# Unpopular Opinions?



## luckyscars (May 20, 2019)

Post some unpopular writing-related opinions you have? 

Opinions have to be related to writing and Officially Unpopular. So something like "the writing in season 8 of the Game Of Thrones TV adaption sucks" doesn't qualify. 

No brawling here, only because it will never end if it begins. Polite questioning/clarifying/discussing/I-beg-to-differ-ings are OK obviously, but let's consider this a place to vent views and perhaps find unlikely allies and consider different viewpoints rather than indulge in circular debates or bickering. I guess if you wanna debate something raised here you can always start a new thread or something.

 Brief as possible  

I'll start with five of mine:

- Most aspiring fantasy authors would probably be better off if they never read Lord Of The Rings.

- Short novels are nearly always better than long ones. Inherently long stories tend to work better in a series format.

- Fight scenes are overrated. There is no way to write a compelling fight scene longer than a couple pages or so.

- The best endings leave at least one major character's fate unresolved.

- The less described/explained a character is, the more interesting they usually are.


----------



## Rojack79 (May 20, 2019)

Let's see here, my unpopular opinion, 

I carry around a sword for self defense and the only gun I'd ever carry is a revolver.

I've read some of the best stories ever written on a furry website.

I hate the overabundance of vampire romance stories being pettled at Hollywood. Show our furry friends some love there Hollywood! You'll peddle necrophilia all day long but bestiality oh hell no!

And i think that's about it for me. Take it away whomever comes by next!


----------



## Ma'am (May 20, 2019)

I have what I think is an unpopular opinion. It's that new writers should get a short piece published as soon as possible, without worrying about the pay or the prestige of the publication. (I'd check duotrope.com and set it to publications with the "fastest response times, highest acceptance rates and simultaneous submissions accepted.") If anyone doesn't know, "simultaneous" means you can send the same piece to as many publications at the same time as you wish, rather than just one at a time.

My reason is that getting published can seem a major impossible dream in many newer writers' minds. That mindset can cause them to not give it their all or even to give up. 

Just getting one or a few quick credits breaks through that mental barrier of feeling like getting published is a longshot. The confidence boost of a "win" or two can do wonders for motivation imo and be well worth accepting a less than stellar publication. So this is an exception to the usual advice to always start at the top and work your way down when seeking publication.


----------



## luckyscars (May 20, 2019)

Ma'am said:


> I have what I think is an unpopular opinion. It's that new writers should get a short piece published as soon as possible, without worrying about the pay or the prestige of the publication. (I'd check duotrope.com and set it to publications with the "fastest response times, highest acceptance rates and simultaneous submissions accepted.") If anyone doesn't know, "simultaneous" means you can send the same piece to as many publications at the same time as you wish, rather than just one at a time.
> 
> My reason is that getting published can seem a major impossible dream in many newer writers' minds. That mindset can cause them to not give it their all or even to give up.
> 
> Just getting one or a few quick credits breaks through that mental barrier of feeling like getting published is a longshot. The confidence boost of a "win" or two can do wonders for motivation imo and be well worth accepting a less than stellar publication. So this is an exception to the usual advice to always start at the top and work your way down when seeking publication.



Agreetotallyonehundredpercent.


----------



## Aquilo (May 20, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Most aspiring fantasy authors would probably be better off if they never read Lord Of The Rings..



Or at least read its parody, _Bored of the Rings_, with Dildo Baggins, lol! 



Rojack79 said:


> I hate the overabundance of vampire romance stories being pettled at Hollywood. Show our furry friends some love there Hollywood! You'll peddle necrophilia all day long but bestiality oh hell no!



Hey, I protest! Disney does great bestiality_: Beauty and the Beast_, lol. He's the biggest furry going! Always made me smile how some hard-wing religious factions complained about gay characters in children's TV shows and movies, yet they love an offer of bestiality. Don't get me started on _Sleeping Beauty_ and the non-con in that. (I really do prefer Grimms' original versions lol.)

Unpopular writing opinions...? Hm.

- Knowing about writing fiction isn't the same as being able to write fiction. Otherwise all linguistics would have a fiction novel under their belt.

- You are not as perfect as you think you are at writing - which is good! Give me humility over Mary Sue authors any day.


----------



## escorial (May 20, 2019)

The middle classes are ruining the world


----------



## Rojack79 (May 20, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> Or at least read its parody, _Bored of the Rings_, with Dildo Baggins, lol!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OH GOD! You just gave me a flash back. I hate Mary Sue's & Gary Stu's. Cringing right now. How could those unholy abominations ever make it past an editer today is beyond me.


