(Title courtesy of Scott Adams.)

There's tons of great advice in this forum, but recently I noticed one area in particular has been left bare. And when I saw that F/R had made is so the rest of us could create threads a while back, I thought, why not? After all, this is something all writers should know.

What *not* to do when writing, either in fanfiction or otherwise. Please post any common mistake, pet peeve, or any other avoid-at-all-cost tactics.

The first offense:

The apparently narcissistic character that feels the urge to stop in front of the nearest mirror or picture just to describe - in poetic detail - their appearance. This usually happens in first person POV, but is sometimes found in third from the POV of a single character. And example:

I began to comb my hair. As I did, I glanced at myself in the mirror. A beautiful creature was reflected there, green eyes intelligent and curious. My glossy hair was the color of chestnuts, and my skin was tan from long days at the beach. I noticed my angular features, which often earned me the description of 'exotic' from most of my friends, especially the guys. I was wearing a cute pink tank top, but no pants, just the black thong Andrew had gotten me for my birthday. A tattoo of the word 'love' was written across my bicep, emphasizing the muscles there that had been born of hours spent playing volleyball."

When describing your character, you should either describe them from another character's POV or just mention it in passing instead of having them describe themselves in great detial. After all, unless your character is a narcissit, they aren't going to notice or think about the same features they see every day whenever they come across a mirror or a photo. Would you?

The next offense: characters restating information they both already know. Such as:

Andrew turned to Emily and sighed. "Like I told you last night, I'm going to miss you."

"I know, but you'll be back in the summer, just like you promised," Emily replied, sniffling a little. Andrew could tell she was trying not to cry.

"Of course I will! Mikey only needs my help for a couple months, until his mom gets better," he said, trying to reassure her. "You know she's been sick for weeks - you were there when she had to go the hospital. She fell down at dinner, and you screamed. Then Mikey yelled for you to call an ambulance, but your hands were shaking too much to dial, so I did it instead while you held her hand. We stayed together all night at the hospital while Mikey cried."

"I know. And then the doctors came and told us what she had - we were so shocked! You went outside after that, and although I didn't know why at first, I later found out it was because you didn't want to cry in front of any of us- apparently she's been like a mother to you. And although you were distant for the rest of the week, eventually you broke down and told me everything about how you'd been feeling, and everything's been fine between us ever since."

Characters sometimes spend quite a bit of time telling each other things they both already are fully aware of. This is a mistake. While the reader might not know any of this, and this information might be helpful to them, you should just find another way to sneak it in (unless, of course, amnesia is involved).

This is a hint very close to my heart: When writing for the Tolkienverse, do not use the sentences "Are you all right?" or "Are you okay?" Unfortunately, many Suethors seem to think that the use of these sentences is mandatory.

Being inspired by Virtuella's post, I have a few tips for specific fandoms.

X-Men: Any - Logan swears. This is a fact. If you pick up any comic, you'll see at least one instance of the word "flamin'" in the older versions, or a speech bubble with something akin to "&&*%%$#@*((&^&^^%$##!@#@#%^%&*&^%%$&^&*^%^%$$" in it. He also smoke cigars AND the occasional cigarette and he drinks a lot of beer. Last but certainly not least, he kills people. He's the only X-Man that has consistently had no problem killing people. His motto "I'm the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" doesn't refer to his ability to make paper dolls, after all. But do not underestimate his mind! While overseeing Logan in the Danger Room for a testing session, Forge referred to his physical and mental state as the "equivalent of an Olympic-level gymnast performing a gold medal routine while simultaneously beating four chess computers in his head." He also speaks at least 13 languages and a dumb thug could never do that.

Storm was raised a thief. She lived on the streets of Cairo for a very long time, picking pockets and the like. She's also profoundly claustrophobic, due to the tragedy that killed her parents. After leaving Cairo, she was picked up by a native African tribe, who worshipped her as a goddess due to her ability to bring the rain. However, she is not now nor was she ever so arrogant as to believe that she was, indeed, a divine being. It has also been postulated that she may also be an Omega Level/Class 5 mutant, though this has yet to be confirmed.

