Post History
Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and ...
Answer
#9: Post edited
by
DPT
·
2020-03-01T00:32:16Z (over 4 years ago)
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said: Write what has been written, only different. (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
- Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest, or at least for following an existing road map. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'
- But until I found a *question* for the story to *ask*, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals taking individualized action, or as a unified whole agreeing to do a single thing. The answer really could go either way. So, that--a question of some sort woven through a story--is what makes something interesting to me.
- Layer.
I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts, in the form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said: Write what has been written, only different. (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
- Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest, or at least for following an existing road map. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'
- But until I found a *question* for the story to *ask*, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals taking individualized action, or as a unified whole agreeing to do a single thing. The answer really could go either way. So, that--a question of some sort woven through a story--is what makes something interesting to me.
- Layer.
- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry. You might find writing satisfying if you are growing as a writer through doing it.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts, in the form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
#8: Post edited
by
DPT
·
2020-03-01T00:29:27Z (over 4 years ago)
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said: Write what has been written, only different. (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
- Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest, or at least for following an existing road map. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'
- But until I found a *question* for the story to *ask*, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals taking individualized action, or as a unified whole agreeing to do a single thing. The answer really could go either way. So, that--a question of some sort woven through a story--is what makes something interesting to me.
- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts, in the form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said: Write what has been written, only different. (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
- Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest, or at least for following an existing road map. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'
- But until I found a *question* for the story to *ask*, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals taking individualized action, or as a unified whole agreeing to do a single thing. The answer really could go either way. So, that--a question of some sort woven through a story--is what makes something interesting to me.
- Layer.
- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts, in the form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
#7: Post edited
by
DPT
·
2020-03-01T00:28:49Z (over 4 years ago)
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said: Write what has been written, only different. (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'- But until I found a *question* for the story to *ask*, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals taking individualized action, or as a unified whole agreeing to do a single thing. The answer really could go either way. So, that--a question of some sort woven through a story--is what makes something interesting to me.
- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts, in the form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said: Write what has been written, only different. (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
- Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest, or at least for following an existing road map. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'
- But until I found a *question* for the story to *ask*, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals taking individualized action, or as a unified whole agreeing to do a single thing. The answer really could go either way. So, that--a question of some sort woven through a story--is what makes something interesting to me.
- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts, in the form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
#6: Post edited
by
DPT
·
2020-03-01T00:27:54Z (over 4 years ago)
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said to write what has been written, only different (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.- Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'
- But until I found a *question* for the story to *ask*, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals taking individualized action, or as a unified whole agreeing to do a single thing. The answer really could go either way. So, that--a question of some sort woven through a story--is what makes something interesting to me.
- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts, in the form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said: Write what has been written, only different. (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
- Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'
- But until I found a *question* for the story to *ask*, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals taking individualized action, or as a unified whole agreeing to do a single thing. The answer really could go either way. So, that--a question of some sort woven through a story--is what makes something interesting to me.
- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts, in the form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
#5: Post edited
by
DPT
·
2020-03-01T00:26:05Z (over 4 years ago)
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said to write what has been written, only different (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
- Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'
- But until I found a *question* for the story to *ask*, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals taking individualized action, or as a unified whole agreeing to do a single thing. The answer really could go either way. So, that--a question of some sort woven through a story--is what makes something interesting to me.
- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts int he form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said to write what has been written, only different (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
- Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'
- But until I found a *question* for the story to *ask*, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals taking individualized action, or as a unified whole agreeing to do a single thing. The answer really could go either way. So, that--a question of some sort woven through a story--is what makes something interesting to me.
- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts, in the form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
#4: Post edited
by
DPT
·
2020-03-01T00:25:34Z (over 4 years ago)
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said to write what has been written, only different (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
- Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'
But until I found a *question* for the story to *ask*, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals or as a unified whole. It really could go either way. So, that's what makes this story interesting to me.- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts int he form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said to write what has been written, only different (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
- Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'
- But until I found a *question* for the story to *ask*, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals taking individualized action, or as a unified whole agreeing to do a single thing. The answer really could go either way. So, that--a question of some sort woven through a story--is what makes something interesting to me.
- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts int he form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
#3: Post edited
by
DPT
·
2020-03-01T00:24:29Z (over 4 years ago)
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said to write what has been written, only different (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all he stuff I want--emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes. Formulaic. But also good for holding interest. And another layer. But until I found a question for the story to ask, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals or as a unified whole. It really could go either way. So, that's what makes this story interesting to me.- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts int he form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said to write what has been written, only different (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
- Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'
- But until I found a *question* for the story to *ask*, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals or as a unified whole. It really could go either way. So, that's what makes this story interesting to me.
- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts int he form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
#2: Post edited
by
DPT
·
2020-03-01T00:23:03Z (over 4 years ago)
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that?And then, of course Mark Baker once said to write what has been written, only different (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means it should be recognizable and also somewhat new.Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all he stuff I want--emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes. Formulaic. But also good for holding interest. And another layer. But until I found a question for the story to ask, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals or as a unified whole. It really could go either way. So, that's what makes this story interesting to me.- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts int he form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
- Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.
- To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.
- And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said to write what has been written, only different (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.
- Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all he stuff I want--emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes. Formulaic. But also good for holding interest. And another layer. But until I found a question for the story to ask, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals or as a unified whole. It really could go either way. So, that's what makes this story interesting to me.
- I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry.
- If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.
- Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts int he form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'
#1: Initial revision
by
DPT
·
2020-03-01T00:21:41Z (over 4 years ago)
Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it. To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? And then, of course Mark Baker once said to write what has been written, only different (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means it should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all he stuff I want--emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes. Formulaic. But also good for holding interest. And another layer. But until I found a question for the story to ask, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals or as a unified whole. It really could go either way. So, that's what makes this story interesting to me. I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry. If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it. Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts int he form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'