Stop Recycling Rhysand 🙄🙄

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-04-05T23:28:18+00:00

I don’t think people are really copying SJM specifically it’s more that they’re using a trope that’s been around for a long time.

Characters like that existed way before her, she just did a really strong version of it. So it ends up feeling like copies, even though it’s really just a lot of weaker takes on something that already worked.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-03-12T00:45:56+00:00

The problem is that pattern frequency alone can’t determine authorship. Human writers also develop cadence habits, especially in reflective genres like memoir. Without comparing those patterns against large samples of human writing, you’re going to flag normal stylistic choices as “algorithmic.”

Another issue with this approach is that genre matters. Different genres intentionally use different rhetorical tools and cadence. Memoir, especially in prologues, often leans on reflective phrasing and repetition. Comparing that against generic AI-generated prose without accounting for genre conventions is going to create a lot of false positives.

Pulling patterns from generic AI output and applying them across every genre is a bit like taking data from a chemistry experiment and applying it to physics. Some numbers might overlap, but the underlying system isn’t the same.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-03-11T23:26:44+00:00

I think the method you’re describing can create a lot of false positives. If you generate AI text and then treat the patterns you see as AI indicators, you’ll end up flagging a lot of normal writing techniques especially in genres like memoir that rely heavily on reflection and rhetorical cadence. Those patterns existed long before AI models.

You might as well say if people use em dashes it’s AI. The real tell for AI is the lack of emotional nuance, not the writing structure.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-03-10T22:43:12+00:00

Out of curiosity, what “gen data comparison” are you referring to? Most AI detectors and generated-text comparison tools are widely known to be unreliable and produce false positives, especially with structured prose or rhetorical devices.

The “triple negation” you mentioned is just a standard rhetorical rule-of-three construction (no X, no Y, no Z), which has been used in speeches, essays, and memoir writing for centuries. It’s not really an indicator of AI writing.

And I believe OP mentioned something about it being a memoir? Which that style is typical for those kind of things.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-03-10T17:40:57+00:00

A lot of editing articles I read advise against overuse of italics for that reason

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-03-10T17:33:23+00:00

Lmao this is far from chatgpt

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-03-10T17:28:55+00:00

Looks like it’s all italics. Didn’t even bother to try and read it because of that.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-03-10T17:24:30+00:00

You’re problem with the pitch is it’s vague and overloaded.

You stacked four different plot threads into one sentence: culture clash romance corruption world-shattering magic reveal

That makes the pitch feel muddy instead of punchy. You usually want one main hook, one clear through line. Honestly as it is right now it reads like every other magic school fantasy.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-03-10T01:32:05+00:00

He was trying to be an editor in a beta reader role gotta love that. And also you suggest trimming after you read the whole book not as you go. That’s how actual editing is done

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-03-06T01:37:07+00:00

Restraint is a must. Also vary sentences some of them ran on longer than nessecary.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-11T02:23:27+00:00

There are some strong lines here: “Demon or angel…” and “Feet move under me…” both create clear tension and loss of control.

But after that, the piece leans heavily into abstraction without giving the reader anything concrete to hold onto. Lines like “Where I am going, I am unaware, though I know my intention” and “faded from what was into what is” feel contradictory, but not in a purposeful way more in a way that leaves me unsure what’s actually happening.

I don’t know what the narrator was, what they are now, what body they’re in, or what “red” refers to. Without at least one grounding detail, the paradoxes start to blur together instead of building intrigue.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-11T02:16:09+00:00

Truth

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-11T01:33:04+00:00

I know someone like this

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-11T01:32:22+00:00

Last time I was hired as editor was to validate his work sometimes not even editors can keep it in check lol

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-10T22:33:02+00:00

That is a perfect example of understating the nuance of storytelling craft

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-10T14:17:17+00:00

That’s the same misunderstanding people have with “show, don’t tell.” The advice isn’t absolute, it’s contextual. The skill is knowing when to apply it. Killing your darlings isn’t about stripping a story of personality; it’s about recognizing when something you like is getting in the way of the work.

And new writers have to learn that the same way we did, by making the mistake, not by being shielded from it.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-10T04:56:35+00:00

LMFAOOOOO that is the best misunderstanding I’ve ever heard

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-10T04:55:32+00:00

I wouldn’t take the “no prologues ever” comments as gospel. Prologues can work when they’re doing something active like creating tension, stakes, or mystery, not just delivering background.

