I do the act out fight scenes thing, but that's more so i can feel the movement of my body to describe what the character is doing. Is the turn done by placing weight on the back foot and pushing through the pivot. How does the weight of a pack effect the balance of a kick. If i shoot myself in the hand, does it effect my ability to reload (ok, one of those isn't real). As far as crying while writing, i cant say its something i have ever done, but im not much of a crier anyway. I think the last time i cried i was 6 and was attacked by a dog. I tend to get described as stoic by people who like me and heartless by the few who dont.
To me, if you've done your job in creating real characters, then the death of one should emotionally impact the reader. It doesn't matter if the reader has never been in that situation before, they still lost a beloved character. I've only cried once I think, during my last novel. I think it was more about me getting into the head of the main character, who loses her friend, than about how damn good my writing was (hint: it isn't). However, that wasn't even the most powerful scene in my work, if you ask me. In a previous chapter, one of the characters who is a giant of a man and is loosely similar to 9 fingers from Joe Abercrombie's novels (a killing expert), is killed in one of the most cowardly ways imaginable. A betrayal, which leads to the giant character being paralyzed before his throat is cut in front of the MC. I knew what I was writing was heavy. The betrayal from a friend who the MC trusted, the injustice of the large character being killed through deceit and trickery when he'd survived so many long odds. It was infuriating. I didn't exactly scream in torment and flip my table over. I kind of just smiled and thought "yeah, you've got the reader now."
I've never cried, but I have felt emotion while writing. I really have a hard time crying in any fiction, actually. I'm not sure why.
Ironically, I can only write emotional scenes well when I'm detached from the emotion myself. Afterward is fair game, though. Also, Ayn Rand's writing makes me cry.
Didn't realise I'd posted Link. Was going to say the author of. . . that 'dragon whatever' fantasy you were telling us about for a cheap laugh but thought better of it. I must've clicked 'post' by accident.
If you presented me three terribly-written books and each pertained to one theme as follows: #1- A dragon. #2- Vampire romance. #3- A dystopian novel where a character goes on a rant for 80 pages about why society sucks and we shouldn't ever rely on each other for support. I'll pick the dragon story in a heartbeat. Terrible as DragonSpawn or whatever may be, at least it's not about a vampire lusting after and controlling a human girl, or...or whatever that thing about Galt is. But my god, that book started off with the slave girl finding dragon eggs! Sounds familiar? Oh, and one of the dragons that show up a little later has greenish-blue scales and red wings. Y'know, I might do a full review on this in my blog if I ever get around to using that old thing again.
Having never read the book, I really shouldn't be so judgemental. It's just that it sounded so bad. I'm sure there are many, many contenders though. Life's too short to waste it reading shit books.
I just looked up dystopia. Gah! People called my world that. But my world was supposed be cool and desirable. Not perfect but perfection is over rated. Now I feel bad. Sad!!!!!!!
A dystopian novel isn't bad in and of itself, it's just that there are some bad examples out there. Make yours one of the good ones. Try Alasdair Gray's Lanark for a great literary example of a novel set in a Dystopian world or Orwell's 1984.
I wasn't saying dystopian was bad. I was saying my world was meant to be beautiful and magical and wonderful. Why the heck would my friend call that dystopian?
Pretty sure they meant Dystopia and knew what it meant. They quoted the hunger games but I didn't get what made hunger games a dystopia until now. lol. Plus my world isn't perfect but I thought it was beautiful and be epic to live in!
Dystopia is a word that get misapplied to a lot of future societies in novels. Based on a lot of the standards for judging a dystopia that the general reading public use, present day would be a dystopia in the eyes of someone in the 1950's, and that's simply not true. A lot of future sci fi isn't a dystopia...it's just a world with a civilization that has problems like any other historical society. A dystopia is a place that is outright and unquestionably scary and miserable to live in. Just having countries at war is not a dystopia...we are fighting wars right now.
From what I gather, dystopian novels usually involve: + Corrupt government + Shady conspiracies and secret polices. + Ridiculously tight laws, but the courts are so corrupted that no one can get a fair trial. + Certain things that are deemed dangerous to society (ie, books preaching free speech and free thinking) are banned, and those who possess it are punished. Harshly. As wellthatsnice said, it's an insanely scary place to live in, and worst, you can't escape it.
Not exactly utopian though, the present, is it? A certain school of thought would say we're living in the Orwellian future as depicted in 1984, at least to some extent.
You could make a case that we're living in a watered down version of basically any dystopia, simply because dystopias are written by taking the injustices and faults of modern society and exaggerating them.
Okay while not really hitting any of your points I do have a place in my world I think might be called a dystopia. What do you think? A warrior nation, a place that says might is right. + So few rules that no one is considered corrupt. + Loose laws + If you can fight well, you can have any opinion It is considered a scary place to live but people are free to live and many peope that remain do so for a reason. An example; "The cops won't care. The death of a seven year is a case they hear to often. They will come, smile and nodd, take pictures and leave. They won't even lie about their position. That is fine. I prefer this way. Because I will look and I will find who did this and when I do more than the police would." So any opinion?
Sounds dystopian to me. Might is right, warriors, dead seven-year-olds being totally common? What parts of that do you think are pleasant?
Yeah but there is no force binding you there. On reflection, the dead seven year old thing being common may be harsh. When writing it I thought well heck a injured child does happen even modern day. "One three second google search later. Said USA records an average of about 10,000 a year. Not sure if that is right but using it as a baseline" Would 10k be considered a common event? Might be an expression error in all honesty. Maybe I just wasn't thinking about the right concept for common. Okay scratch that. The no binding force is I think a big issue. Meaning people remain there because they like the freedom even if the price of it is less security. Still Dystopia?
Hard to say. I'd hesitate b/c - if people are choosing to live in a violent, uncertain world b/c they want freedom, that suggests that the lack of freedom in the other world is pretty severe. So if you have a choice between peaceful but oppressive or violent but free - that sounds like a rock and a hard place, to me, which suggests dystopia. The other hesitation I'd have is the 'choice' part - people in today's world might be said to 'choose' to live in certain situations (rough neighbourhoods, unstable countries, etc.) but not really have much of a choice when you get down to it. And if the choice IS free, and the peaceful society ISN'T oppressive, I'd wonder about the state of mind of people who'd choose to live a violent life rather than a peaceful one, and I think it would reflect poorly on their human natures, which would, again, suggest a dystopic novel. I have no idea, obviously - haven't read your book. But just from these little bits you're sharing? It sounds possibly dystopic to me.