I could go on, but I won't. The point I'm trying to make with this is simple: Don't go with what you know from one variation of canon. Many fandoms, especially book/comic-to-movie ones, have very long and rich histories that should be well-explored before stating that you "know this character/fandom inside and out". The reason my Wolverine characterization is done so well is because I've been a Wolvie fan since the early 1980's. I own the original "Weapon X" graphic novel, as well as a prose novelization of the same. I've read more comics than I care to admit and continue to buy them even at my age. As Virtuella said, there are things in the Tolkienverse that would never be used, especially if it's not a "Mary Sue falls into Middle Earth" story. There are characters that never appeared in the movies that many fans love and it would do you good to read the books and learn who they are. If you truly want to write great fan fiction and you know that your fandom has background that you haven't looked into yet, it's hight time you did. Otherwise, you do yourself and your fans a disservice.

Furthermore: If you notice a plot hole, fix it. Don't do this:

“(by the way… I forgot to mention that my friends and I were able to chat with Bilbo a few times before and during the party.)"

That is just downright lazy.

I'm not totally convinced that phrases like, 'Are you all right,' or 'OK,' should never be used. I mean, fine if used all the time it can get repetitive and fine I can't see two Elf Lords saying that to each other, but is it not possible that rustice Hobbits might, or ordinary villagers at the Prancing Pony say, 'All right, Fred?' over a late night pint?

The problem with the phrase "all right" is that it's comparitively modern. It seems to me that Tolkien was trying to give Middle Earth a late middle ages kind of feel, so "all right" would most likely not have been used. Checking an online etymology site shows that "all right" (spelled "alright") may have roots as far back as the late nineteenth century, but the modernized version "all right" is attested as being from around the mid-1950's. Either way, the term isn't really old enough to sound correct in a setting where people use more formal speech.

A good way to get the same feeling across, yet stay in the spirit of the 'verse is to think of how things were said in the movies and how Tolkien wrote in the first place. You could say "How do you fare?" and get the same idea, but with a better fit to the rest of the language used. Other phrases that might fit better would be "Are you well?" or a simple "How are you?" Now if we're talking about one of the many "Mary Sue Falls Into Middle Earth" stories that abound, SHE might say "all right", but there's no reason to believe that anyone around her would understand her meaning right off the bat.

In that same vein, you wouldn't want to use the word "tired" because "weary" would fit better with the setting. You also might not have, say, Galadriel say "You may rest here for the night", but something like "Please enjoy our hospitality and take your rest with us." It's all in how you phrase something to make it sound like it fits with the 'verse for which you write.

The more I think about it, the more I believe it is a sentence that should be avoided as much as possible in all writing. I've started to notice it everywhere, people (including myself) say it about half a dozen times a day. It is a lazy phrse, a blanket cover substitute for all sorts of other, more precise sentences, like

- Are you injured/sick/in pain?

- Can you manage that, or do you need help?

- You look sad. What's the matter?

- How are you doing these days?

- Do you require me at the moment, or can I go away and do my own thing?

Now, it's fine to use such a lazy phrase in everyday speech, but in writing prose, one should aspire to more specific language, unless, of course, one wants to do a parody of this way of talking.

Well, since we're on the topic of speech:

Don't make your characters all sound the same. My favorite example of different speech patterns is in an Eragon fic by Given-Inside. Eragon and Saphira get thrown into the modern world, and it's easy to notice that Eragon is trying (and failing) to sound modern, and the differences between his speech patterns and the speech patterns of people around him. If you have a character from Britain and a character from the US, the reader should be able to notice the difference.

However: do NOT exaggerate this. That makes it much, much worse. If your character with a heavy southern accent, then you shouldn't write that he said, "Yur al-right, ain't cha? Y'all cum on, now." I mean, for gods sakes, your reader shouldn't be having to decode what the character is saying, not to mention that's just completely insulting to any southerner. The better way to write it might be, "You're alright, ain't you? Y'all come on, now." Even that's exaggerating it a bit.

Also: do NOT make foreign characters speak half english and half their native language. A Spanish character, when speaking English, will not use the word "si" (I don't know how to do the accent thing over the "i", sorry) instead of "yes". The word "yes" is very basic, and would be one of the very first things that a foreigner would learn while learning English.

And instead of using Spanish words period, they'd probably be more likely to stumble and struggle how to remember the correct English word. If you're attempting to show that a forgein character has trouble speaking English, then show it by causing him/her to leave out or insert words such as "the" or "a" into incorrect places, since the usage of these words varies quite a bit (for example, in Spanish the word "the" has multiple forms and is used more often than in English).

The other thing a foreigner would be likely to miss in an unfamiliar tongue is stuff like verb tenses - changing from past to present and from multiple people to singular, ect.

Sorry for the essays, I just have a lot to say sometimes. :D

You mean like this?

“Fisherman from our village see you boat before five day. Bring you here. You very ill. Not had water, not had food. Too much sun. Put you here in empty hut. Woman look after you. Give you water and coconut milk. Very worry you die. But is fine. Very happy you not die. Very happy you stand and talk.”

There are no specific references to any particular language here, because it is a Be Trobian speaking Morporkian, and well, neither of them actually exist. I've just tried to show that she doesn't speak the language all that well by letting her use all verbs in the infinitive form and leaving out things like pronouns. I've heard foreigners do that. Is that about what you had in mind?

I'm hardly an expert, but yeah, that's exactly what I had in mind. You also just pointed out something I forgot to mention - the infinitive form is probably what an foreigner would use while speaking an unfamiliar language, or the present tense. XD From the looks of it, you're better at the speech pattern thing than I am.

I have one big peeve. It's when authors use their voice to describe events in place of 3rd person or character POV. Readers are not interested in what YOU think about what's going on. Now, I'm obviously not talking about the original fiction style with author as narrator, but in fiction where author should be anonymous but for some reason the author interjects random opinions. I stop reading at the very first piece of commentary.

I don't have an example of this but I'm sure you can all find this in your favorite fandoms.

Ooh, that's annoying. And there's a variety of versions, too. xD What I really hate is sticking a random "I guess" or something like that into the narrative, but the actual author's notes in the middle of the story are worse.

That can be quite postmodern, though. :-) Reminds me of "Schlafes Bruder" by Robert Schneider, where the narrator is just totally twisted.

Does anybody know how old the narrator-comment method actually is, the proper one, I mean? I know that Wolfram von Eschenbach uses it in his Parcival, but I think he is rather unique for his Age. His sudden and arbitrary narrator-comments always amused me greatly.

That can be quite postmodern, though.

Yes. Unfortunately, the 12 year olds who write (OMG!!! LEGGY IZ CUTE!!!) have not taken a literary course in postmodernism and are not attempting to make profound statements about voice in storytelling. They are just complete morons that have no idea how to write.

Granted.

I actually had fun with "Schlafes Bruder", when I was still teaching at a German grammar school. I set for homework "Identfy the type of narrator." Next day, the pupils argued all lesson about it, until eventually somebody said: "You know, Frau Kupke, this reminds me of what you have told us about postmodernism..." That was a crit lesson, too, and the tutors were mightily impressed...

Anyway, back to topic. I've recently read a fic with this wonderful line:

Illyria felt strong arms around her waist and looked up to Modred, Knight of Rohan. (Ioan Gruffudd in King Arthur)

I told the author that she shouldn't include casting suggestions in her story, but she hasn't changed it.

Ouch. I think in another thread somewhere I talked about the visual plays that run through my head while writing a story. I often think of characters (book or OCs) as being played by actors who I might cast if I were writing a screenplay. It would NEVER occur to me to tell the audience that they should be thinking of Julian Sands or Monica Bellucci in parentheses. That's just too horrible for words. I think I feel a 'save me from fanfic writers who've never opened a book' convulsion coming on.

Well, here is a positive example (and 1564 brownie points for the person, who can translate it):

Do stach der künec von Arragun

den alten Utepandragun

hinderz ors uf die plane

den künec von Bertane.

ez stuant da bluomen vil umb in.

we wie gevüge ich doch bin,

daz ich den werden Berteneis

so schone lege vür Kanvoleis...

