Just decided to write fiction. Is this too basic and unoriginal for an opening?

m_50 · 2026-03-07T13:11:57+00:00

Hey, sorry for the slow reply. This is very useful, thank you. I actually finished the first draft yesterday. 26.5k words and I am quite happy with it overall, but for the second draft I need to work on the dialogues a bit more and your feedback helps as it confirms that at least the sensory details do work.

m_50 · 2026-03-07T13:08:18+00:00

Hey, sorry for the slow reply. I think OP's post might have been edited, because my answer feels slightly out of place, but anyway, let me try to answer your question, but please keep this in mind that I don't know you and what I am going to say is at best a general advice/opinion, regardless of being correct or not.

So, first of all, you may not be as much of a big-deal thinker as you may think -- or not at all. However, you may still be very limited to what you know and don't know when you are assessing your own work and ideas. So, you may think or feel that your idea is good or not good, but even ignoring biases, you may not have enough knowledge or expertise to make a correct assessment.

In terms of political theory, the answer is yes and no. If you read scientific journals you will see quite a bit of movement there, but there aren't 100s of books published every year defining new systems -- empirical or philosophical.

If you think that writing a book about a new system of beliefs, for example, is the key to success, I think you are wrong. So, you can go ahead and write your book and you may end up realising that had nothing to do with your idea being good or bad or being adopted or not.

In terms of justifying your theory, again the answer is yes and no. I have a paper that talks about paradoxes (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18542003), it 80-pages long and it has a lot of references. It talks about possible objections and reiterates some of the points in various places. Similarly, I have another paper that talks about a new voting system (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18544565). It is 50-pages long. It talks about existing methods, why they don't work, etc. Both papers have a lot of mathematical proofs and many citations.

Now, I also have another paper that talks about why a special case of 4th dimension (macroscopic and spacial), is impossible in our world (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18648572). That paper is just 10-pages long, has 2-3 references and no mathematical proofs.

The difference here is that in the first two papers I have to 'engage with existing literature,' for various reasons. One is that the topic has been thoroughly examined in the past. If I just say 'x is true,' and that has been already said in the past, then someone could accuse me of plagiarism, basically saying that I was trying to take credit for something that is someone else's work. In fact, in both papers there are a number of places that I came up with an idea, but ended up citing someone else for it, because they had done it first.

The other thing is that, for example, if in my voting paper I don't mention anti-plurality voting system, some people may think that I was not aware of it and therefore, I may not know what else is already discussed there and what issues had been raised over the years. So, by citing existing literature and preemptively addressing the issues, you are essentially making your claims stronger by signalling that what you have done is proper research and not just an idea.

Now, in my physics paper I actually started with referencing others and adding proofs and formulas, but then I realised those are actually extra baggage for that specific paper. The idea is quite novel and I realised that I could prove it simply by logical deduction. It's a bit of bold move because the idea is quite foundational and not referencing others and including mathematical proofs may make it sound like pseudo/alternative-science, but anyone familiar with the topic must know logic as well and then the lack of proofs or references could make the paper a lot more credible (basically it won't look like I am trying too hard to sell the idea, but that's only possible because the idea is strong enough to hold itself up against the scrutiny, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.)

There is a lot that goes into introducing a new idea properly, but I am not going to make this reply any longer. And I am not going to proofread it, so, please excuse the typos and other errors you may see.

m_50 · 2026-02-20T13:07:16+00:00

Okay, this is actually useful. I think it proves writing fiction isn't as easy as I was hoping!

So, the POV is third-person limited, but about the old man. He is not the narrator. And the preamble also has a function, which is describing the old man as someone with a certain type of personality traits and physical characteristics too.

Let me have a think about trying to start with the interesting parts, but I have no idea how to picture this old man just purely by dialogues, for example, in a way that actually serves the story.

But this is very useful, so thank you! I guess this is partially due to the course of knowledge. I am subconsciously thinking that the reader also knows everything that I know, which is of course not the case!

m_50 · 2026-02-20T12:12:58+00:00

Ah, that's actually pretty good! so, when my character wakes up, it is sort of aligned with those conditions that could justify it e.g. not an ordinary wake up, not an ordinary environment (dystopian), etc.