----------



## Rojack79 (May 20, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> Or at least read its parody, _Bored of the Rings_, with Dildo Baggins, lol!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seriously though what's with Hollywood & vampires or other dead romance movies? There is literally a movie out there were the main character is some guy who works at a morgue. One day he sees a dead girl & falls in love with her corpse. I'd love to know just how that idea got pitched.

Normal Guy: I have an idea...

Director: Ok.

Normal Guy: There's this guy.

Director: ok.

NG: He lives with his parents..

D: ok..

NG: He also works at a morgue..

D: perfectly normal job..

NG: well he's a lonely guy...

D: Aren't we all? (chuckle)

NG: (Grin's while nervously rubbing the back of his neck.) Haha aren't we all..

D: Go on.

NG: So there's this guy, that lives with his parents, works at a morgue, and he's lonely. (Nervously glances at Director who still looks vaguely interested)

D: (Waves a hand to get the ball rolling) ...And?

NG: Well he's lonely. (Takes a deep breath) So what is he one day see's the corpse of a beautiful women?

D: (Gives NG a blank stare)..And? (He frantically waves his other hand)

NG: (Takes a really deep breath before letting it out and nervously looking around the room as sweat drips down his glistening bald head) What if he falls in love with her corpse? (He blurts out slamming his eyes shut to avoid the repulsed look if the director.) He slowly peels one eye open and nervously giggles at the fuming director.

D:  (Looks the NG up and down quaking in anger.) WERE.. IS.. THE.. SEX!?

NG: (looks slack jawed at the director.) ...Um...what?


----------



## SueC (May 20, 2019)

Unpopular writing opinion - (IMO)

That a story, written well, also has to make sense.

That poor punctuation, regardless of the message, can ruin a story.

That writing about little-known (maybe unreal) techniques or abilities do not make for a more interesting story.

That writers should try writing about reality before writing about fantasy.




Whew! That felt good! 

Addendum: Just to clarify - these are MY opinions that I shared -


----------



## Rojack79 (May 20, 2019)

Also, (and this'll be my last nitpick for the mourning) why is it that all of the mainstream Paranormal Romance stories have strong, female, monster lead characters? Were are the normal male lead characters? Seriously it's like the PR community is blatantly stating that a) men can't be romantic and b) normal men are just not good enough.

 I mean with all of the research and hunting I've done on the internet I think I've only ever come across two PR fics that star a male lead and only one of those was a normal human being. It's just sad to the underrepresention of male leads in romance fics.


----------



## bdcharles (May 20, 2019)

Hmm ... unpopular opinions ... OK. Here goes.

...

...

...

I think Neil Gaiman is a lovely guy but a really boring writer.


----------



## Phil Istine (May 20, 2019)

When I think about my story, words magically appear on a sheet of paper.

In fact, that could be a half-decent story.


----------



## Amnesiac (May 20, 2019)

I think prescriptions have no place in a free society. I think we've managed to outsmart Darwin, when the herd could really use some culling.

Writing:
I really hate vampires, zombies, and werewolves. I think, "Twilight," was really an average girl's choice between necrophilia and bestiality.

David Mitchell sucks. So dull...
Neil Gaiman is yes, boring as hell.

Guilty pleasures:
I really dig the old cyberpunk stuff.
Likewise, Tim Dorsey


----------



## BornForBurning (May 20, 2019)

> The middle classes are ruining the world


based

Uh pulp fantasy is more profound and thought-provoking than any modern attempt to deconstruct it. 
George R.R. Martin hasn't done anything that Michael Moorcock didn't do better. 
Maybe not unpopular but I don't hear anyone except me and my brother talking about this, 90% of contemporary cover art is just awful.


----------



## Amnesiac (May 20, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> based
> 
> Uh pulp fantasy is more profound and thought-provoking than any modern attempt to deconstruct it.
> George R.R. Martin hasn't done anything that Michael Moorcock didn't do better.
> Maybe not unpopular but I don't hear anyone except me and my brother talking about this, 90% of contemporary cover art is just awful.



Most cover art is gag-inducing. I thoroughly agree!


----------



## 50shadesofdoubt (May 20, 2019)

Dual protaganist.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (May 20, 2019)

A story being grimmer or "grittier" does not automatically make it more realistic.

On a similar vein, morally ambiguous characters are not automatically more interesting than good guys/bad guys.

Antiheros are overrated.

The line between art and propoganda is very blurry, maybe even non-existent.


----------



## Squalid Glass (May 20, 2019)

I can't stand subplots.


