[@shylarah] Gonna address the paragraphs one at a time with whatever thoughts I have. On the other hand, almost twenty-four hours without sleep at this point and I think I had - what - four hours or so last time I got to rest. With this in mind, my post might be a little less coherent than they usually are, but I'll try to make myself clear. I'm planning to keep my responses shorter - mostly due to feeling like I'll collapse at any moment - but it might not happen -- I mostly just want to avoid repeating too many things I've already said. [quote=shylarah] Insensitive and too much are both matters of opinion. I think it may be possible to be heavy handed even with few details, though I believe it would bring things over into uncomfortably blunt. Like saying "this is your fault" in a delicate situation where the person is responsible or something. *shrug* Heavy-handed comes from the idea of a heavy hand -- a blow, or hitting someone. It's not so much that it's too much of something, but more that what is used is inappropriate for the situation. Again, a punch to the face and not merely an offer. Maybe in terms of writing it's taken on different meanings, but I definitely think you can use a lot of detail and maintain a light touch, if you have the skill. [/quote] The problem with referring to someone as heavy-handed is that it's entirely subjective, which was the main point I made earlier with the whole 'Some Anvils Need To Be Dropped' concept. A lot of people consider me heavy-handed simply by virtue of fact that I'm strong and very forthright with people. I don't believe it's wrong to be honest with people, but a lot of sensitive people - or those who are insecure about their beliefs - find my conviction intimidating. I don't think I should be blamed for them being overtly sensitive -- yes, whether or not they're too sensitive is an opinion, but so is the claim that I'm heavy-handed. Whether it be in writing or out of writing, I believe in being direct with people and not beating around the bush -- partly because I hate people who wear masks. So if I need to offend a couple of sensitive people in order to be honest with the people who actually appreciate it, I will. My story is not gentle, but then most 'literary fiction' isn't to the best of my understanding. [quote=shylarah] Yeah, it's true that a Sue is highly subjective. I'm actually more likely to use it in the context of an rper's attitude than for a character alone. The problem is more the way the character is treated, and less in the traits of the character themselves. The traits tend to be warning signs -- symptoms, and not the problem. My opinion about most things is that it's all in the execution -- and I have seen a character with enough of the "Sue" traits that anyone who looked at the character blurb probably had red flags going up all over, but he was played so well he was one of my favorites in that rp. In fact, I'd go so far as to say a lot of the "Sue" traits can actually make a character more interesting, if employed with skill. Generally it's a good idea to be sparing and not use a bunch of them without a considered reason. Sorry if I hit a button for you. [/quote] It's only hitting a button because of how many decent writers - or decent characters - I've seen being bashed by what I can only describe as a juvenile meme that's gotten way too out of hand over the decades. The [i]original[/i] meaning of 'Mary Sue' is a character that's so perfect that they have the power to make other characters like them, even when doing so results in those characters behaving completely OOC. This was usually done by fanfic writers who did self-insert characters into fandom settings as a means of escapism. The fact that the canon characters had to behave OOC is what I mean when I say that writing a 'Mary Sue' - in the original sense - was all about an absence of details, not a result of too many details -- a writer who was scrutinizing the details wouldn't be making characters write OOC in the first place, and this is why associating 'detail' with 'Mary Sue' is nonsensical to me. I more or less agree with most of what you said in this paragraph, but that's because [i]anything[/i] will be bad in writing if it isn't used without reason, and being detailed is usually where the reason comes from. There's not a single thing (character, plot, detail, line, concept, et cetera) in my story that doesn't have meaning and a reason (in my eyes) to be there, even if the readers are unlikely to understand a lot of the purpose. [quote=shylarah] The point about so-called Sues in real life...hm. I think you're right. Even to the point that a real person might make you go "no way is that really true". I think the issue in writing is that if you stretch suspension of belief too far it will break, and unless that's what you're going for it's a really bad thing to do that. Egregiously Sueish characters can do this. Not to mention many people find them annoying, and depending on the person might dislike a book simply because they dislike a character. *shrugs* Again, it