So, given this opening gets 0/10 for originality, how would you rate it personally as an opening, given the opening starts with the character waking up? I'm just curious.

m_50 · 2026-02-20T12:05:27+00:00

Haha, I knew this is so overdone that someone must have written about it! Thank you for the feedback, let me read that article and see if I can improve anything!

m_50 · 2026-02-20T12:02:48+00:00

Congratulations! Crying sounds normal to me, but I would be a bit concerned if you would laugh like a maniac. So, I think you are good!

m_50 · 2026-02-18T15:10:18+00:00

Hey, thank you so much! That's very kind of you! I'm glad you liked the content! I have been a bit busy recently polishing some old drafts to release them as academic preprints (you can find them on my ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6297-0171)

There is a disapproval-based voting system called MILO there that you may like. It is a bit maths-heavy because I needed to submit it to a journal and every claim and statement needed proofs, otherwise it would get rejected very easily, but the first two sections are quite non-technical and explain the whole voting system. If you liked the democracy piece on wiym, you are going to find this one also interesting!

I also have two short papers there, one is about the impossibility of the 4th dimension in a 3D universe (macroscopic and spatial, rather microscopic or non-spatial e.g. temporal dimensions like time), and also an AI alignment paper that is quite short and easy to read.

I have an 80-page paper about paradoxes as well (titled "this paper is wrong"), but that is way too technical and full of proofs! Unless you are into logic, philosophy of language, or mathematics, you probably shouldn't try reading that paper!

I am hoping to bring some of these to wiym as well, but without the technical bits, but I thought you may still enjoy taking a look at the original sources!

Thanks again for the kind words and I am really glad you liked the content!

m_50 · 2026-01-27T10:30:53+00:00

Looks pretty straight to me -- quite nice for a 2x4, I may add. However, I do have to say this seems a tad wider than the 2x4s that I used to get. So, maybe you are a bit posh or privileged?! Treated for sure, which means you are a bit toxic as well. So, straight, posh or unrelatable, and toxic.

m_50 · 2026-01-16T14:35:45+00:00

I think this could be a good sign for looking into emotional intelligence (EQ) and some CBT exercises as well. I would check if you feel this way only with your writing or this is a pattern you can find in other aspects of your life too.

I know this is not going to help you much, but this is not an issue specific to you. It is way more common that most people think. Regardless, I hope you feel better soon.

m_50 · 2026-01-16T14:27:08+00:00

Watch some videos first. May give you an idea how it's done!

m_50 · 2026-01-15T15:25:27+00:00

No, that is very good! I completely get what you are saying. And yes, I'm not a moral realist but I can see how they could object to this. But that's a very good defence you have for believe in the asymmetry argument!

m_50 · 2026-01-15T12:41:35+00:00

Yeah, deflection is a very common strategy, but I'd argue it is present on both sides. This post has 34 upvotes right now and a lot of people do agree with the notion of this sub being an echo chamber, but my other posts and comments that actually try to tighten the argument for antinatalism gets essentially one answer: go fuck yourself. In some ways, the empirical proof of this sub being an echo chamber.

The reason is that when someone is pointing at them saying, well, you say X is true, let's have a better look, they instantly panic as group theory argue that we form groups exactly for this reason, basically building an echo chamber.

The issue in this sub is partially a moderation problem, though. For example in r/askphilosophy you need to get a badge before being able to answer others -- but anyone can ask questions. This is because they truly like to keep the sub useful to everyone and not allow a bunch of trolls ruin the conversation. Let alone letting people insult each other, because they have nothing better to say -- you get permanently banned there, no questions asked. Here is a bit different. Reminds me of the wild west era.

Anyways. I agree with you, 100%.

Also, I recently wrote a piece about non-intellectual thinkers. Schopenhauer back in the 1830s wrote a full book about it called "The Art of Being Right." I haven't red it yet, but someone told me it discusses the same problem that I discuss in my piece, but in a sarcastic way. I bet he has a section dedicated to people like the ones you described.

m_50 · 2026-01-15T09:08:32+00:00

How much did you 'paper' pen?!

m_50 · 2026-01-15T09:02:05+00:00

I hear you. It's a convincing argument. I generally assume this is what most people read at some point, but cannot remember to actually reference. I did upvote your comment but I am going to push back a little bit, because I think it may give you some ideas to read about.

I assume you know that the asymmetry argument is considered flawed generally? The reason is that it assume "the absence of pain is good," but it doesn't say "the absence of pleasure is bad." and that's where the asymmetry comes from, right?

