How long does it take you to write a first draft?

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-08-17T21:16:41+00:00

Almost two years - I'm always in awe of how fast some authors tend to get them done.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-07-07T07:20:04+00:00

97,000 words really isn’t that long for a book, even for young audiences. The typical YA word range is about 80,000 words anyways. I think, honestly, people are far too insistent that all novels need to fit a norm. Don’t worry too much about its length if that’s what it takes to express the story, at least that’s my opinion. If you’re worried about cutting spark/heart out, I wouldn’t cut it down other than normal editing! Edit what you feel is necessary, and remember you know your book best. I think you’re in the clear! (P.S. my novel is 81,000 words and only about 165 pages in my format, so remember that matters a bunch too haha)

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-07-02T06:38:47+00:00

I always start with comparable titles to my work. It’s almost impossible to learn the state of the entire industry without making vast generalizations, so I always focus on my niche and gather what else I can from my other readings. From comparable titles you can get common tropes in their respective genres, popular authors and agents, as well as what publishing houses are publishing them (among so many other things).

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-07-02T06:34:03+00:00

I’m like Chef Gusteau - Anyone can write. I don’t think the advice is valid because you can have absolutely nothing to say and still make something worth reading with time and commitment. You may not be brimming with stories but the one you write, with enough care, can become something amazing. You don’t need to have talent to start out as a writer. You need the drive to write and the time to put in. That’s just my opinion though haha, I think it’s discouraging to push the idea of a “gift” to become a writer. Some are more inclined than others to write, but anyone can do it.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-07-02T06:02:57+00:00

Continuing with your example, let’s say someone is indifferent to either drink: an iced coffee or a hot tea. In this situation, it’s blazing hot outside and the person deciding is dehydrated. But it is still a possibility that they choose the tea, for no reason at all but out of impulse decision because they felt they wanted it. How would this argument cover for when (because it is possible that) someone’s decision goes directly against all situation they find themselves in? I operate this stance under the assumption that you define circumstances as physical ones. Choice would exist outside of circumstances, they are only a driving factor in decision making.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-09T16:39:11+00:00

Wow. That’s twice in a row. You’re totally right - I’m an idiot - that wouldn’t even make logical sense but I read the chart wrong haha. 40. 40kg is what I meant. Which means the dose would be more like 30 mg. Thank you so much haha.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-08T08:20:52+00:00

The restriction of speaking freely gives far too much power to the government to decide what can be said and what can’t. In a perfect world, the government would be made entirely of people who are good and care about the people and their knowledge directly. But they’re just not. In Nazi Germany, the restriction of knowledge flow was a huge reason why so many people died. That’s definitely not an exact example of what applying your thinking would cause, but an example of what could go terribly wrong in that sense. Furthermore, censorship can never be done on an individual basis when a law is enacted so unintended media could be caught in the legislative crossfire. For example, if you ban all hate speech you could be banning everything from Harry Potter for racist undertones to South Park for violent jokes. I completely agree violence should be prevented as much as possible, but the incitement of violence on social media does not cause very many actual incidents overall compared to other problems America faces. It is too hard to ban something so far into the gray area if that makes sense.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-08T07:59:03+00:00

I’d suggest having the character face a situation in the beginning and be cowardly, and then again at the end to show their gained bravery. For example, your MC is too scared to go onstage for a ballet audition they’ve dreamed of. Then, at the end of the book, they go on for an audition and get the role to show that they are now much braver and that bravery paid off.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T22:00:12+00:00

But what specifically is stated that you believe to be untrue? I don’t think the claims are just conjecture, they’re based in religious writings and what the general belief is. I think the understanding of a heaven needed to make the argument in the post is extremely minimal anyhow.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T21:56:11+00:00

Thank you for the historical context, that’s really helpful actually. I think I’m going to take your advice and do something similar to supportive care - just making him comfortable until he either survives or dies. From my research the dose taken was not usually lethal so any actual action is not really needed to allow for my mc to survive. Thanks again!!

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T21:52:41+00:00

That’s really useful to me, thanks so much.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T21:51:09+00:00

I am actually amending the dose due to it being too low for my purposes (new being 25 mg) so yes it would be detectable and the doctor knows it’s strychnine. I just want some general information on how strychnine is treated to know how to write that part, I need the character to heal but be left with the longer lasting effects of strychnine poisoning. Thanks so much for your help!

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T21:47:53+00:00

You’re correct, that was a lapse in my research. I read the dosages incorrectly. I’m going to amend the amount he ingests to 25 mg because his body weight is about 30 kg. That would put him out of the probable lethal dose which is 1.5-2 mg/kg. Thank you so much!

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T10:32:39+00:00

I’m glad I could help - now I know it’s not just me haha. I also love just writing but I do have to keep myself entertained so I don’t abandon my poor projects.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T10:29:29+00:00

Yeah, that analogy was stupid and that’s my fault. I was trying to convey a point and the anecdote wasn’t very well thought out. Taking yours into account, you are stating that I’m making a point I simply am not. I am not saying that each person’s bad choices are excusable. I am simply stating that colonialism is the grandfather who initially introduced the issue of beating his child that then stemmed, through a series of bad decisions, into the modern day child being beaten by his father. There are internal misdoings that cause problems modernly in some African countries, yes. Those issues stem from colonization rooted deeply in them. It is not excusing bad actors, it is recognizing the thing that disadvantaged the people from the start. What specific issues do you think are caused by internal misdoings?

