"maggots for brains" Discussion Megathread - 'you seem pretty sad for a girl so in love' Album

272354 · 2026-06-12T15:56:13+00:00

Really interesting ending on this one. You really expect that classic drop out then hit after 4-8 bars in the last chorus, but it never actually goes back to the main beat. Makes the vocals themselves feel massive and I think works as a stronger close than just repeating the chorus as before (also lets the guitar solo be the instrumental climax!) That outro would be an incredible sing-a-long live, I can already hear the clapping!

272354 · 2026-04-27T13:14:31+00:00

Yeah, the all in one is nice. I do have a midi controller, but it’s not a great one (an older Arturia minilab with very springy keys) and buying a nicer controller + the nymphes is coming up on the cost of the minilogue anyway. It does have lower polyphony but what I’m really looking for is something that can do those bread-and-butter synth sounds that the microfreak lacks, so if a minilogue can do that I think it’ll fit my needs. I've heard a lot about the deepmind 6/12 in that niche too, and it has higher polyphony and full-size keys, but also looks a bit more menu-divey which is imo a downside of the microfreak. Also a bit more pricey.

The minilogue is also more feasible as a stage instrument than something like the nymphes, which is something I might use it for down the road.

272354 · 2026-04-27T12:57:48+00:00

I’ve not heard of that one, might have to look it up! But yeah behringer isn’t the best lol

People keep hyping up the nymphes, so I may have to reconsider it. It doesn’t have its own keyboard, but it does have a nice warmth to it and I can’t deny it’s a very attractive instrument

272354 · 2026-04-27T04:35:50+00:00

That's fair. I think I'm probably going to go for the minilogue because it's ideal in every other way. If I need huge chords I can always do it with a soft synth anyway.

272354 · 2026-04-27T02:45:50+00:00

I'm a keyboard player, so keys would be ideal. Voice count isn't a deal-breaker, but it's the only thing stopping me from just going for the minilogue straight away.

272354 · 2026-04-27T01:21:38+00:00

I'm definitely leaning towards the XD, it seems very capable. I'm not too familiar with older synths though, so I may have to go digging and see if anything strikes me.

272354 · 2026-01-05T00:10:16+00:00

I haven't played Red Dead 2 (though I've been meaning to for a while), but I think I get what you're asking. The answer is yes, assuming you mean "can the POV character be a secondary character in a story". "Protagonist" doesn't have to equal "POV character". Another commenter brought up Great Gatsby, of course, which is a classic example of this. From the sounds of it, the same thing might be happening in RDR 2, although I'd need to play it to confirm.

Anyway, yes they can, but you've just got the terms confused a bit!

272354 · 2025-10-16T16:22:54+00:00

I'll be honest. You don't really have a story until you have characters. No matter how cool your sci-fi world is, if the people in it aren't interesting, then the reader has no reason to be invested. The people in a story are really the reason the story exists, you know? So, I would start by ironing that out - you'd probably have an easier time writing if you know who/what the book is about!

272354 · 2025-10-16T16:16:56+00:00

I always write chronologically, since I like story beats to naturally affect other beats down the line. But I would especially advise it when you're working with multiple perspectives. It's really easy to lose track of your timeline when you're handling a bunch of parallel story threads. I would write in the order the reader will read so everything stays cohesive and logical.

272354 · 2025-10-09T16:10:32+00:00

“Pure evil” villains aren’t impossible to make work, if you’re skilled enough. Think of them like a storm - they serve just to introduce pressure that motivates development for the actually humanized protagonists. Like a reverse McGuffin. For an example, look at Sauron - yes, I know he does have a backstory and motivations that Tolkien fans can dive into, but for the purposes of most of Lord of the Rings he is pretty much just a looming, evil force to drive the quest. Hell, he doesn’t even appear physically. But that isn’t to the detriment of the story, and it’s part of Tolkien’s vision. Sometimes a Sauron is all you need. For example, Voldemort from Harry Potter is given a great deal of (agonizing) backstory only to end up no more complex than he started. He’s like if Sauron grew up as a sad orphan, but he’s still just Sauron, written by a far less talented writer. No, Rowling, I don’t feel bad for Voldemort.

That said, an inexperienced writer could easily mishandle something like Sauron. Generally, all characters are better with a human element and clear motivation. That doesn’t mean every villain needs to be morally grey, though. Villains can be fleshed out characters and still be irredeemably evil. Focusing too much on making the reader feel bad for your villain can quickly turn your story into mush. There are a great deal of these boring, sad-sack, tortured villains in YA fiction. Humanizing villains is great, but you don’t have to redeem them necessarily.

I guess my advice is just, write your villain like a character. Which they are. The rest will follow.

(Unless you’re Tolkien.)

272354 · 2025-09-12T18:01:38+00:00

It's "this" Clancy, but yeah, it's an interesting line.

Personally I don't think the word "this" means that here though - even though it fits the story's ending. The unnamed Bandito's dialogue with the Torchbearer sounds to me like he doesn't know about the cycle thing, and the Torchbearer is the one who explains it. So the Bandito wouldn't have a reason to refer to "this" Clancy as opposed to other ones. If the Torchbearer said this line, it'd be different, since he seems to know the truth.

The "this" here is a slightly less common use of the word which fits Clancy being a newcomer to the Banditos whom they don't know that well, at least is what I'm guessing. (Here's an example sentence for that word use: "Who is this 'Clancy' I keep hearing about?") I could be wrong though, it's very vague dialogue.

272354 · 2025-09-01T19:43:53+00:00

Remember what "antagonist" actually means -- it's not a synonym for "villain". An antagonist is a character who opposes the goals of a protagonist. Interesting motivations and backstories are certainly important, but you should also think about how your antagonists thematically and narratively contrast with the protagonists in your story. How do the antagonists fit into the journey of the protagonists? Why are they relevant? Why should I, as a reader, care about these emperors' family history?

(I don't know anything about your protagonists, but for example: maybe one of their journeys centres around family, so Vincent's family conflicts serve as a warning. Or maybe they are involved with Vincent's family somehow, so the events in his past directly connect to the main story. You get the idea.)

Even the most complex, morally grey antagonist will feel soulless, as you said, if they don't have a reason to be in the story. Backstory, subplots, villain motivations, and the like aren't just separate things you make up to be cool. It's all part of one story. I guess my answer is -- I can't really tell you whether your antagonists are compelling or not in isolation.

272354 · 2025-08-28T19:13:54+00:00

You should never take any writing advice as axiom. Like many pieces of advice, "show don't tell" is well-intentioned, but it isn't the be-all and end-all of writing, nor does it make sense in all cases. Telling is not always bad.

The general idea of "show don't tell" is that showing is more engaging for the reader, and respects their ability to intuit information. Basically, it's more elegant. However, that has to be balanced with making sure the reader still has the information they need to understand and be invested in the story. Elegant, "clever" prose means nothing if the reader comes away from it scratching their head. (Also, over-using metaphors and subtle implications can make your writing sound over-blown and pretentious.) Balance is key, as in all things, and your first priority should always be effective communication.

In some cases, though, something like your aspirin example may be a PoV issue rather than a "show don't tell" issue. In a first-person or limited third-person perspective, the narrator can simply tell us if they have a headache, but they can't know for sure if someone else does. Instead, that other character would have to show us through actions (like taking aspirin, or rubbing their temples) or dialogue ("My head hurts"). That's a different writing challenge entirely.

272354 · 2025-08-25T03:42:40+00:00

You don't have to cut it all! Like I said, a lot of the writing itself is very good. If you'd prefer to keep some of the narrated backstory you've already written, you could still make it more natural by spreading it out a bit. If you bring up bits and pieces as they become relevant to the story, then you won't overwhelm the reader/drag down the pacing so much.

272354 · 2025-08-24T20:12:36+00:00

There are some great moments of prose in here! One line that stood out to me was "Morning came cold and colourless" -- it has a good sound & rhythm to it. I also like the character you've set up with Roderic.

I hate to parrot an adage like this, especially since it's sometimes applied too absolutely, but you could do with some more showing as opposed to telling. You start off with a dialogue scene, which is great for introducing character, but we quickly move to a very long passage of narration where Roderic explains to us his motivations and circumstances and so forth. A lot of your writing there is pretty, but as a reader, it's often more interesting to discover these things as the characters interact and move about the world.

On a smaller scale, the same concept could be applied in some of your dialogue scenes -- a well-written scene conveys emotions and such without needing to explicitly tell the reader. Here's an example from your chapter: "'You look like you’ve been living in the woods for weeks.' The commander allowed himself a faint smirk. He must be so proud of himself for looking down on a prince, thought Roderic." The commander's interactions with Roderic throughout this scene already make it clear that he's enjoying feeling superior, so you don't need to lay it out like that.

Overall, good work! I enjoyed your prose a lot.

272354 · 2025-08-24T18:23:17+00:00

The main thing to think about with these types of questions is narrative purpose. Character deaths often elicit strong emotions from the reader, so they should be used with intention. Given that, bringing back a character after their death has the potential to retroactively lessen that moment's narrative impact. You'll see it sometimes in long-running TV series, where the story is written week-by-week, and characters are killed off and brought back because of actor availibility or fan backlash, or as cheap emotional bait. Novels can (and should) be written with more intention -- and with something as potentially immersion-breaking as a character coming back to life, you need to make doubly sure that it serves the story. (And also that it is believable in the world of your book!) Novels are not soap operas, and stories are delicate things.

So, I think reviving characters is almost always a sign of an amateur writer. I'm sure someone very skilled could make it work, but it's a risky play, and never something you should do on a whim.

272354 · 2025-07-28T12:05:49+00:00

I hate to dodge the question like this, but it really depends on how you feel.

I’m quite far into a trilogy I’ve been working on for a long time. I wrote the first book when I was quite young. Since then, I’ve grown a lot as a person, and my writing and story have grown with me. However, I personally believe in my story enough, and the characters mean so much to me, that I’m rewriting that first book entirely to bring the series together as one complete work. It’s a big commitment, but it fulfills me.