Um. What language is that? Not German, Swedish?

Mittelhochdeutsch, i.e. the form of early German used for courtly literature in the classic aera of the Middle Ages. It's from Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parcival. Written around 1200. Always fascinated me, how he could come up with such a "modern" narrative technique, that no other author of his time used.

I had my husband translate it and he said: 'It's kind of German, but not.' That explains it. I never read it.

Well, the rough translation, without any regard for rhyme and rhythm, would be:

(At the tournament of Kanvoleis)

There the King of Arragun

pushed the old Uterpendragon,

King of Brittany,

behind his horse onto the ground.

Many flowers stood around him there.

How nice am I,

that I make such a pleasant bed

for the old Britton in Kanvoleis?

There are lots of little comments like that scattered all over the book, and you really get the impression at times that Wolfram is taking the mickey. I haven't seen any other medieval author doing that.

Funny, indeed. I still stand by my previous statement about fanfics, though. I have never seen any fanfic author interject personal commentary as a literary device, just as a fangirl/boy folly. Now, I can imagine plenty of stories where it would not just work but would make for an interesting read. Doesn't Vonnegut do that in some of his works?

Yep, that's Vonnegut. xD In Slaughterhouse-Five he makes certain that the reader knows that he was there in the prison camp too, just in random scenes. I've heard that in another one of his books, he actually appears and talks to the main character and offers to give him an out. I thought it was fascinating, but when I told my friend she's like, "Eeew, it sounds like he doesn't know how to write." I'm like, "..."

I read that book so long ago I can't remember a damn thing about it. I just remember I liked it and that he made random 'appearances' in the narrative.

William Goldman often does that, especially in the amazingly satirical Princess Bride, but he creates such an excellent persona for himself that he becomes a character in his own novel. It's done extremely well, and intelligently.

I love the ending of Gogol's "The Nose", where the narrator says something along the lines of: This is all very strange indeed, but the strangest thing of all is, why would an author choose such a topic?

I never read The Nose. I bought The Princess Bride for my husband for Christmas. He hadn't read it since he was a kid and he kept laughing out loud at all the commentary.

Sorry for the double post but I had an epiphany today and it goes in here.

I was reading some thread in some forum the other day (can't remember which one at the moment) and everyone was harassing this writer whose story was atrocious (big surprise). The story went something like this:

He got out of the car. Then he ran. The cops chased him. One cop jumped on top of him. They fought. The cop handcuffed him. He went to jail.

Horrible, right? I just couldn't stop thinking to myself who the hell thinks that this is how you are supposed to write a story, some moron with five generations of inbreeding? Then something occurred to me that I never considered before. It's something that can be blamed for MUCH of the terrible fanfiction as seen above - role playing.

I don't do RPGs. I've been invited to a few (most recently one of those crazy years long Star Trek ones). I checked it out and said no thanks, I'd rather write fanfics. The one thing that stands out in my mind about the roleplays I've been invited to is this: the participants in RPGs often tell their stories just like the way I wrote above.

In case you are new to fanfiction or fiction in general let me clue you in to one big no-no: DO NOT write a work of fiction like you are in a role play. Role plays are often written in script form or with rather brief bits of 'action' explanation between. They are rarely as full and detailed as a piece of prose should be.

Now, before some of you go into a tizzy, I'm not knocking RPGs. I know there are people who've been doing them for years who are very skilled at making them as well written as any fic. Unfortunately, these people do not make up the majority of what I've seen (stress on the I).

Thoughts?

I'll agree with you there: Never write like you roleplay. I also have to add, however, that not all roleplays are like that. Sometimes they cause the exact opposite problem. I don't know what kind of level system other sites use, but where I roleplay there's something called "advanced literate" which is basically about five paragraphs per post at the least. It takes skill, but it's mainly rambling and very annoying, since really the character usually only has a line per post. I stick to "advanced," which is somehow a step down to three paragraphs per post. Still, not a good way to write as it causes purple prose like you would not believe. -_-

there's something called "advanced literate" which is basically about five paragraphs per post at the least. It takes skill, but it's mainly rambling and very annoying

And that's why you wouldn't want to do that for a roleplay. For a piece of fiction, five paragraphs may sometime be too little.

