most cases, it's best to just cut them straight out. It makes the sentence much more direct and projects a feeling of confidence in the writing.

 

[Tim Bond]

Cool...I have learned allot from reading every post so far.

Thank you.

I would like to see more on such issues.

As for professionalism:

When you mean look into the market (target) and possibly seeing what is wanted; do you mean simply knowing what is sought after (you can glean this from simple reading within the genre) and assessing the popular (targeting an audience) trends; or do you mean allowing ease for an editor to actually work with you, modify the work when asked (targeting the editor) or even complete a second work within an outline delineated ahead of time by your employer?

I thought our goal as a writer was to write good stories that entertained and inspired others? The target in this case being the realization of the best of what inspiration comes to you, to maybe even improve yourself by this realization and to certainly enrich the lives of those who appreciate the work of ART. How much compromise does art need to make to anyone who has a concern with markets and profit?

J.Joyce –
Only one example of grammar, spelling ect…
Thrown to the wind.
A genius. An artist. A writer. Nothing cliché’.

If someone has to struggle against falling into cliché and put a twist on everything – his foundation invariably falls into the realm of mediocre and the superficially creative. Such a person definitely needs a little more work on inspiration, enginuity, perspective, and an understanding of the real meaning of art and fee thinking. He or she should not be writing yet and expecting a readership beyond a mediocre audience that appreciates a little novelty – and it don’t matter how good they think their English is, they do not deal in art – just ‘fitting in’.

Editor or consumer-audience' a prostitute will always sell for money and fall into the predictible expectations of any buyer. While a true lover instead will engage the fire of their love with nothing more than a flower and a kiss, remaining forever pure of disloyalty - the one true love in this case being honest expression.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Working from an outline provided by the editor is called "work for hire" and it's not what anyone is talking about here, Tim.

You can't research the market just by reading inside the genre, as you suggest, because the books available to readers now are the books that editors were buying a year and a half to two years ago (sometimes longer ago than that).

And to extend your metaphor: The "true lover" doesn't hand out flowers just because he likes them, he makes an effort to find out what the beloved is actually longing for, whether it be roses, chocolates, or foot-rubs.

 

[Tim Bond]

And to extend your metaphor: The "true lover" doesn't hand out flowers just because he likes them, he makes an effort to find out what the beloved is actually longing for, whether it be roses, chocolates, or foot-rubs.

You are correct. I am so pleased that the focus is not on pandering to an editor for the mercenary act of selling of works ‘for hire’.

Flower: Inspired expression of delicate honesty lit by the warm light of truth.
Kiss: Actual contact with the work of art and a larger pattern.

You have to know your ‘beloved’ as you call it:
The beloved I speak of is the art itself and true inspiration. If you truly know your lover well, you will know what they need long before they do, and work to satisfy the need before they feel any painful lack. If you have to ask what your lover needs; you are simply too late and are still in need of familiarity and a deeper ‘connection’. In such a case you can be friends, but you cannot call yourself a good lover.

A selfish, piggish maid can ‘long’ for allot of things and return nothing but pain and loss – this is art based on the opinion of a consumer regardless of temporal distinctions of one or two years – or even less as you seem to mark that as important. Even if she paid ‘good’ money for the services ‘of anticipating her wants’ a good artist would not spend my time trying to please her.

An idiot uses symbols to:
Get others admire him or to profit while imagining otherwise.
His motives confused, he falls short.
He is obtuse - lost and thinking he is home.

An educated or trained man uses symbols to:
Get a clean message across or to accomplish a task.
He suffers limitation and does well within this.
He lacks - forever trapped in his own box.

The artist uses symbols to:
Go beyond limitations by use of craftsmanship.
He will even dispense with craft.
He obtains - confined by nothing.

Symbol sets: Any ART – writing, painting, music, martial-art all have a common pool of previous knowledge very important when your back is to the wall (for beginners especially) or inspiration does not come. An education is useful, but essentially unnecessary for the truly inspired. Those with extensive education can easily fall into a stunted form of creativity where everything is predetermined by the logical conclusions of the system of thinking imposed by his process of previous learning. A person with real creativity will achieve the realization of inspiration and nothing, not even a lack in a so called education can stop this.

If your goal is to entertain while you make art – then you will gain an audience when your art has matured, regardless of other factors. Maturity in any art that chooses you does not mean simple use of an education or system of thinking or even getting someone else to like you by use of it. Maturity comes with a realization of a small egoless truth within you.

P.S. I appreciate the important technical advice and the work-shoppe is useful.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there, Tim. All through history great painters, sculptors, writers, and composers have produced masterpieces that were either commissioned or else created with at least some thought of pleasing a patron. Is a painting by Ruebens any less beautiful because of that? Are Shakespeare's sonnets any less remarkable?
Is a composition by Mozart any less inspired?