----------



## Cephus (May 20, 2019)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> A story being grimmer or "grittier" does not automatically make it more realistic.



Entirely agree. As far as I'm concerned, anyone doing dark for the sake of being dark, I'm not going to read or watch. Far too much of this is just terrible storytelling. They can take their emo crap elsewhere.



> On a similar vein, morally ambiguous characters are not automatically more interesting than good guys/bad guys.



Again, agree. It's not that I mind moral ambiguity if it's done well but far too often, it's not.  Anything postmodern can kiss my ass.



> Antiheros are overrated.



Not anti-heroes done well, but far too often, they're not. Then they're not just over-rated, they're terrible.



> The line between art and propoganda is very blurry, maybe even non-existent.



Especially today. There have always been movies that were social commentary, but they were entertaining in their own right apart from that. Today, we have far too many movies and TV shows and books that aren't even trying to hide it. They exist only to whine about a particular ideology.  If you don't share that ideology, there's no point to looking at them at all.


----------



## Squalid Glass (May 20, 2019)

Cephus said:


> Especially today. There have always been movies that were social commentary, but they were entertaining in their own right apart from that. Today, we have far too many movies and TV shows and books that aren't even trying to hide it. They exist only to whine about a particular ideology.  If you don't share that ideology, there's no point to looking at them at all.



I disagree. Art has always been a vehicle for explicit social commentary. Look at just about every historical piece of work. From Gilgamesh to Shakespeare to Star Wars, a crucial aspect of art has always been the politics of the artist.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (May 20, 2019)

Squalid Glass said:


> I disagree. Art has always been a vehicle for explicit social commentary. Look at just about every historical piece of work. From Gilgamesh to Shakespeare to Star Wars, a crucial aspect of art has always been the politics of the artist.



Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I've noticed that people only call something 'propaganda' if they disagree with it, but call it 'art' or 'entertainment' if they agree with it. Captain America was 'propaganda' to the Nazis but 'entertainment' to Americans. Only anti-Marxists call _The Grapes of Wrath _propaganda. Only non-Christians call _Pilgrim's Progress _propaganda. But _1984 _or "The Times They Are A'Changin" could just as easily be called propaganda; their political/moral goals are just as obvious. 

And it's not just in the political realm--all art has some kind of agenda or message, explicit or implicit, intentional or otherwise. Even if you are of the opinion that art must be beautiful, the line still remains blurry--just look at old WWI and II posters.


----------



## BornForBurning (May 20, 2019)

> I disagree. Art has always been a vehicle for explicit social commentary. Look at just about every historical piece of work. From Gilgamesh to Shakespeare to Star Wars, a crucial aspect of art has always been the politics of the artist.


I think there has been a critical fracturing of core values in the west, so now a large percentage of the population doesn't agree with the values being presented by the 'ruling' artistic class (Hollywood). That's why so many movies seem 'political' now, nobody can agree on any level of fundamental morality, so people grasp at weird politamoral tropes that are floating through intelligentsia to give their work some semblance of existential meaning.


----------



## luckyscars (May 20, 2019)

bdcharles said:


> Hmm ... unpopular opinions ... OK. Here goes.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



*Triggered* 

no but seriously, I have heard this before and am curious: What is boring about Gaiman exactly? Is it his actual stories or the writing style or both?


----------



## Squalid Glass (May 20, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> I think there has been a critical fracturing of core values in the west, so now a large percentage of the population doesn't agree with the values being presented by the 'ruling' artistic class (Hollywood). That's why so many movies seem 'political' now, nobody can agree on any level of fundamental morality, so people grasp at weird politamoral tropes that are floating through intelligentsia to give their work some semblance of existential meaning.



That's a pretty short sighted view. The morality of artists has always, by its very nature, been at odds with a "large percentage of the population." To be an artist is, in many cases, to be an outcast in some regard. A lot of political and moral and theoretical, abstract art clashes with its contemporary society because a lot of art is designed to critique that society. Face it, some of the best art is created as a moral response to what the artist sees as something unfair or wrong in the world. Think of Picasso's "Guernica", Plath's _Bell Jar_, or Ginsberg's "Howl." Only with hindsight do these works usually become revered. Look at Socrates. Or Jesus. Or the Romantics. Or the Modernists. Or the musicians of the 60s. Or countless other groups of artists deemed taboo or at odds with the prevailing morality. 