all comes down to personal taste, as you suggested. [/quote] Given what I said earlier about how writers who lack a lot of details in their work almost always end up breaking my suspension of disbelief, I understand where you're coming from with this; however, you can break suspension of disbelief with almost anything if it's badly executed or without sufficient depth, so I don't think it's inherently an explicit trait of 'Sues'. A lot of people find 'Sue' characters annoying out of jealousy or - in the case of the forum I used to be on - because they dislike characters that are genuinely nice people because those characters make them (people who are assholes) look bad in comparison. If they're that insecure, they should think about growing as a person instead of trying to pull others down to their level like a primary school bully. As we've both said, it's all a matter of personal taste -- I've [i]very[/i] frequently quit reading/watching a piece of fiction because I disliked a character, and to the best of my recollection none of those characters were 'Sues'. [quote=shylarah] Ooh, genre labels. Don't get me started here. I'd argue that having a genre (that'd make it genre fiction, right?) is independent of literary fiction, although I'll admit I'm not entirely clear on what literary fiction is. Then again, I hate people who dismiss stuff simply because it's scifi/fantasy, as if that doesn't count as fiction. My opinion is that something can fall under the umbrella of a label but shouldn't be defined by it. Just because it defies expectations doesn't mean it doesn't fall under the umbrella -- and I'm going to stop there since I can feel myself gearing up here. [/quote] Having a genre isn't what makes something classify as 'genre fiction'. Before I go further, I'll give you this information: [quote=Genre Fiction]Literary fiction comprises fictional works that hold literary merit; that is, they involve social commentary, or political criticism, or focus on the human condition. Literary fiction is deliberately written in dialogue with existing works, created with the above aims in mind and is focused more on themes than on plot, and it is common for literary fiction to be taught and discussed in schools and universities.[/quote] With this in mind, it's entirely possible for a piece of fiction in any sort of genre to be considered 'literary fiction' if a heavy emphasis is put on philosophy, psychology, et cetera, and the story isn't just focusing on 'the good guys beating the bad guys' or 'whether or not that girl will get the guy she's crushing on'. Naturally, all works of fiction should have a plot; however, it's the fact that 'literary fiction' seeks to find a balance between the plot and with being mature and rooted in realism - merging philosophical discussions and heavily detailed characterization into the fictional work, and giving them as much focus or more than the story itself - that separates it from 'genre fiction', which is entirely focused on the story and seldom ever has a genuinely 'relevant' point to make. My project is as much a story as it is a set of philosophy books -- one of my good friends believes I could easily use my story as my thesis if I went and got a degree in philosophy. One of the reasons I think Naoki Urasawa's Monster is one of the best anime series ever created is because of how human the characters are and how philosophical/psychological it is. In my eyes, that series is 'literary fiction' despite still having an entertaining and compelling story -- the story is made [i]more[/i] compelling for me by its literary merit. To now create a comparison, a series such as Death Note would be 'genre fiction' because - even though it's heavily psychological in nature as well - the purpose of the psychology and mind games is purely written for entertainment purposes and only on a few occasions does the story ever try to give a relevant message (and, according to the author, those instances were not intended to be taken as serious philosophical discussions -- this is the complete opposite of my story, where every single mature discussion in the project is meant to be taken as very relevant food for thought). I think Death Note is entertaining, but it's not 'literary fiction' -- rather, at the very least, the author never intended for it to be, whereas I'm certain Naoki Urasawa's Monster was aiming for social commentary and discussion of the human condition. Just for the record, I'm not personally that interested in many science fiction stories (especially when it's only sci-fi and no other genres are mixed in with it), but there's nothing wrong with people liking the genre -- just keep in mind that the less rooted in reality the genre is, the more difficult it is to give a relevant message (and therefore be 'literary fiction') -- it's not impossible (I have 'gods' and such in my story, but this is because my work discusses ontology and metaphysics), but the less relatable to our world the setting is the less relevant it can be. Part of my nature as a literary analyser is