Professionalism is simply a way of showing that you are serious about what you are doing, that you have put in the necessary time and effort to do your best work, that you are open to constructive criticism -- and all the other things that set the professional apart from the amateur.

But of course if you have no desire to pursue art as a form of communication rather than self-gratification, and wouldn't think of sullying yourself by accepting money, then of course you can easily dispense with professionalism. There is certainly nothing wrong with writing as a hobby.

 

[Tim Bond]

Anyone can accept money.

I merely lay out what motivates and drives the work to completion.

Of course great artists accept money when asked to.

He may even 'sell' a work and part with it.

He may be commissioned.

but....

Shakespeare did not write pieces because the queen happened to like little pink slippers and he knew this. She bought his stuff despite the fact he did not look into what just happened to be 'in', but rather due to the fact his artistic vision was so great. He also developed great skill at his craft. To find out what they are ‘buying’ at the moment and adhere to shifting opinion of what consumers imagine as ‘good’ is not being truthful in an artists work. I have never seen anyone really good at what they do ever need to lie about it or put falsification in the works they produce.

Truth leads the way to merit and skill.

Maybe you are putting obtuseness 'out there' just so we can find and work on this fine point. I have gone several posts over this in rich detail, and as an experienced fan of words-on-paper and who is assumed reads competently would never miss such key things as subject matter: I compliment you on your ingenuity, perception, and subtle action for the greater benefit of all who really care about Art. I put forth the assumption that this was your intent.

Thank you.

We make this point for people inexperienced in writing and who desiring to make something great, may inadvertently set themselves to it with the most inferior of motives for any art. Adherence to this motive alone for the formation of creative works actually drives a wedge between the craftsman and full honest artistic expression and the possibility of good art. An education can give an illusion of preparation when it is only really one who is fully prepared to commit themselves (including actively seeking out constant real ‘learning’ on the subject) to art itself who actually produce the truly great works. An education properly employed can produce the greatest works. Someone may buy your real artistic visions and make commissions when your art is mature.

I am not an expert on english and do need the pointers of to-do's and not-to's in these areas. Grammer, plot structure ect... The input of our educated brothers and sisters is more than welcome for me.

It helps when put into prctice.

Done...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I'm afraid you are missing my point.

The writer's or artist's motives, mercenary or otherwise, are completely irrelevant. It's not what you expect to get out of your writing that matters, it's what you are willing and able to put into it. The purest motives in the world won't make up for a lack of talent or effort, but talent and effort can transform anything into art.

I've known enough writers and artists over the years to know that this is true.

 

[dwndrgn]

Passing by the 'art' discussion, I'll get to another point that was alluded to in an earlier post but not expressly described. That point was professionalism. Any editor who receivs a manuscript that is unprofessionally presented isn't going to want to read it, and since they've got tons of other manuscripts they can move along to, it is quite possible that yours will get tossed to the slush pile before it has a chance to get their attention.

By this I mean having your manuscript edited for grammar and typos, typed up properly using the accepted forms and presented as a nice package.

Regardless of your own perception of your work, or how good the actual story is, if you want an editor to consider it for publication, you have to get them to read it. That means it should look good, follow their rules and have a captivating synopsis.

I believe there is a list of the strict formatting rules somewhere on this board. They include; 12 point font, double spacing, not having your name and title and other miscellaneous information on every page and many others. Basically is should be neat and easy to read.

 

[Brian G Turner]

When you mean look into the market (target) and possibly seeing what is wanted; do you mean simply knowing what is sought after (you can glean this from simple reading within the genre) and assessing the popular (targeting an audience) trends; or do you mean allowing ease for an editor to actually work with you, modify the work when asked (targeting the editor) or even complete a second work within an outline delineated ahead of time by your employer?

Professionalism means knowing something of the mechanics of the publishing industry - especially the genre being aimed at - and being able to act and react to it in a way that shows you understand the process you have engaged yourself in.

That's a quick definition.

I thought our goal as a writer was to write good stories that entertained and inspired others?

Absolutely not - *anyone* can be a writer. To be a good writer, you have to make the story engage contemporary markets in a way that allows your work to be accessible to a larger number of poeple. In other words, you must not simply be a writer, but a saleable writer.

The target in this case being the realization of the best of what inspiration comes to you, to maybe even improve yourself by this realization and to certainly enrich the lives of those who appreciate the work of ART. How much compromise does art need to make to anyone who has a concern with markets and profit?

No - because then you are effectively talking about a work of personal self-indulgence and likely ignorant with it to boot. If you are writing ART, you are almost certainly writing for yourself - else commercially gifted at BS.

J.Joyce –
Only one example of grammar, spelling ect…
Thrown to the wind.
A genius. An artist. A writer. Nothing cliché’.