As for Hollywood, the values there are two fold, just like they always have been in Hollywood, and really, with all artists. 1. There is the morality at odds with society that I just discussed. 2. And there is money. Hollywood wouldn't make movies with "politamoral tropes" unless those tropes were in demand and netted them a profit, which they do. Those who find those tropes liberating will celebrate them, and those who find them abhorrent will deride them. Just like all art throughout all of time. 

I guess my point is that complaining that the artistic "elites" have become too political is like saying the wind has become too windy. It is what it always has been. I take issue with the idea that somehow the insertion of political and moral intent has somehow changed now at this moment. That is a view without context. That being said, if your issue is with artists inserting any political or moral ideology into any work, well okay, you have an opinion in line with this thread. But I don't get the sense that that is what you were saying.


----------



## escorial (May 21, 2019)

We're all hypocrites...didn't realize this topic was in writing discussion thread.. doh


----------



## bdcharles (May 21, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> *Triggered*
> 
> no but seriously, I have heard this before and am curious: What is boring about Gaiman exactly? Is it his actual stories or the writing style or both?



I think it's a combination of things. He has all these fabulous characters from myth and legend but they all act and sound like everyday humans. Plus there's often so many of them that they kind of run together and stop being quite so amazing. That coupled with a fairly basic language makes me run out of put-put. That being said I do rate him as a children's writer, and think that's where his strength is. It is of course ultimately down to personal preference.


----------



## luckyscars (May 21, 2019)

bdcharles said:


> I think it's a combination of things. He has all these fabulous characters from myth and legend but they all act and sound like everyday humans. Plus there's often so many of them that they kind of run together and stop being quite so amazing. That coupled with a fairly basic language makes me run out of put-put. That being said I do rate him as a children's writer, and think that's where his strength is. It is of course ultimately down to personal preference.



Sounds like some of this is American Gods, right? I haven’t read that one. Only read Coraline, which I thought was above average but is probably classified a kids book and The Ocean At The End Of The Lane which I found so-so. 

I see Gaiman as being a lot about aesthetic. Sort of the Tim Burton of books - it’s that horror-for-people-who-don’t-like-actual-horror, surreal-but-not-unpleasantly-so approach that somehow has remained popular. It’s books for the “outsider kid” to read on the bus. A lot of it’s kind of silly but I do still rate Gaiman for some reason. Part of it probably is because he’s a lovely man.


----------



## klimbo (May 21, 2019)

Squalid Glass said:


> That's a pretty short sighted view. The morality of artists has always, by its very nature, been at odds with a "large percentage of the population." To be an artist is, in many cases, to be an outcast in some regard. A lot of political and moral and theoretical, abstract art clashes with its contemporary society because a lot of art is designed to critique that society. Face it, some of the best art is created as a moral response to what the artist sees as something unfair or wrong in the world. Think of Picasso's "Guernica", Plath's _Bell Jar_, or Ginsberg's "Howl." Only with hindsight do these works usually become revered. Look at Socrates. Or Jesus. Or the Romantics. Or the Modernists. Or the musicians of the 60s. Or countless other groups of artists deemed taboo or at odds with the prevailing morality.
> 
> As for Hollywood, the values there are two fold, just like they always have been in Hollywood, and really, with all artists. 1. There is the morality at odds with society that I just discussed. 2. And there is money. Hollywood wouldn't make movies with "politamoral tropes" unless those tropes were in demand and netted them a profit, which they do. Those who find those tropes liberating will celebrate them, and those who find them abhorrent will deride them. Just like all art throughout all of time.
> 
> I guess my point is that complaining that the artistic "elites" have become too political is like saying the wind has become too windy. It is what it always has been. I take issue with the idea that somehow the insertion of political and moral intent has somehow changed now at this moment. Sarkari Result Pnr Status 192.168.1.1 That is a view without context. That being said, if your issue is with artists inserting any political or moral ideology into any work, well okay, you have an opinion in line with this thread. But I don't get the sense that that is what you were saying.


ideas that you said
and I share the same opinion with you, because you have summarized everything


----------



## bazz cargo (May 21, 2019)

Don't read the last three books in HHGTTG. They ruin the sense of fun.
Every serious book should have a few jokes in.
The last track on a Goth Album should be a comedy one.
A cheese toastie is good for writer's block.


luckyscars said:


> Post some unpopular writing-related opinions you have?
> 
> Opinions have to be related to writing and Officially Unpopular. So something like "the writing in season 8 of the Game Of Thrones TV adaption sucks" doesn't qualify.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ralph Rotten (May 21, 2019)

Unpopular writing beliefs

I don't have a problem with having a dozen different perspectives in a story.