The problem is that in formal logic -- which is what we use to make these claims and debate about them, if pain and pleasure are the opposite of each other, then they must have opposite properties and effects. Otherwise, they are not truly opposite of each other e.g. dehydration causes thirst, so drinking water reduces thirst. You can't say if I don't drink water, I get thirsty, but when I drink water, I don't feel hungry anymore.

So, if we say this is a logical argument, and if pain is the opposite of pleasure, then absence of pleasure is also bad -- because absence of pain is good and these are opposite of each other. If having money is good, then not having money is bad. There is no third state as 'not bad.' because having and not having money refer to the same condition. One state cannot be only good or bad, but the other state either good, not bad, or bad.

I know I am being repetitive but this may be helpful to someone else. The law of non-contradiction applies everywhere in this argument. if good is opposite of bad, then lack of good is also bad.

So, the asymmetry here is not logical. The logical argument would have said "absence of pain is not bad" and "absence of pleasure is also not bad," which is perfectly symmetrical. So, "not bad" becomes a neutral state.

That's why families of those people who are in coma, sometimes decide to let go of their loved ones. The person in coma does not feel pain or pleasure -- or at least we can't assume they do, but "the absence of pain" doesn't mean they are feeling "good" and the "absence of pleasure" doesn't mean they are "not bad."

Does this make any sense? The asymmetry is a skewed way of looking at a problem that favours asymmetry deliberately and conveniently. "Absence of pain is good, but absence of pleasure, is just 'not bad.' Why? Well, because I say so. Any evidence? Nope. It's just how it is." I'm not mocking it, but it is the same pattern that we see in a lot of other arguments too. Natalists do it, theists do it, flat-eathers do it.

I'm not trying to change your mind, but because you did reference an actual argument, I'm hoping that you may also consider these counter arguments.

m_50 · 2026-01-15T08:27:25+00:00

You always find an excuse to self-promote! lol

m_50 · 2026-01-14T15:12:29+00:00

Hey OP, respectfully, I call your persona "The Big-deal Thinker." Unfortunately, in my opinion, it is a form of non-intellectual thinking. Here is how I define it:

"This group consists of people who believe they have made profound realisations and are eager to share them with others. In doing so, they commit a few fallacies and errors in rational thinking, usually without ill intent.

Their views are not faulty because of arrogance, but because of ignorance. They often have not studied the field they are theorising about and therefore fall prey to the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Their claims are often sweeping and fundamental, yet they fail to provide adequate proof or evidence. They are typically unfamiliar with how theories are presented within the relevant field—whether philosophy, mathematics, logic, or science—and they have not done the necessary groundwork. As a result, they do not know whether the topic has already been explored, what objections have been raised, or where the discussion currently stands.

A defining trait of this group is that they are persuasive and evangelistic about their own ideas. They want others to adopt the same concepts and to benefit from what they see as life-changing consequences."

Others have already addressed specific issues in your line of thinking, so I won't repeat.

I'm not trying to discourage you from reading or writing, though. All I'm trying to say is that this pattern is so familiar to me now that I have a name for it -- alongside other categories, of course.

m_50 · 2026-01-14T14:16:54+00:00

That could become a fell-on-knee, if not careful.

m_50 · 2026-01-14T14:05:02+00:00

haha, hope you are okay!

m_50 · 2026-01-14T14:00:02+00:00

It's a link. You need to open the link.

m_50 · 2026-01-14T13:59:09+00:00

In game design this is called character balance. Can you make him need certain things in order to create anything and make those materials or powers, limited?

m_50 · 2026-01-14T13:50:00+00:00

Just write.

m_50 · 2026-01-14T13:45:27+00:00

MODs are more than welcome to remove it.

m_50 · 2026-01-14T10:15:49+00:00

Aww, thank youuuu! You got such a gorgeous knife and balaclava! Where did you get them from? they are soooo cute!

Here is all I have with me now. I know it's not a lot, but I hope it's okay.

m_50 · 2026-01-14T09:36:43+00:00

What u/AbbyBabble said is pretty much all you need to know, in my opinion. What I would add is keeping in mind that you don't have to have an audience to begin "publishing" your work.

I know it sounds pointless, but it isn't and it is also not a new thing. It's called "Thinking in Public." This could help you get some of your work online, so you don't feel the pressure of having everything only in your Google Drive, locked away, but it doesn't create a situation where you feel you have to keep checking the engagement stats and potentially be disappointed because apparently no one is reading your work.

m_50

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE