Good Writing is Good Writing

[Philip Overby]

I just want to address something about cliches, tropes, stories that seem unoriginal, worries about if something makes sense or not, and various other topics that have been brought up here.

At the end of the day, good writing is good writing. Focus on writing good stories about anything and put it out there into the world. Writers are meant to be read. And stories are meant to be consumed. Don't be afraid that people won't like your work. People don't like a lot of things. Some people don't like Lord of the Rings, but it is considered the seminal fantasy book. So if someone doesn't like that, then someone isn't going to like your book either. Who cares? Some of the greatest books ever written people hate.

Some people hate paranormal romances. Well, guess what? At least paranormal romances are out there to read, warts and all. Don't be a hater. Write what you like and let other people write what they like. Let audiences decide what they want to read. You just write a good book and hope the stars align.

We only have 60-70 years on this Earth realistically, if you're lucky. Why not just write what you want, regardless of its content, and put it out there? You want to spend hours and hours, weeks and weeks, years and years worrying about if some "phantom readers" you've never met won't like what you're writing? Just write it.

If you focus on your craft and learn how to market your writing, you don't have to worry about any number of questions that plague all writers. Write your best work, regardless of the topic, and start putting it out there for people to read.

No one will know if you're a writer unless you put something out there for them to read. So write something good (in your mind) and nevermind the rest. Write. Just write, something.

This has been your daily Phil the Drill Pep Talk.

 

[Ireth]

Hear, hear! Thanks for this, Phil.

 

[BeigePalladin]

yes! thank you! this is what I've been trying to say a lot in the recent storm of "cliche" posts, but you do it much more elegantly than me

now this just needs to be stickied...

 

[Steerpike]

Excellent work, Phil. Really, any posts that ask "is this cliche" or even more broadly "is my idea good" is pointless. It's as compelling as you make it. Period.

 

[nlough]

Completely agree with you Phil!

 

[Jess A]

I agree, Phil. I don't care much that my 'early modern European setting' may offend some who are sick of it. I will write what I want to write.

Writers need to develop a thick skin, yes. But can you blame some of the new writers for being concerned about whether their novel is cliche, on this forum and on other writing forums? There is a lot of hate and arrogant contempt for certain cliches online, and let's face it, this generation of writers gets a lot out of online sources.

That said, good pep talk, and hopefully it (and successive replies) will be taken as constructive advice and not as an attack on people's post topics.

 

[Philip Overby]

I definitely didn't intend for it to be an attack on people's posts. I want people to feel free to post what they want obviously. I just wanted to add something that I hope is encouraging to those that worry about such topics when it comes to writing. I think it's good to get past those sort of things and focus on writing your book. There are slews of other problems that crop up once anyone starts writing.

Also, here's a good article by Dr. John Yeoman that's on our home page about discussing why cliches are actually a good thing. Why Plot Clichés are a Good Thing

I hope to write an article in the future about developing thick skin as well. I think that was a huge problem with myself when I first started. Most of the topics I post about are problems I've had in the past (worrying if my story was original, not finishing stories, getting writer's block, etc.) So I hope imparting some "wisdom" may help others not go down the same path I did.

 

[Penpilot]

Great post Phil

 

[Feo Takahari]

While I don't exactly disagree (and that was quite well-said), it's also important to remember that quality is relative. If you wrote a very good story that was heavily inspired by someone else's very, very good story, your story had better do something that the other story didn't. Find some concept or aspect that only you can discuss--one that will make your topic fresh.

(Then again, the most frequent posters on these forums seem to have no trouble making their subjects fresh. In fact, thoughtless use of unexamined cliches is something I see far less among amateur writers than among amateur game designers, perhaps because redeveloping a plot or a character dynamic is easier than writing new code to cover the possible interactions between a unique mechanic and established ones.)

 

[Jess A]

Your wisdom is certainly not misplaced, Phil. Your pep talks are always welcome.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Occasionally I suffer a spasm of "This isn't original enough!" and then I remember that almost nothing is, and that's totally okay

 

[JonSnow]

In reality, there are very few works of literature that are completely and utterly original. If you are a fantasy writer, your writing has likely been heavily influenced by Tolkien, Martin, Eddings, Brooks, Jordan, Pratchett or any number of other well-known authors you have read. It is impossible NOT to be influenced by them. If you haven't read a large amount of fantasy, you wouldn't know enough about the genre to write it effectively.

In the past, I was always so concerned with writing something that has been said/done before, that I had crippled my own story development. I would write a chapter, then read something in another book that had some similar things in it, and I'd go back and scrap the whole thing. You can't do that if you ever want to FINISH anything. There obvious cliches and sacred character types that should be avoided (don't send a group of four hobbits following an old wizard into a mountain of fire), but chances are a lot of plot ideas, names, and character models you are using have been used before, by somebody somewhere.

Just write as your ideas come. Do what comes natural. And the originality of the story will come out, even if there are some cliches. Readers love cliches, as long as they aren't overdone or plagiarized.

 

[Jess A]

I like a few cliches/tropes. I may even look for a few when I pick up a book to read, providing it is well-written. Bad writing turns me off very fast in any genre, no matter how good the storyline seems to be at first.

 

[ziokhan]

Thanks for the great post Phil. This really helps on my motivation front.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

Some people don't like Lord of the Rings

HERESY!!!

Good thread, I think we all have our own doubts whether it be, "Is this too cliche?" or "Will people like this?" You have to write without these doubts and learn how to conquer them.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

HERESY!!!

Good thread, I think we all have our own doubts whether it be, "Is this too cliche?" or "Will people like this?" You have to write without these doubts and learn how to conquer them.

