TO write convincingly you have to write what you know - therefore I would be much better at writing a character who was a book-nerd rather than a sports hero. If you go too far and write how you WANT to be, you end up with the "Mary-Sue" problem. As for Bella - has anyone noticed how "flat" a character she is? She has virtually no personality and is mostly a blank canvas. This is because the reader is supposed to put herself into the place of Bella. Or at least that's what some of the theories floating around are.
That's because she only exists in relation to males. She's a feminist nightmare. I wish one of them would just roast her up for dinner and have done with her.
I read this as "Avoid self-insert fiction." Because people want to read about someone THEY empathise with. Nobody wants to read about the author and their ego trip.
no one wants to read from a pretentious writer, either...with all this research knowledge. All you need to do is find a healthy balance...as one has to do with everything in life.
I don't agree with that assessment. I think the characterization of 'flatness' is far more applicable to Kristen Stewart's portrayal in the movie than the character in the book. Most of those types of comments I've heard come from people who have only seen the films.
Have you read the books Steerpike? I haven't - tend to avoid vampires lol. I am curious because surely they can't be that bad storywise if that many people are transported by them. She may break some rules etc but one of the best writers I know in real life was obsessed by them.
I read the first two when my daughter first picked up the book. I read the first one because she said it was a 'vampire romance,' and I thought 'Hey, I better look at that and see just how erotic the content is.' Turned out to be fine. Then, after she became enthralled, she wanted to talk about the stories, so I read the rest of the first one and then the second one (which I thought was of poorer quality than the first). They're not as bad as most who oppose them would have you believe. Every time there is a successful literary phenomenon like this, it becomes trendy to bash it and that's the bulk of what goes on. I've certainly read much better books, and these weren't my cup of tea, but I've read much worse. The editor who ended up buying them gave Meyer something like a $750,000 advance. To an unknown, unpublished author. So obviously there was something to them that she saw, above and beyond the similarly-themed stuff that was already in the marketplace. But to sum up my long-winded reply, they're certainly not the best books ever written, nor are the the worst. Most of the bashing is overblown, especially when it comes from other writers (and even more especially, from less-successful other writers, which at this point is probably just about everyone but Rowling )
lol What I suspected Steerpike thank you don't need to read em now. I love the fact they are not the best - someone once complained about my work, said it wouldn't get published noone would like it. Pointed out some people did, went on to say they probably like Twilight. She was a bit surprised I thanked her for the compliment Stephenie Meyer gives us all hope.
I read and watched Interview with a Vampire at my highschool friend's insistence - aside from Buffy never watched or read another one lol
There are some decent ones (and a lot of bad ones). I found The Strain, by Guillermo del Toro and Chuck Hogan to be interesting. I liked The Historian as well.
Yeah but I dislike "Mary-sue(s) so I won't over do it. Some write so base characters off themselves or people. But like I said, it has pros and cons. Like a lot of stuff..
not about me I want to put myself in the story as a researcher, uncovering the plot in libraries and archives. I want that me to act as a bridge between the subject matter (1950s Germany) and a modern reader because I lack the ability to build credible characters to do this. I know it's dangerous and a bit lazy, but it is where I have to start at least. Any tips?
I have to put myself in writing. It doesn't work if I don't. Knowing what I would do in a given situation really helps me get the story across to the readers.
And Stephen King. He's, you know, sold over 7 times as many books as Meyer. He once said: "The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a darn. She's not very good." Ouch?
If it's what you need to get started, go for it. But eventually, you'll need to learn to write other characters.
Ever read Gervaise Phinn ? One of my favourite writers not one original character in his main books lol His poetry might have some but his books are funny, warm and for me completely engaging. He was a Yorkshire School Inspector lol he has plenty of material to work with. No Tolstoy he is probably best example I can think of recommend trying to read him. He is fabulous to listen to speaking - it is the very fact he does put himself in his books that is such a draw.
I don't see why not put yourself or other in your writing? A lot of famous writers do. But again a lot don't..
Um in some of my old stories I was either minor characters or just mentioned in passing. But in the story I'm editing Its one of my alter egos as the heroine. Well in a story I have a writer's block in, another alter ego is the main character/Amateur detective in that,
Putting myself in my writing would be the sure way to failure. I'm far more intrigued by the characters I create that are little or nothing like myself. It becomes a part of the story to explore their mysterious personalities. As a writer I'm the reader, or an invisible camera floating through the scenes. I experience my stories as I figure readers would, and think it's far more important to project yourself into the head of the reader than the head of the character. The character-who-resembles-you may have a ton of depth in your own eyes, but if you don't pass it actively onto the readers, they'll never see it. So don't be the character, be the reader.
Every character you write is a manifestation of yourself. You can not seperate yourself from what you write because the writing comes through you; is filtered by your mind, your experiences. That's not to say every character you write should sound like you, have your tastes (though it's okay for your MC to like jazz if you like jazz), and look like you. A writer is like a one-man-band, we play all the instruments, but we need to make them sound like an orchestra.
-well,when i write,i write from the point of view my characters.i become the character essentially (even if the characters a male).i explore the aspects of them,partly based off of my own emotions. -however,when they say not to put yourself in the book,they mean don't make yourself an actual character in your novel. thats just corney
