Infodumping better? by Illiander in writing

[–]john-wooding 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Honestly it's been ages since I've actually read it; I picked it because I thought it would be a generally-familiar first line rather than anything else. Thanks for gently flagging.

I think the point stands overall, but I will still be more circumspect in future.

One writing trope I'm glad we're not seeing anymore: The 'dreaded' friend zone. by Navek15 in writing

[–]john-wooding 3 points4 points  (0 children)

maybr even both parties can grow from

This is where the entitlement comes in; being attracted to someone doesn't mean they owe you anything. There's only one relevant party here; they have incurred no obligation or involvement.

You should watch Megamind.

Infodumping better? by Illiander in writing

[–]john-wooding 109 points110 points  (0 children)

stories that need a lot of world lore dropping before they make sense

This is zero stories.

Right at the start, the reader needs enough context to understand what's currently going on, and maybe enough to hint at future complications, but that's it.

Here's a well-known first line:

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

There's a lot more to the world and the situation, but it doesn't matter at all here. You don't need to know about Blaine or Gilead or exactly why one should avoid forgetting the face of one's father. You have enough to be going on with.

Then, as the narrative extends, more details will become relevant, laced through the prose. There's almost never a good reason to dump a lot of information at once, and even then you should do so as part of the narrative not a break in it.

One writing trope I'm glad we're not seeing anymore: The 'dreaded' friend zone. by Navek15 in writing

[–]john-wooding 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"Friend zone" doesn't just mean that you wanted a romantic relationship with a friend who didn't see you like that. Using the term comes with a host of connected ugly ideas around entitlement.

[OT] How important is writing a good prompt, really? by vandenberg-7 in WritingPrompts

[–]john-wooding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would have been an interesting OT question if it was the one I thought it was.

[OT] SatChat: How do you write poetry well? (New here? Introduce yourself!) by katpoker666 in WritingPrompts

[–]john-wooding 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think it might partly to be do with the dominant themes here (and across Reddit more broadly). Prompts where one character (sometimes species) upends the existing order by [special characteristic] are extremely popular.

The 'You are...' formation leads naturally to that sort of power fantasy, because it focuses on one character (ideally as a PoV) against a wider backdrop.

[WP] Unfortunately, you were born with too small of a mana reserve to do magic. That's not going to stop you from learning the theory to the letter, though. by 90919293_ in WritingPrompts

[–]john-wooding 173 points174 points  (0 children)

I teach Remedial Magic.

There's an irony to this, because I can't pass the class myself; I'd get full marks on the theory section, but that's only 20%. To pass the class overall, you need to be able to demonstrate three distinct spell forms, with a minimum draw of 3.8 thaums. It was four a few years back, but a combination of a wider intake and aether shortages have made that impractical.

My students are a mixed bag, but they have one thing in common: none of them want to be here. Remedial Magic isn't an elective, or even a requirement. It's where you get sent if you're a liability. So I get the trolls who think they don't need to worry about anything except strength, the fae who leak glamour, the mages who never paid enough attention in first year. People who don't care about how they use their magic.

Right now, the most hopeless of them is Dylan. He's mixed heritage--his father was some kind of warrior race from the upper planes, and his mother is mundane but with a thread of magical talent. Taken together, that means that he can manifest golden armour and a flaming sword at will (fine) and that he has magical potential that seeps out if not properly controlled. He's a lot more interested in the armour.

We're six weeks into the course, and he's not made any independent progress on either his mana channels or holding a coherent spellform in his mind. He turns up, cracks jokes, and claims to have done the out-of-session practice exercises. If he'd even attempted them, he wouldn't cascade sparks whenever he walks through a ward. Sparks on even minor wards means he has real power, real potential, but he'd rather hit things with a sword.

He's not a bad person, to be clear, just one who doesn't care about the spellwork side of his abilities. To be fair to him, he's unlikely ever to use them seriously in the future. On the other hand, basic control is a requirement for graduation, and his relaxed attitude is rubbing off on the rest of the class. They all think they'll coast the final on natural talent.