I'd say, Learn to recognize these doubts for what they are then learn to ignore them when they're not constructive.

But yes AV, I agree. Some addition though....

That doubt each of us feels. That little voice in your head questioning whether you're good enough, whether or not the work is boring or cliche, whether or not people will ever even read it.....

Those doubts are a tool. That voice should be your ally. Train yourself to recognize doubt as a potential desire and need to improve your writing.

Sometimes doubt could be an obstacle as in - "This plot/creature/setting is cliche."

Sometimes that doubt signifies the need for growth or improvement as in - "This scene is boring."

Learn to recognize the difference. Harness useful self-criticism. Ignore self-imposed obstacles.

 

[Lorna]

Thanks Phil.

I was nearly put off writing fantasty altogether when I read an essay containing the following by Michael Moorcock.

'FOR FAR TOO MANY YEARS, as human consciousness modified to process the products of its own restless invention, there have been arguments in academia and elsewhere about what to call certain developments in modern fiction. Karl Marx proposed that in the future we would all be reading what he called ‘contemporary fairy tales’, produced to pass the time for people who no longer looked to fiction for anything but insubstantial entertainment. I think he suggested that we wouldn’t need realists like Balzac, Dickens, Flaubert, Tolstoy, Zola or others to look into human society or the hearts of individuals and would prefer to be entertained by what Hugo Gernsback, I think, called the ‘marvel tale’: a sort of roller-coaster ride of the mind.
I think Marx was thinking about the kind of fantasy fiction which has managed to develop almost completely without content of any kind and which these days crowds our media, more from board games and later e-games as it does from individual imagination. Much of the science fiction, which merely seeks to suspend disbelief and enable an individual to achieve maximum escape, is found in the deeply nostalgic form of steampunk, a form deriving to some degree from the earlier ‘cyberpunk’ which looked at the impact of computers, in particular, on the human psyche. Steampunk, which began as a way of examining and sometimes challenging interpretations of root cultures and historical events, acted as a kind of intervention into the beliefs of early 20th century speculative writers. Its continuing influence on our social and historical interpretations of the world, can still produce the odd novel of great merit and skill, but generally reveals itself as being on a par with the least robust forms of commercial entertainment. It produces that which is the most insidiously wretched kind of popular fiction, essentially pretending to tackle serious subjects while actually falsifying experience in order to support a sense that somehow a simplified past, reduced to a superficial style, and its inventions offer a valid interpretation of our intellectual influences more valid than contemporary experience and that the reader’s primitive analysis has its finger on the pulse of reality. This sort of fiction is a form of anti-art in which, rather than examine apparent truth in order to separate it from reality, the author creates methods of verifying the often complex lies we are told by those who would manipulate us for their own profit and power. Nostalgia for a vanished innocence is one of the chief tools used in such a manipulation and is employed commonly by political movements from the Taliban to the US Tea Party People, from neoliberals to right libertarians, pretty much in all human societies. This yearning for a vanished Eden, while it can be satisfied easily with faux-history and the like, is probably at near-saturation in the multi-volumed xeroxes I once referred to as phat phantasy and has substance almost in direct contrast to the width of its spines.'
Paraxis - online publisher of short stories

It made me think of fantasy as ahistorical, politically disengaged and not worth bothering with. Yet I was left with this half finished book and burning desire to finish it.

Then I came across this other, more inspiring phrase

'Poetic creation still remains an act of perfect spiritual freedom.' - Mircea Eliade

If we shape our writing to fit the views of critics or an audience we're not free. Following our inspiration, even if it leads to cliches (and through cliches) we are. Don't let anybody else limit your imagination. To me fantasy is imagination at the edges of its limits,where Blake's doors of perception are open and worlds possibilities are infinite.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Thanks Phil.

I was nearly put off writing fantasty altogether when I read an essay containing the following by Michael Moorcock.

I can't disagree with Moorcock's assertion that there exist some forms of entertainment which are mindless. But he seems to be asserting (as older folks tend to do) that Things Used To Be Better ("and which these days crowds our media") and that X is larger now than it used to be, where X is the percentage of available entertainment that is mindless.

I think that he might correct that X has grown, but probably not nearlyas much as he thinks it has. He seems to have fallen prey to the Golden Age Syndrome, which is that you remember all the great, legendary works of ages past, but forget about all the crappy ones. As a result you have this skewed perception that all the old works (or at least a substantial percentage of them) were great.

I hate to break it to MM, but "This yearning for a vanished Eden" is absolutely nothing new. Go back to any period in history and you'll find it stuffed to the gills with people yearning for the better, olden days.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I can't disagree with Moorcock's assertion that there exist some forms of entertainment which are mindless. But he seems to be asserting (as older folks tend to do) that Things Used To Be Better ("and which these days crowds our media") and that X is larger now than it used to be, where X is the percentage of available entertainment that is mindless.

I think that he might correct that X has grown, but probably not nearlyas much as he thinks it has. He seems to have fallen prey to the Golden Age Syndrome, which is that you remember all the great, legendary works of ages past, but forget about all the crappy ones. As a result you have this skewed perception that all the old works (or at least a substantial percentage of them) were great.

I hate to break it to MM, but "This yearning for a vanished Eden" is absolutely nothing new. Go back to any period in history and you'll find it stuffed to the gills with people yearning for the better, olden days.

Well said BC....

 

[Feo Takahari]

Wait, are you saying that Moorcock's yearning for a vanished Eden in which, he claims, people didn't yearn for a vanished Eden?