Typical mistakes of the novice author: Fantasy
I often heard that, they say, critics in my video zero. One entertainment. Perhaps it is. Therefore, I decided to make an experimental video in which, by example, I examined in detail the typical mistakes of novice authors in the Fantasy genre. For those who want to giggle, there are few interesting things.
The video turned out in a kind of “training tones”.
The more likes/subscriptions to collect, the greater the chance that I will continue.
The best comments
I’m sorry if that. These are not my words. Just without them the blog would be incomplete, probably. And judging by the remote control above the manul, he came here.
I went to the zoo on the weekend. So there they have one manl broke down- circled on the spot. Maybe ours is also defective? Someone knows?
The first advice is good. In general, the tips for comparison with Abercrombi are good, here. Regarding the specific first: not always such a description to the place, that is, the character’s brightness should not always be unusual. It all depends on the book. Lukyanenko has in the “Nedotep”, for example, a standard description of the hero’s appearance at the very beginning. But it is interesting. Simply because the skill of description comes with experience.
He opened it, and then what? I could say that in such cases the author is better to focus on actions. That is, not: “He loved her, respected, blablabla”, but rather: “He asked, looking in love with his eyes”. Or something like that. Further, this topic was stuck in the course of the video, albeit somewhat in another hypostasis: “Disclosure should consist in actions, dialogs. Not direct copyright text.”
All modern fantasy is quite https://spinland.uk/ secondary, and therefore let’s not blame the MTA of that they are MTA. Initial creativity – it is always copying.
Why? We don’t know anything about them. But you, unlike us, read the book. I would have told.
Okay, opened. Further something? Where are your amendments, tips? I remember, when my MTA, I spoke about this topic with one author. I remembered one thing: “”Panic and anxiety = short, chopped phrases. General ruble of the description, to create a feeling of thoughts rushing in the head“. This is not always (and not only), but, like a advice for a young author, it will come. The author of the video, you would at least have an example.
And again. Voice from the side … not on the topic, in short.
After all, errors in the battery scene of the author are obvious. Too smeared at least: “”And they came, and went, and said, and then like this. And they came again, and again went, and then entered the portal, and that’s all“. There are few of the very action, in fact, there are few descriptions of individual moments of the battle. Rudazov succeeded very well, in at least his last work “The battle is horde“.
And here everything is right. Immediately I have to admit – even banana rights. Excessive detailing in hackshots turns the book into “Encyclopedia of my invented world”. Many MTAs suffer from this.
In general, the video is good – much better than book analysis. The criticism would have been more homogeneous: either all built on comparison with the titans of the genre, or with thoughtful explanations from their own. I’ll even put a plus. Although usually I put you only minuses.
Blin, and I would see how he tries to crap the work of the secret 51 and what would come of it. This is a sight of spectacles
Genlee and you corrected your outgraduate dialogs and the background in Aurora, or there is all the same arctic fox?))))
Chuvak thanks))) I wanted to re -read my old works. Now I’m lying under the table, re -reading such descriptions)))
It seems to me that most beginners strive to detail their works. This applies in essence of all genres. But because of the lack of knowledge and experience, this turns out to be bored. Trying to take up Epic initially, but much is not thought out. The video is successful. I will subscribe to the channel.
Well, this is really more interesting than the standard OSIRALOVO PROSIANS of some kind of boulevard whore with uterine fimosis. That is, the srach is present, but it now contains a share of cognitive content.
I note that the rejection of fantasy will not help the author in the knowledge of the genre, another thing is that it is worth taking it not immediately for the forty -volume, since it does not climb, but start with small stories. Well, read read read read ..
If the reader of this post has planned something, then the notorious collection of Soviets of the recognized author.
“Looking in love, he asked” is the simplest and most adequate option. Looking in love eyes, this is an important clarification. Otherwise it is not known what is happening there. Suddenly he looks at her in love with his feet. Or in love fifth point.
No Comments