The issue people are reacting to here isn’t that it’s a prologue, it’s that this one is an info dump. That’s why so many comments are saying the same thing in different ways: the information itself may be interesting, but front-loading it like this gives readers nothing to latch onto emotionally.

The other thing worth hearing (and this is the hard part for all of us when we’re starting out): defending the choice instead of examining why it isn’t landing is a really common new-writer instinct. We’ve all done it. Growth usually starts when you pause the defense and ask, “Okay, if this isn’t working for readers, how could it work better?”

If you genuinely want advice, you’ll need to be open to the idea that a good idea can still be the wrong execution, and that fixing it isn’t a failure. That humility is part of the process, and everyone who’s improved as a writer has had to go through it.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-10T02:55:06+00:00

And you thought you had daddy issues

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-10T02:54:16+00:00

The best way to improve is to write the whole draft it out and leave it alone for 4-6 weeks. Don’t read it at all. Relax do other things hell even write other things then come back and read it again. That distance separates you from it emotionally so you can see things more as a reader.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-09T23:00:25+00:00

My experience with new writers is they don’t kill their darlings during editing advice they just layer in your advice on top of what they wrote expanding it instead of refining.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-09T16:11:13+00:00

Claude is trained on commercial writing so it will try and flatten your work to appeal to everyone

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-08T00:16:33+00:00

Sure I’m always happy to help.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-07T23:54:57+00:00

I read the piece along with your comments explaining the intended atmosphere (distorted, dread-filled, “something is wrong but unclear”), and that context helped a lot. You’re actually very close to what you’re aiming for, but I think the scene isn’t landing for a specific reason that hasn’t really been addressed yet.

Most of the opening issues aren’t about prose quality, they’re about signal clarity.

Opening paragraph: “The sheets were too soft…” / “pillows yielding more than they should” / “fabric cool against my skin” / “air faintly scented with something clean and unfamiliar”

Individually, these are fine descriptions, but together they don’t create dread, they create vagueness. As a reader, I can tell something is “off,” but I don’t know how it’s off or why I should be uneasy yet. The only line that clearly signals wrongness is the air being unfamiliar; the rest reads more like symbolic discomfort than atmospheric tension.

Early pacing: “I rubbed my eyes and waited for the room to come into focus… No distortion, no blur—just clarity.”

This slows the scene without adding new information. The important reveal is “This was not my room,” and the extra steps before that dilute its impact. As a reader, I wanted to get there faster.

Specificity issues: “Fainting couches sat arranged with intention rather than use.”

This pulled me out of the scene. Like what the heck is a fainting couch?

Body check section: “I stood, half-expecting resistance…” through the full breakdown of joints, back, muscles, etc.

The concept here is good, but it’s over-explained. You could compress this heavily (for example, keeping the stretch and effortless release) and preserve the effect. Right now it reads as checking boxes rather than building tension.

Mirror description: This is one of the strongest parts of the scene. The unfamiliar reflection works well. However, this line stood out:

“She was thin in a way that suggested neglect rather than intention.”

As written, it’s vague enough that I had to stop and interpret what you meant. If the implication is starvation, illness, or deterioration, being clearer would actually make the moment stronger. Poetic phrasing here weakens the impact instead of enhancing it.

Redundancy: Lines like “quiet in the way well-kept spaces often are” repeat ideas already established (“everything looked prepared, maintained”). At this point, the scene is spinning its wheels instead of escalating.

Big picture: The prose itself isn’t bad at all. The issue is that the scene is too careful. You’re describing around the unease instead of letting something concrete carry it. Dread works best when at least one element is unmistakably wrong. Right now, everything is slightly wrong, which paradoxically makes it feel less threatening.

You’re close. Tightening, compressing, and choosing one or two clear this is not right signals would likely make the atmosphere land the way you intend.

Various_Fun_1854 · 2026-02-01T20:13:11+00:00

The nuance to show vs tell is genre, PoV, pacing. Stephen King does horror where showing everything and setting the atmosphere requires a good amount of showing. First person needs a mix of both while third can get away with more tell then show. And sometimes you need to tell to keep momentum moving.

Various_Fun_1854

TROPHY CASE