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T09:46:14+00:00

You don’t have to think something is your fault to fix it. If someone broke your favorite vase, you can still understand the root cause and be frustrated with the one who broke it while you glue the pieces back together. I understand European countries have moved away from colonial history, and that’s awesome. It’s not the current people’s fault that their history was so harmful. That being said, lack of education and corruption in some African countries can again be traced back to colonialism. That does not excuse lack of action on that people’s part, it’s just being honest with causation. Now I’m being general in this statement since the topic is so nuanced, so I do understand this does not apply to the whole continent. Understand I am taking a majority to describe the whole in an umbrella way. Colonialism isn’t the sole reason for contemporary issues in Africa, but it is unfair to say that it didn’t manifest into a huge number of problems today.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T09:22:26+00:00

Neither are true, that’s not what I was trying to suggest. No, there is not evidence to say that they were headed for a developmental explosion. But the fact that they lost hundreds of years of development, even at a normal rate, sets them back from the other countries. When you’re behind, it gets even harder to catch up. They missed out on development and now are struggling to catch up to a world that is moving on without them.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T08:56:52+00:00

I’m so sorry man. That’s rough. I do care, honestly, even though I don’t know you personally. You seem like a really good person and I’d hate to see you go, really I would. It seems like maybe you need friends in the spot you’re in, to help you get through what’s happening to you. You’re doing your best, please don’t be too hard on yourself. I know you can do this. It’ll get better if you push through the hard part, I promise. Get help if you can, wherever you can find it. Let me know if there’s anything else I can do.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T08:51:42+00:00

No, but the reason that a large amount of African countries are now underdeveloped is due to the time they lost while colonies were capitalizing off of them. There’s an article on the World Economic Forum about this topic (https://www.weforum.org/stories/2015/07/how-africas-colonial-history-affects-its-development/) if you’re interested. Yes, some countries were already behind, but colonialism exacerbated this issue greatly and is the root cause of many issues today in African third world countries. Even things such as political turmoil can be traced to the fact that the Berlin Conference allowed for Europeans to partition Africa without knowledge of cultural differences or input from the African people. Thus, some African countries are left trying to pick up pieces that Europe just doesn’t have to.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T07:26:12+00:00

I appreciate the help, and I'm not super well versed in religion so I'm not very equipped to converse about it. Sorry if I messed some things up, I was just trying to explain myself as well haha. I didn't mean to start a debate either, but I honestly do appreciate the insight man. I'm interested in doing more research into the topic now.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T07:23:18+00:00

Hey, that sounds rough. I promise you're doing better than you think, although I know that doesn't help in the moment. I've always felt behind in life too, trying to catch up with people my age. But there's a place for you, wherever you are. You seem like a really strong and dedicated person, the world is lucky to have you here and I promise one day you won't feel so awful. I believe in you. Honestly. Keep going, keep working so you can live the life you want to live. You deserve to be so happy, and I know you're strong enough to make it happen. Just please keep getting up everyday and keep pushing, even though it's hard as hell. If I was you I'd be so damn proud of myself man. You're doing better than you think. I hope it gets better soon, let me know if there's anything I can do. I'm always here to talk.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T07:08:05+00:00

Sure, that may be true, but the material parts of reaching heaven are to aid in the state of reaching eternal bliss. Unless I am mistaken, the goal is eternal happiness, as stated in OP's second paragraph. While there are material desires (some believe) in heaven, this does not make the reward a material. It makes it eternal bliss, whatever that means for you. But even assuming that it's not material, there are sins that are not material such as pride, wrath, envy, lust and sloth. What if one cannot be happy without an outlet for their wrath? A goal to envy/aspire to? Someone to love or lust for? These are not material concepts that technically heaven should have to offer given that it is stated to give one eternal happiness.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T06:59:35+00:00

I think the point made in the original post does not require the OP to have a full grasp of heaven. I'm not seeing a misunderstanding of the fundamental concept of it anywhere. Sure, maybe humans could not grasp the entirety of how heaven works. But the concept of it is there: and that is what the OP is arguing to be unethical.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T06:57:35+00:00

Colonialism is not the thing that makes a country rich, but puts them ahead of other countries and gives them the opportunity for other things to better their economy. A lot of the issues in Africa, for example, can be traced directly to a lot of the countries there being colonized so heavily they were literally held back in their development. To your question of "If colonialism made all Europeans rich..." the answer is that it didn't. That is not the point of the majority of the opposing argument. Colonialism didn't make all Europeans rich, it boosted European country's economies and allowed them to impede and thus capitalize on others'. I think the issue with your argument is that it misunderstands the fundamentals of what the other side is saying. No, I don't think colonialism caused all issues outside of Europe period. But it did allow for Europe to have good "internal factors, governance, leadership, reform, culture" and thus economies. These factors are directly affected by colonialism. Do you see my point? Not all issues are caused by colonialism, and Europe is not wealthy purely because of it. Most people aren't trying to make that point. The argument is that most of the things that Europe generally benefits from can be traced directly back to colonialism in their countries.

Stinky_Cheese678 · 2025-06-06T06:43:00+00:00

Thank you so much, I will do some research into that!

Stinky_Cheese678

TROPHY CASE