that I perceive the line between these types of fictions very clearly. It isn't so much a 'label' so much as it's the overall definition of whether or not the work is trying to be more than just a story, if you will. My story is written around my philosophy and experiences, so everything that happens in the plot is created to facilitate the fact that the project is a manifestation and expression of my soul -- this is pretty much what defines 'literary fiction' from 'genre fiction' (a.k.a. storytelling). Of course, 'literary fiction' will tell a story too, as the example I gave with Naoki Urasawa's Monster clearly shows, but the more adult aims of the work is why these stories are usually less appropriate for immature audiences. Don't misunderstand me though -- I'm not saying that it's wrong for people to write 'genre fiction', but I usually have a personal preference for works that would be considered 'literary fiction'. [quote=shylarah] All criticism, in the end, is personal preference. Even to grammar, though that's got more of an official status than other matters. If I recall right, there's a poet out there that uses no caps and little punctuation, but the poetry was still good. Something about a cockroach hopping on a keyboard...? I can't remember. In the context of an rp, I don't think unsolicited opinions can be entirely avoided. People are actively writing with the character/style of other players and the DM, and so should be allowed to express feelings. Bashing is in bad taste. Constructive criticism, or saying their personal feelings, is another matter. And while with a rp there does have to be the option of "well you can write it like that but not here", in general I would hope well-considered critique comes with the understanding that in the end, it is the writer's choice what to do with it. And that includes saying "screw you" -- though I would hope if the reader is polite that it wouldn't be said in so many words. ^.^ [/quote] I haven't heard of the poet, but I'd easily believe someone like that exists and the content of their words would mean more to me then how they're written. Ultimately, I agree that people should be able to express feelings towards each others writing during a role-play, but I prefer to think of it as discussion instead of blatant criticism. If it gets to the point where role-players feel the need to blatantly criticise each other then they're probably not compatible writers -- better to move on and find a different partner or GM, instead of waste time on needless bickering. I'll be honest -- I don't have people criticise my work much, and each time someone has commented on my only IC posts here so far it's been extremely positive reception. With that being said, if I'm not role-playing with someone I have no interest in their criticisms, and even if I am role-playing with them I'm only interested in bettering my ability to collaborate in the OOC with them -- I won't change my style of writing to please other people. [quote=shylarah] Hm, well. If you're just listing details in a paragraph, that tends to bother me more than if you can incorporate them into the story. Your example of the man with the dislike of tight clothing being unhappy in a suit, that would expand the character to me. But introducing him in sweats and then telling me he hates suits is more likely to throw me -- unless, again, you can tie it in well. I think my dislike runs more to chunky paragraphs of description with no regard for how it fits together. Sort of like my opinion of rap. It's not that I dislike rap, though I thought I did. The music and style themselves are quite good, as my love for Hamilton has shown me. But so many rap artists swear every other word and keep talking about banging and shooting and I don't even -- it took a truly stellar example of a different sort of rap to change my bias against the genre. I guess with details when they fit into the story I don't notice them as being shoved in my face, and thus why I keep using detail-heavy in a negative context. It's the shoving I don't like, not the details themselves.[/quote] A lot of (not all) the details I give are written in what I'll call - for lack of a better term - 'context narrative' -- I dislike it when writing simply states the fact and doesn't explain it. For example, you can write that a character responds to something out of anger, but I want to see a written explanation for why they're angry, which is usually best given as internal dialogue or having the narrative explain the character's thought process. Similarly, a lot of my details are information about my setting or lore which give context to a point that the story has just brought up -- the scene feels incomplete to me without going into the background behind it. If this is what you mean by incorporating it into the story, then I do this a lot -- the difference here is I feel like my 'context narrative' has more depth/content than a lot of other works. None of it would inherently be pointless, but a lot of information would nevertheless be given in order