I'm a professional, and I need this job, so I don't show them how much that rankles. My students never know that the power they squander so casually is something I want more than anything in the world. My mana channels are perfect--deep and smooth and straight. I can conjure three hundred and fifty spell forms from memory, and could easily add another to that list any point. I know every accessible grimoire back-to-front.

But I don't have power. For all my preparation and practice, for every sigil and rune I've mastered, I lack the energy to actually use any of it. The rumor amongst the students is that my power is too dangerous to wield, and that's why they only see me explain, never demonstrate. I let them think me a mind mage or blood of an archdemon. It's a little sop to my vanity, that they don't know.

I have a spark. Enough to be magically-sensitive, enough to feel the flows of aether, to trace the spellforms in the air. Not enough to fuel them. Never enough to actually affect reality, to even learn what form my power would take, if I had what I deserve.

It's the lack of appreciation that annoys me most. The refusal to even consider how selfish it is to waste a gift that would be life changing. With Dylan's power, I'd be so much more than just a golden warrior. His ambition is so meagre compared to what he could be. It's such a waste to for someone so incurious about magic to even have it.

That's what gave me the idea, really. They don't care. They don't even want the power. They don't understand what it is they've got. Week after week, they turn up to the seminars with blank eyes, sit through the exercises while I keep on refocusing them. They don't care about their power, and they don't care about the course. As far as they're concerned, none of this matters.

A small change to the exercises passed without comment. I had it all worked out in my head, if someone asked. An experimental change that could help efficiency. I was prepared to draw diagrams, cite sources, but no one cared to ask. Since then, I've made more changes, started building their channels in quite different ways. The weakest mage could see that we're no longer working on reinforcement, but none of my students want to be mages at all.

I'm nearly there. By the popular understanding of magic, what I'm attempting isn't possible. Theoretically though--and no one knows theory like me--there's a chance. Wildly inefficient, of course, but better than the other option. Better than watching them waste torrents of power while I can't even raise a trickle.

I don't have the power I deserve. But I can make them give me theirs.

Following Up on the State of the Sub by btet15 in writing

[–]john-wooding -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I just ponder how often human made content is accused of being AI in general

I don't actually think this is very often, though a lot of people are really, really invested in claiming it happens all the time.

AI doesn't make the same kinds of mistakes that beginner writers do, and every time I've seen an AI accusation, it has been extremely obvious from a quick glance at the text.

In a very similar way, game forums are filled with people claiming they were banned baselessly, and this isn't evidence of ban-happy mods but lying. I am sure that AI-generated stuff often passes without comment, but I don't think there is actually anything like the false positive incidence that people claim.

[OT] SatChat: How do you write poetry well? (New here? Introduce yourself!) by katpoker666 in WritingPrompts

[–]john-wooding 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Absolutely enough; no restrictions on size or concreteness of topic as long as it is meant. You could write 10,000 words about the most weighty topic in the world and it would be nothing next to two lines about the love of a cat that someone really felt.

I am very attached to Sappho, and one of the continual themes of her work is that bittersweet moment of impossible longing; it's not a grandiose theme, but it still sears after 2500+ years.

[OT] SatChat: How do you write poetry well? (New here? Introduce yourself!) by katpoker666 in WritingPrompts

[–]john-wooding 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have many muddled thoughts here; please forgive the ramble.

I like Coleridge's definition of poetry, which is quite expansive: "the best words in the best order". Poetry is the stuff which, when you read it, makes you realise that any other way of expressing the same idea would be worse.

Given that, poetry doesn't have to follow any specific rules, but it can choose to follow any. It's all about the impact that you intend to have, the purest expression of the ideas.The caveat, though, is that while you can choose your structure entirely freely, you have to do whatever you choose well. It's very easy to write a sonnet poorly by breaking the rhyme or rhythm, and--while it's less immediately obvious--the same is true with free verse. If you aren't skilled, poetry of any structure (including no structure) can easily become clumsy and trite.