Now this comes across as a very ignorant comment - Joyce was writing for a *market*. Read your history again. After "The Great War" there was a massive intellectual backlash against the classicism that had allowed unimaginable horror to occur across Europe. You can see massive changes in art, music, literature - and the corresponding massive changes in science must have also seemed intellectually supportive. So Joyce was writing for his time, in a way that society at the time accepted and would allow for.

If someone has to struggle against falling into cliché and put a twist on everything – his foundation invariably falls into the realm of mediocre and the superficially creative. Such a person definitely needs a little more work on inspiration, enginuity, perspective, and an understanding of the real meaning of art and fee thinking. He or she should not be writing yet and expecting a readership beyond a mediocre audience that appreciates a little novelty – and it don’t matter how good they think their English is, they do not deal in art – just ‘fitting in’.

I'd hate to sound condescending - but your own condescending comments appear very much from someone who has far too high an opinion of themselves and their own work. Forget about sitting in judgement - just do the best you can with your own work (and, yes, I've been through this sort of stage as well, and it is not a constructive way to work ).

Editor or consumer-audience' a prostitute will always sell for money and fall into the predictible expectations of any buyer. While a true lover instead will engage the fire of their love with nothing more than a flower and a kiss, remaining forever pure of disloyalty - the one true love in this case being honest expression.

What you seem to be saying is that just because one man thinks his work is a great work of art, but the world shuns it, is therefore true to himself?? Maybe as a person, but not as a *writer*.

If you have to look at writing in terms of writing for art, or prostituting yourself, then I'm afraid you are doing nothing other than telling the world that you are a completely novice aspirant who has yet to learn anything about professionalism.

Shakespeare did not write pieces because the queen happened to like little pink slippers and he knew this.

Absolute rubbish - Shakespeare played to the commercialism of his time by pandering to royal fancy. The fact that you cite examples without understanding what you are even talking about shows a horrendous naivety and ignorance of your subject matter. Think very carefully about why Shakespeare wrote so many horrid farces, and what his attitude was to writing historical characters - start with Richard II if you need a clue.

We make this point for people inexperienced in writing and who desiring to make something great, may inadvertently set themselves to it with the most inferior of motives for any art.

Now let's cut this short - by all you've stated above, you cannot possibly have any real commercial experience of being a professional writer, so you are no place to start claiming to be an authority on the matter.

Art for art's sake is meaningless.

2c.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Ah, Brian, you've just said so many things that I wanted to say, but couldn't find a way to say with any degree of civility.

dwndrgn, I totally agree with you about the need for a "captivating synopsis." Since so many agents and editors decide whether to keep on reading on the basis of the synopsis, it stands to reason that it better be a fabulous piece of writing -- and not just an exercise we perform because it's required of us.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Maybe I'm in a too stressed mood to express my normal diplomacy - however, I also used to very much have an attitude similar to Tim Bond, and in retrospect it was a very unhelpful attitude to have. I am arguing against my earlier follies as much as anything else.

 

[Paradox 99]

Maybe I'm in a too stressed mood to express my normal diplomacy - however, I also used to very much have an attitude similar to Tim Bond, and in retrospect it was a very unhelpful attitude to have. I am arguing against my earlier follies as much as anything else.

I'm reminded of chapter 2 in Jack Bickham's "38 most common fiction writing mistakes" - "Don't consider yourself too smart".
I've heard people (who aren't even writers) pick up a book and say, "This is crap - I could write something much better than this".
I cringe when I hear this, because I'm very much aware that when I've written something that I think is great, another person may read it and think that it's laughable. I've come to realise, from the various professional advice I've seen, that if you want to make it as a successful writer, you need to have a high degree of humility where your work is concerned.

Having said that, another ingredient for success is surely the love of writing itself and the genre you're writing about. If you're writing just for money or fame, I imagine the lack of love for what you're doing would actually show up in your work.
I know that I write because I love doing it. I love the thought that someone else might look at what I've written and actually enjoy it. If I could one day get published and even make some money on it, that would be a great bonus.
Is this the right attitude to have, I wonder?

 

[Tenalpia]

you need to have a high degree of humility where your work is concerned.

...and a thick skin!

I agree with what Brian had to say - even if he was a little harsh ! Whilst I write because I love to write and I'm not going to stop writing because other people don't like it; I also know that I will not feel that I have 'arrived' until I have an audience. Until then, I am more a scribbler than a Writer. Everything that I write until then is about learning 'the craft', learning to write in a manner that compels people to read on and want more. I don't see that as compromising but 'growing'. I actually feel more insecure if I don't get any criticism (although for the sake of my not yet very thick skin, I like it to be mixed with plenty of praise...!) because I know that I still have a great deal to learn. Ultimately, in answer to Paradox 99's question: Yes, I do think that you have the right attitude! Enjoy it but take on all the (good) advice you can so that you can reach the Bonus level!