to build the world more and create the atmosphere of the situation. This includes setting and lore information, and also explanations about the character or their experiences and thoughts. Using the example of the main protagonist we've been discussing, very early on in the story I make a point that the clothing he wears is baggy, to the point that he appears to be wearing clothes a size too big for him, and the 'context narrative' is given at this point is to explain that the motivation for him doing so, which is due to finding tight clothing uncomfortable. It's just a little bit of characterization that's given in a single sentence to make the character more human. I should also remind you that, as I mentioned in another thread, this character is directly based off myself, so this personality trait is one I have in real life -- the same goes for the pocket watch thing. The suit situation was entirely hypothetical on the other hand, since the only situation I can think of where he'd ever [i]need[/i] to wear one is at a wedding. As for what you said about chunky paragraphs and 'shoving the details in your face', my thoughts vary a bit. I think whether or not a paragraph is chunky or not is entirely subjective, but I don't personally feel like I put together big paragraphs without trying to stay on topic with them. Most of the time the paragraph is giving context to a thought a character just had or something about the world that just got brought up - with occasional elaborations where the context is given further context in order to show how well-thought-out the setting is and also show more of the lore - and I don't personally feel like it doesn't fit together -- unfortunately, whether it 'looks nice' and 'fits together' is a matter of opinion, so what looks good to me and what looks good to you might differ and we really wouldn't know unless I gave you a sample. My reasoning for believing I don't shove details in people's face is that they're frequently given as 'context narrative' for something -- whether this context is 'important' or not is entirely subjective, but for someone who loves detail - like myself - they're essential. The only complete sample of my official project I have is from one of the first chapters of the story -- it's painfully out of date and only in the draft phase, so I couldn't show it to you unless I went and touched it up. On a side note, I'm not a fan of rap myself and I don't know who Hamilton is. [quote=shylarah] The idea of listing all the details as being common courtesy comes with a caveat -- it's only courtesy if you can do it without punching people in the face (which I suppose is also a matter of their opinion, but whatever). If you know a person doesn't like slogging through pages of details, then it's not very nice to make no effort to avoid that. So it's a contextual issue, and dependent upon who you're with. [/quote] 'Punching people in the face' is - yes - all opinion. It's a contextual issue, for sure, and this is why I simply think it's better for me to not role-play with people who aren't compatible with my style of writing, and vice versa. Outside of role-playing - in a solo writing situation - it's entirely the readers fault in my eyes if they decide to pick up a book with a style of writing that doesn't suit their tastes -- you aren't going to blame me for writing a horror novel if you're the one who chose to buy it despite hating the genre (hypothetical, not assuming you hate the genre), are you? [quote=shylarah] Your detailed response to handling details (*giggling*) has proved very enlightening. I am going to try to avoid my gut reaction to the advanced label, since I think advanced can be shorter posts but very heavy in the lore department. They're connected but not completely dependent upon each other, and the division gets my goat every time, as I've seen the labels used repeatedly for bashing people that do good writing simply because it didn't meet someone else's standard. [/quote] When I say 'advanced', I don't usually mean long posts so much as I mean detailed posts. I don't care if a post is two paragraphs long or eight paragraphs long -- I care about whether or not it tells me all the details I want to know. Unfortunately, there's a limit to how many details you can give in shorter posts, but that isn't to say it's impossible and sometimes a short post is appropriate because there legitimately isn't many details to contribute. Lore alone doesn't define detail though, since plenty of stories have very well-thought-out lore but then the characters are mostly undetailed and lifeless entities which - as stated previously - serve no purpose other than to be tools to move the story forward -- this is more common in 'genre fiction' since the plotline is the focus and not the study of the human condition. I'd much prefer a story with very good characterization but no lore over the opposite extreme, but ideally a story should have a good amount of both. Yeah, I agree that the labels shouldn't be used as an excuse for bashing -- I can just as easily