And that's why you wouldn't want to do that for a roleplay. For a piece of fiction, five paragraphs may sometime be too little.

That's true, if you've got actual action going on in between. Since you can only control one character in a roleplay and have to wait for everyone else, you have to stretch every little bit of thought to the max in between your one line or bit of action.

I think another reason is that there seem to be alot of people about, who do not read much and whose fan-allegiance is based on movies and TV series. They do not understand the difference between prose and cinematography. Basically, they are writing as if they are simply transcribing what they would see on a screen. But cinematography is a multi-channel medium, where the story is told not only by the actors' words and actions, but their facial expression, body language, costume, set, music, camera movement etc. It is also a highly sensory medium. Prose on the other hand uses a single channel that is not at all sensory. In fact, I think it is the only art form that depends entirely on an abstract, non-sensory medium. Therefore the words have to work very, very hard, because they have to convey everything there is to the story.

BTW, I am currently rereading The fellowship of the Ring, and even in the first few chapters I ahve come across "all right" several times - though never in the form I object to, the ubiquitous "Are you all right?" But Gandalf for example reassures Frodo that Bilbo "will be allright". Seems I've been too strict there...

the difference between prose and cinematography

I had this conversation with my husband at lunch today - hence the epiphany. He was saying that people think they are writing well because they are translating the things they see in their head like they were taking notes on a movie screen, or worse, not writing down anything of what they see because they see it and think everyone else will see it too. The words are the ONLY way to get the look, sound, smell, taste and feel of the world through to your audience. Words are your friends, use them well, and correctly.

BTW, I am currently rereading The fellowship of the Ring, and even in the first few chapters I ahve come across "all right" several times - though never in the form I object to, the ubiquitous"Are you all right?" But Gandalf for example reassures Frodo that Bilbo "will be allright". Seems I've been too strict there...

You know, I was going to mention that I swore I had read that phrase in his works, but then I figured since you were so militant about it I must have been mistaken. I never remember details like that.

Oh dear, yes, I'm afraid I can be very militant. However, I believe I never said that the word "all right" shouldn't be used as such, just the question: "Are you all right?", which to me is very soap opera-style and also a lazy phrase, because it usually means something else.

just the question: "Are you all right?", which to me is very soap opera-style and also a lazy phrase, because it usually means something else.

I'm curious to know why you would have a problem with "Are you allright?" but not with the answer, "Yes, I'm allright."

To me, I think there is a time and a place for these phrases. People do, after all, use them all the time when asking if is someone is well, injured, sad, etc. and when both parties know exactly what the other means. Now, I know you feel Tolkien's writing is elevated and so fanfics based on his work should follow suit but I'm not convinced that ordinary people in ME wouldn't use these phrases in common speech. I do know that these are recent words, but if we wanted to be true to Rohan = Anglo-Saxon then there would be a lot of words and phrases Tolkien probably shouldn't have used. I know he was a master of language bit I don't think he meant for people to be that critical.

I don't think I'd be too thrilled with "Yes, I'm allright," either. Probably just because it is used so often, that it seems very trite. Coming to think of it, I believe it is the formulaic aspect that I object to. Soon people will write AYAR, just like they write IMHO or ROFL.

I've looked up a quote, here's Frodo saying to Gandalf (about Bilbo): "He would get all right in time, wouldn't he?" Do you see the difference? The word is incorporated into an individually formed sentence. Notably, when Gandalf arrives, he does not say to Frodo AYAR, but rather: "All well, eh? You look the same as ever, Frodo."

He was saying that people think they are writing well because they are translating the things they see in their head like they were taking notes on a movie screen, or worse, not writing down anything of what they see because they see it and think everyone else will see it too.

It's so funny that this came up, because we used a similar exercise in one of my early writing classes. The instructor popped in "Die Hard" (I think) on video and told us to take quick notes of the different action scenes as they unfolded. But the real assignment was to fill in everything else between those quick notes to create a tight, quick-paced action scene worth reading. It's not as easy as it sounds, believe me, especially if you're not used to writing that kind of scene. She repeated the exercise with other movies and other types of scenes, from drama to comedy, love scenes to horror. I like to think I came out a better writer because of it, since it gave me a chance to practice writing those types of things early on.