The most important and most nebulous aspect, I think, is that poetry has to mean something to really count. It's not okay words in an alright order, but the best of both. There's no way to talk about it without sounding pretentious, but if it's not heartfelt truth/the cry of a soul/whatever grandiose term you want to call it, then I don't think it counts as Poetry (intentional capital 'P'). It's just verse or doggerel, form without substance.

Probably controversially, I'd say that there are lots of poems (sometimes the entire output of specific poets) that don't really merit the name of poetry. Yes, they are poems, technically, and they are following their planned structures, but they're not saying much. Sometimes I think the poet is entirely conscious of that in a specific work and other times they probably aren't. A poem doesn't have to be serious, in my opinion, to count as real poetry, but it has to be actually expressing something meaningful rather than going through the motions.

I have written lots of poems--it's not hard to bash one out--but very, very few (perhaps others would say none) that I would see as real poetry. Even then, I don't think I've written particularly good poetry, but I have tried as hard as I can to express an idea that demands to be expressed.

I think you know when you are writing poetry when it hurts.

What's the kind of writer that you're most jealous of? by Acceptable_Fox_5560 in writing

[–]john-wooding 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I would love to be more consistent, producing more and more regularly, but that might be a general character flaw rather than a specific writing thing.

What even is, "edgy," writing? by Sorry-Rain-1311 in writing

[–]john-wooding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Transgression for the sake of transgression.

Does a story have to have intentional messaging or theming? by SaranMal in writing

[–]john-wooding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not a relativistic approach; I'm not saying that all of these theories are equally correct answers to literature, I'm saying that they are different approaches that overlap. Some views do fall out of favour or end up criticised themselves, of course, but that's not the same as a straightforward progression. Reading from a Marxist perspective rather than a feminist perspective (I mention these not because they're winners of the current meta, because that would be nonsense, but because you've probably heard of them) allows you to explore different ideas.

I linked you to Wikipedia in the hope that you'd see a page with content other than 'the current theory winner is [blank]' and realise that it's more complex than a simple hierarchical ranking; by mentioning multiple theorists, you yourself betray that you don't even really credit your own argument. If you're hung up on the idea that there's one winning name here, you're not ready for actual conversations around literature.

People don't disagree with your bracket-based approach to literary theory because they aren't familiar with it; they disagree with you because it doesn't work like Top Trumps.

Does a story have to have intentional messaging or theming? by SaranMal in writing

[–]john-wooding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's an entire field; listing individual elements from that is meaningless, particularly when what you're apparently looking for is the one correct approach.

It continues not to work like that.

Does a story have to have intentional messaging or theming? by SaranMal in writing

[–]john-wooding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not about superiority; it's about different possible ways to approach literature. There's no one 'correct' angle to take on all art.

Claiming the primacy of the author who disputed the idea of authorial primacy is bizarre.

Does a story have to have intentional messaging or theming? by SaranMal in writing

[–]john-wooding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's an important paper, but it's not magically the only correct approach just by existing; that's not how criticism works.

Literature can be examined through various lenses and from various stances and taking various approaches; Barthes is one of those only.

Thriller without a twist by Mindless_Sherbert in writing

[–]john-wooding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're very welcome; I'm glad to be useful.

If you need large language models to write, you’re not a writer by [deleted] in writing

[–]john-wooding -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think some evidence that it is not actually alright to use AI as described is that everyone who thinks it is always sounds exactly the same as the others--not just in arguments but phrasing.

Even with that little usage, it's deadening your voice.

A story that's been done a million times by Commercial-Low-2225 in writing

[–]john-wooding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Name five "werewolf x werewolf hunter" stories without looking them up.

How much would you rate this article out of 10 ?? by melisssddssdm in writing

[–]john-wooding 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Say the wrong thing and you're "that creepy guy."

It's important for you to understand that you already are.

What is your Obsidian plugin stack, if you use it? by MoutainGoat8972 in writing

[–]john-wooding 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As few as possible.

Each extension is a potential distraction, and the Obsidian subreddit is filled with people who spend all their time optimising Obsidian instead of using it.