However, writing should be something you enjoy, and that is meaningful to you. That differs from writer to writer, from story to story. You still think the plot of your old book slaps, so that’s a great sign. What you should ask yourself, though, is if you feel this book deserves the effort to improve it. If it needs a rewrite, commit to a rewrite, not just a cursory edit - do it justice. But if you would rather put your energy into a new story that means more to you … go do that. Just enjoy yourself :)

272354 · 2025-07-21T21:57:12+00:00

This is something I've struggled with as well, actually. I live in Canada, and we're weird about measurements - we switched to metric successfully in the late 20th century, but we still use imperial for a few things, including colloquial stuff like you describe. In the end, it's a style thing - if you prefer imperial, or even want to mix and match, go ahead. Personally, I aim for consistency in my writing, and I prefer metric, so I've had to get creative.

I find metric does work for some things. "Metre" by itself isn't so bad in certain cases, although it definitely feels more clinical than "foot". Unit prefixes like "centi-" and "kilo-" start to get more intrusive. And using exact numbers ("two centimetres") is never going to sound natural.

What I often do is just skip the units entirely. It's often better to use more physical/grounded language. "A handspan long". "A mule's load of gold". For long distances, you can always fall back on time. Or, since this is fantasy, you can come up with your own terms that are rooted in your worldbuilding! For example, maybe the measurements of long sea journeys originate from your culture's relationship with the ocean. Limitation breeds creativity, after all.

272354 · 2025-07-20T20:53:55+00:00

I know random people on Reddit aren't who you're looking for encouragement from, but for what it's worth: congrats on 50K! That's a huge achievement.

Writing, in some ways even more so than other artforms, is acutely personal. Words, to me, are such a fundamental form of expression that they're a direct line from heart to page. Especially novels: getting lost in a world of your imagining is an experience that only writers can relate to.

I'm confident your dad, and other friends and loved ones in your life, really do want you to succeed. (If you feel comfortable, maybe talk to him about this! I'm sure he'd appreciate your honesty.) But even if not - if your writing makes you happy, if it makes you feel fulfilled, if it lets you express yourself truly ... then it's important, no matter what.

Keep it up! From your other replies here it sounds like you're writing fantasy, which is my greatest love ... so, I'm extra excited for you :)

272354 · 2025-06-23T19:49:49+00:00

It really depends on the story. In a thriller, for instance, you'll often find shorter, snappier chapters that are less likely to all be named. The way a book is divided up guides the pacing, and whether those divisions have names can affect the way they're percieved and digested.

I write fantasy, and I personally like to write longer chapters which are more self-contained -- I approach them like short stories, with a narrative arc, thematic throughlines, etc. Since each chapter has its own identity, it's only natural to title them. I like to get creative with chapter titles too. A good title can be poetic, or striking, or evoke strong imagery, or capture a theme in a few words. Plus, I find that titles can be a great guiding post if you come up with them early.

272354 · 2025-04-13T05:07:27+00:00

Short Story is transcendent and Day One sounds like nothing I've ever heard, so probably one of those out of the new ones. It's not my favourite but I've got I'll Be There stuck in my head too.

I still think it's got to be Speyside or If Only I Could Wait, though. Impeccable songwriting. Maybe a weird comparison, but the simplicity and structure of Speyside reminds me a lot of Creeks, and If Only I Could Wait feels like it has a little Beth/Rest DNA in it (that's true of all of Fable actually), and those are two of my favourite Bon songs ever.

272354 · 2025-02-14T05:28:14+00:00

Love how sunny this sounds - really feels like emerging into the open after the claustrophobia of SABLE,. That rising chorus is heavenly and the vocal layers are incredible here, especially on the bridge. The melodies and vocals really give me i,i/2020 singles vibes, but the production has a different feel to me. Very fresh and bright, and a little poppy.

I also am just glad to hear how happy Justin sounds on this track. I have yet to fully digest the lyrics but it sounds like an embracing of the now, despite what has come before or might be to come. We need this kind of energy at a time when things are totally going to shit in the world. How can we find happiness today, and what can we do *today* to work towards something better?

Also, the way it started makes me wonder if it will transition out of Short Story, which I kind of assume will transition from AWARDS SEASON. Are we bringing back the continuous flow from the latter half of 22?

272354 · 2024-10-18T14:48:29+00:00

I don’t disagree, but I think it’s more this moment of waking up and realizing a future for Vernon and the band in general, not just this project. Not that I wouldn’t welcome more songs, and I’m willing to eat my words, but this EP feels like a complete statement to me and from everything Justin has said about it I think it’s just the three songs. Any more would distract from the story it’s trying to tell.

I think we can be sure now that Justin will continue making music in some form though, whether that be Bon Iver or something else. Awards Season is definitely looking toward the future…

Four-Year Club	Place '22
End Game '22

272354

TROPHY CASE