He was saying that people think they are writing well because they are translating the things they see in their head like they were taking notes on a movie screen, or worse, not writing down anything of what they see because they see it and think everyone else will see it too.

I think that just becuase people do this, that doesn't mean that that's proper screenwriting. I like to think that I understand screenwriting (even if I need to practice it more often) and it's not just about writing down dialogue and using basic vocabulary. Without the added comfort of paragraphs, a vivid story must be visually told on a piece of paper.

I don't think anybody was implying that the described phenomenon is screenwriting. We mean that people write as if they just transcribe what they see on the screen (or imagine as a movie in their minds).

I don't think anybody was implying that the described phenomenon is screenwriting. We mean that people write as if they just transcribe what they see on the screen (or imagine as a movie in their minds).

Yes. Some crappy writers THINK that that's how you're supposed to write. That is what I meant.

a similar exercise in one of my early writing classes

I may have mentioned this in another post but this is a great way to learn how to write visually, emotionally, etc. especially if you can get people unfamiliar with the movie to read your work first, then watch the scene and tell you what you missed.

I have never seen any fanfic author interject personal commentary as a literary device, just as a fangirl/boy folly. Now, I can imagine plenty of stories where it would not just work but would make for an interesting read.

A friend of mine does it for humor. Kind of like a god speaking. It's kind of goofy but I wouldn't think it WoW worthy.

Example: It was noon, and Eric was tired, sore, and covered in dirt. But, in the end, it paid off. His latrine wasn't quite as deep as the one back at the camp, but it was good enough. He looked about, and thought of what else he needed. A fire, for boiling water. He was running very low on water. Then there was the fact that he had no container upon which he could boil water on.

"Well, shit. Hmmm... Maybe there's a stone bowl around here, somewhere. It's not too contrived for Asta to use."

That's it. Next Flight 29 Down story I write will feature you and Jackson... sexually.

"Hrmm... on second thought, maybe it is too contrived, which really sucks for me."

Eric went off elsewhere, to pilfer and plunder something to use for holding water he could boil when he made a fire... whenever that was.

So thoughts?

So thoughts?

I don't know enough about the fandom to say if it works. I would say that parody and satire are probably the genres I'd imagine author commentary working best. For a film example, let's take basically all of Kevin Smith's comedy films where Silent Bob talks. Now, the reason why Silent Bob never says anything is because he is PLAYED by Kevin Smith who wrote and directed the movie, so he doesn't have to speak. During those rare moments when Bob says or does something dramatic it is author commentary and it is usually very funny, draws attention to something or helps to explain what the hell is going on.

I agree with Epilachna... the only time the author having a "real" voice in the story actually works is when the story is supposed to be funny. I've seen it done in romance, but usually then it just seems like an annoying mistake.

It is also okay in a certain old-fashioned style of writing, that goes along the lines of:

"My tale begins in the cruel winter of 1865..."

When you make an effort to overstate the obvious, it becomes funny. Also, by contrast, when you completely convolute the story beyond comprehensibilty, then zing a crystal clear statement for contrast, it's funny.

For example, I think if you write, "Kate was sad. She was devastated. She didn't have any idea how she would recover from such a tragedy. There were no words to describe how sad Kate was at that very moment.

Kate had gained 4 pounds."

I find that funny. But if you just write, "Kate was sad. She cried. Jackson consoled her, but Kate was still sad. Kate walked to the grocery store. Her eyes were all red," that's just being lazy.

"I love you."

That is just sooooo cheesy! Ok yes, I understand it, love is amazing and all that, but really sometimes its done so horribly that I want to barf. Its actually used alot on Quizilla, but I've seen it done here.

Yes, I think people could learn a lot from Jane Austen in that respect!

I think I'm lost in between both extremes already mentioned.