see people bashing my walls of text and using the 'advanced' label negatively as the basis for it. With that said, I prefer to think of the 'free'/'casual'/'advanced' concept as a guideline to make it easier for people to find suitable role-playing partners, not as a justification for bashing. I wouldn't be comfortable with role-playing with a one-liner role-player since there's no way I'd feel immersed, so having myself listed as an 'advanced' role-player in my bio serves as a helpful warning to people who don't like walls of text that I'm probably not the person they should choose to write with. Similarly, I really don't like play-by-post role-plays that use Tabletop mechanics such as dice, so having a forum dedicated to those types of role-plays allows me to know where I should keep away from, and the arena forum is there so that people who don't want to do arena role-play know where to stay out of. These can be thought of as labels, but they're useful guidelines too. In the end, I obviously feel the same way as you when it comes to thinking people shouldn't be criticising other people's writing because it doesn't meet their personal standards. Almost this entire discussion has been centred around me defending my style of writing and expressing my unwillingness to tolerate those who try to attack it or convert me to some other style. [quote=shylarah] In an rp context, few people outside of the most verbose writers (and the most voracious readers) are willing to go through pages and pages for a single post. Even in advanced, I've seen upper limits on post length suggested. So it's definitely a niche group you'd be looking for, to be happy. In other cases, because you're working with other people, if a detail that would have been significant is overlooked and comes up later, there are a couple options. You can retcon, which may be possible if it's not too far back. You can handwave and say, for whatever reason, it was overlooked at the time. You can go "well...oops, we've got a hole, but fixing it will leave holes elsewhere, so let's just keep going." In the end it's up to the players to sort out the issues so that everyone is more or less satisfied, however that might be done. [/quote] Don't misunderstand me; I honestly don't think my walls of text are as long as you might be imagining in terms of a single role-play post -- they're certainly longer than some peoples though. While I don't - by any stretch of the imagination - consider it my best work (especially since I'm not working with my project's setting here and the setting and role-playing style isn't really my preference), [url=http://www.roleplayerguild.com/topics/154475-subjects-outraged-king-fails-to-protect-the-realm/ic]this[/url] is a pretty good example of the sort of role-playing I'll do in a casual situation. I say a casual situation because, for all intents and purposes, I joined this role-play to unjust a little since it's been over five years since I did any role-playing on a forum. While it's entirely subjective if you think my posts are too long or too short, this thread is the only IC example I have on this site for you. With this in mind, be sure to remember that the type of role-players I'm looking for as partners aren't the ones who dishes out huge walls of text (most of my role-playing associates post significantly shorter than I do), but rather are those who will appreciate the length of my own posts and be willing to provide a decent amount of detail in their own responses -- when I say this, remember my previous point that I think you can give a good amount of detail without making an extremely long post, but if a post it too short there's usually not much you can elaborate on. The post length is less important than the depth of the content. I agree it's up to the players to decide how to solve contradictions, but you'd do best to keep in mind that I consider retconning an significant example of bad writing -- to be fair though, this applies far more to solo writing then it does to role-playing. It's the whole idea of how Marvel (just an example, but a real one) tends to be so incompetent sometimes that they've pretty much turned it into a habit to retcon their whole universe each time they write themselves into a corner they can't write themselves out of. Once again, none of these problems would ever come up if they'd been more thorough with their details in the first place. Also, my attention to detail, perfectionism, and suspension of disbelief overall means I [i]really[/i] don't like 'hand waving' things. [quote=shylarah] For solo writing, as I've said, I prefer details to be woven in, and I do like them but I also have a limit. I don't want to take an hour break to learn about every freckle on someone's face. It's a fine balance between dropping everythign to describe some new character or place, and leaving out details entirely. My personal preference, as stated before, is that the author have the skill to keep things moving as they paint the picture, but I'll enjoy a range of methods. I'm not the most picky of readers. ^.