I as a lot of modern writers see everything with a cinematic flare as I write it. Nothing I write is ever as simple as "The car blew up" of "The two of them fought until one triumphed" Are you kidding me? Talk about anti climatic and dull. You'd think with enough movies to watch people would know how to properly describe a car chase or shoot out so it's not just a blur of writing and actually relays a sense of intensity/excitement behind it. Not that every scene needs to be elaborated upon it's just a matter of picking the scenes that matter, and minimising the rest. Not every gunshot wound can be described in full detail. It gets kind of relentless. While it works for key moments a simple "He marched right up, raised the gun and shot him in the head" works well for others.

My problem is keeping it short and to the point. Any given picture/scene can contain thousands of words and it's difficult picking the few that matter without ending with pages upon pages.

For the sake of research I started reading Andy Mcnab. In first person voice he uses the first forty or so pages to describe setting up and waiting out a sniper shot and describing those he was aiming to kill. I'm nowhere that elaborate but in first person voice it seemed to work very well and still maintained a degree of intensity/excitement. I love outrageous amounts of detail/descriptions when it comes to things like fast cars/guns but I also don't want to bore the reader/audience.

What's a good compromise?

Oh Ranger. What a question!

I think you are right about one thing - it depends on the context of story and POV. You can do a lot of things with first person that won't work in 3rd and vice versa. I'm thinking of Flowers for Algernon. What a boring book that would have been if it had been written in 3rd person. In first person journal style it had me bawling, literally. I think the pages of my copy are warped from my tears. I don't think it would have been nearly as interesting in 3rd person. Same goes for American Psycho - the level of over the top, extreme detail placed on every horrific act and the medical precision of the descriptions is what makes that story so horrifying.

My first suggestion is to figure out what the story is you want to tell. What are the most important elements of the story? From there you can pick out the things that you need to take time with and explore while leaving other items in the background. For example, a dripping faucet might just be a brief mention as someone walks past the bathroom. Or, if the character is trying to sleep but can't for some reason (fear, anxiety) you might want to spend a page or two on the sound of the faucet dripping, the evenness of it, how it drives your character nuts or how they use it to try and meditate. Maybe they get so enraged that they get out of bed and decide to fix it. In the end, whatever you decide to do with a detail (like the leaky faucet) depends on the story you want to tell.

Does that make any sense?

All right, so, irrelevant-to-the-current-conversation interjection here. One of the examples in the original post of what you shouldn't do was a description of a character made by having the character in question admire herself at some length in the mirror. In a book I was reading the other day, the author had done just that:

"There was a large mirror hanging on the wall opposite the bed - for people who liked that sort of thing, I supposed - ornately framed in dark cherrywood. So I saw the scene as it must have appeared to him: the lines forming thin and faint at the corners of my eyes, gray hairs glinting at my temples more obviously than I'd have liked in the late-morning sun. I thought ruefully of how little I deserved those marks of age, and how well I had won them, for a man just past thirty-five years of age. Next to me the young man slept on, his tanned shoulders smooth, his mouth open and vulnerable. I tilted my head, fingers measuring the dark unkempt edges of the beard creeping over my cheeks and under my chin. [...] I caught a glimpse of myself again in the mirror, hair dark and sleep-wild, half-dressed, white shirt voluminous and untucked, my nose stark and sharp and the new lines tight around my eyes and mouth. I'd lost my cuff links under a mound of ash. I looked exactly as I felt: a man thrown off center."

- Havemercy, by Jaida Jones and Danielle Bennett

This passage also interested me because none of the other viewpoint characters are described in nearly as much detail, despite two of them in particular arguably being much more important to the plot as a whole. So what do you think? Good writing despite the use of a reflective self description? Terrible? Mediocre?

1. Forums are not to be used to post stories.
2. All discussions, language and content, must be suitable for teens.
3. The owner/moderator(s) of this forum is solely responsible for content posted within this area.
4. All forum abuse must be reported to the moderator(s).

1. Forum admin/moderator
2. Fanatic (on site for more than 2 years)
3. Fan (on site for more than a year)
4. Regular (on site for more than 6 months)
5. Camper (on site for more than a month)
6. Apprentice (on site for more than a week)
7. Newbie (on site for less than a week)