^;; [/quote] I think I've explained some of my methods in a previous paragraph, so I'll leave it at this unless something else comes to me. As I've made a point, I'm actually a [i]very[/i] picky reader (and a very picky... well... everything), but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with you not bring picky. I'm just a lot more demanding than some people, which probably intimidates people. I don't expect anything from someone that I don't expect from myself though -- one of the reasons I'm not interested in other people's critique's is because I'm harsher on myself than I am anyone else, and I'm my own biggest critic. [quote=shylarah] Drawings are entirely different, and if you choose to include them they change the argument significantly. And if you're commissioning an artist, painstakingly thorough details are a plus in most cases, as is the willingness of the artist to tweak an initial sketch to fit the vision of the commissioner. Within reason -- significant changes that aren't errors on the part of the artist may cost more if you make them do a lot of extra work. But I digress. [/quote] More or less off the main topic, but still an enjoyable detail to discuss. I can't see myself ever getting someone else to draw my characters for me, but if someone wants me to draw a character of theirs I'd normally insist on a very detailed description so I can get the specifics of the character right. I've actually offered to draw people's characters in my art style before if they're going to take part in my setting, if they'd like to see what those characters would basically look like in my canon. [quote=shylarah] Ooh, playing another person's characters. This can be a fun topic. I've never felt comfortable playing someone else's chars, be they canon from some other media, or belonging to another person. I've gotten a bit more comfortable with portraying Character B if I've rped with them under the control of their player in the past, and I'm using my character from that rp and Char B plays a big part in my char's life or soemthing. I'm always aware, though, that I'm playing /my version/ of Char B, and not truly Char B. ...And at times I've had my version take on a life of their own and start demanding that I pay them more attention, and I'll end up using them separately, but knowing this is a separate entity from the original. I've had people adopt characters of mine, for one reason or another. Mostly my favorite DM, when he's doing solo writing for NaNo set in the world of our group's rp campaigns, or writing interim stories (gods I love it when he does this). And my regard for him and my trust in him as a DM is such that I'm comfortable with this, and he does ask when he has questions about things. But because I trust him, I'm okay with minor inconsistencies, because wow is the story worth it to me. <3 I have to really trust someone to be comfortable with a person adopting my chars, and I found out someone else had...and done them poorly, without my permission, and I'm not completely okay although I do understand why. He's forgiven, but I'm very aware that it's /his/ version of those chars, and not anything resembling mine. Sandy, my favorite DM, tends to be good at keeping it close enough to my version that suspension of disbelief can accommodate the rest.[/quote] We've had this discussion before, and I do think it's actually cool how you've got this relationship with that GM. I'm in a very similar situation with [@Ailyn Evensen], and - in a different context - with another associate who I haven't seen in a while -- in his case, it's more like he understands my setting and lore at level that he's capable of writing up character sheets that fit my project so well that you'd believe me if I told you I wrote them myself. I don't believe he could inherently write my own characters perfectly, but you get my point. Since I'm a perfectionist and my suspension of disbelief is very easy to break, I'm very difficult to impress when it comes to someone else writing my characters -- I don't think it's possible for people to do it perfectly, and I'd sort of demand that, so I never ask anyone to use my characters unless it's one of the ones I'm basically giving Ailyn freedom over. [quote=shylarah] I've also been asked to play a character that had a rough idea established, and then I was to build upon it to make a full character, and I've done this several times. Or I'm asked to play someone so an rp will not be a player talking to themselves all the time. I am willing, with the understanding that I'm not going to play it how the creator will play it, and the character is going to change under my direction.[/quote] This is more or less what the characters Ailyn has adopted are now, within reason. The groundwork is established, but she's more or less been allowed to flesh those particular characters out because they're more enjoyable to me in her hands. It's only those specific characters though -- I wouldn't be having her or anyone else write all the other characters as a general rule.