I also don't mind changing the POV. I have alternated 1st/3rd POV in several books. No law says you have to tell the whole story in 3rd person omnipotent.

I like to write at 4am. Sometimes earlier. (That's gotta be unpopular!)


----------



## luckyscars (May 21, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Unpopular writing beliefs
> 
> I don't have a problem with having a dozen different perspectives in a story.
> 
> ...



Changing POV, sure. How about changing both POV and tense?


----------



## SueC (May 21, 2019)

Rojack, oddly enough, I have noticed the same, but not just paranormal romance. That idea is everywhere! Strong female characters are popping up all over the place - making men look like last year's edition. Even in commercials, men always wind up looking wimpy. I don't like it - not that women shouldn't be celebrated and esteemed for their particular talents, but why do all the stories that celebrate women have to do it at the price of some poor guy? I'm over it - but they don't listen to me.


----------



## Alpine (May 22, 2019)

Unpopular opinion on writing: Wheel of Time is one of the greatest works of art of our generation.


----------



## luckyscars (May 22, 2019)

Unpopular Opinion......
.....
.....
.....
....if viewed as a work of literature, The Bible is not very well written.


----------



## Cephus (May 22, 2019)

SueC said:


> Rojack, oddly enough, I have noticed the same, but not just paranormal romance. That idea is everywhere! Strong female characters are popping up all over the place - making men look like last year's edition. Even in commercials, men always wind up looking wimpy. I don't like it - not that women shouldn't be celebrated and esteemed for their particular talents, but why do all the stories that celebrate women have to do it at the price of some poor guy? I'm over it - but they don't listen to me.



It's not that there haven't always been strong women characters out there because there have. The problem is that now, they are essentially making women into men, giving them all male characteristics, then having them say "we don't need men!" Of course not, you ARE MEN! We've always had strong women in media, they just haven't been obnoxious feminist man-hating shills until now.


----------



## SueC (May 22, 2019)

Cephus - I so agree! It's really nice to know that I am not on that soap box all by myself.  Thanks!


----------



## sunaynaprasad (May 23, 2019)

I support and respect characters' physical descriptions as they were created by other people. I also can't really picture a character unless he or she is physically described.


----------



## Amnesiac (May 23, 2019)

Sue, I couldn't agree more. I despise modern television/sitcoms that constantly portray men as clueless buffoons. It was funny the first twenty times. Now, it's just stupid. I was talking with a gay friend of mine, and we were talking about the fact that gay men always hit on straight men. He said, "I'm gay. I like MEN. Why do I want to date some guy who has his nails done, wears makeup, and talks and acts like a woman? If I wanted to date a woman, I'd date a woman!"

I adore women. I adore women who are strong, and yet, retain their femininity. I adore women who are happy that I am an unapologetic alpha male. I will gladly go to war for what I believe or to defend those whom I love. I will work as hard as I can, sweat, bleed, curse, and come home exhausted, but I will always provide for my family. Had I been in one of the twin towers on 9/11, I would have been one of the ones charging up the stairs to help others, or I would have been rushing the cockpit to either kill the terrorists or crash the plane trying. For those whom I love, I am their champion. I am strong, smart, and I work hard.

I also realize that I am not without my weaknesses, but my wife is strong in ways that I am not. We complement each other.

Sometimes, I want to reach through the television and punch the writers in the mouth, but usually, I just swear and change the channel. Hrmph.


----------



## SueC (May 23, 2019)

Amnesiac - this has been on my mind for some time and the points you bring are right on. Heck - I'm a woman. I want my gender to be strong, capable, smart. But I first started to notice this trend in sitcoms where a teenage girl was rude and aggressive and applauded for her mouth. I refused to watch those types of shows, that teach young girls that being disrespectful to parents and other "authority" figures is a good thing! Watching a girl take down a teacher verbally is not my form of entertainment and I hated it. Women are clever, where men are decisive. They really do bring different gifts to the table. I will never understand why some women feel they have to be like men - that's why we have men!  I see over and over women who abandon their natural femininity, hoping to appear strong. I wish there was a way to change this awful trend, but I guess all we really can do is let it play out and be sure to teach our children to be true to their gender. 

You sound like a dude, Dude!


----------



## Amnesiac (May 23, 2019)

Sue, again: I could not agree more. Bang on!


----------



## Amnesiac (May 24, 2019)

One more unpopular opinion: I think Tom Cruise is a disgusting little midget who can't act his way out of a wet paper sack, open at both ends. He's ruined every single movie he's been in, and he's always paired with someone who's an accomplished actor, to bolster his utter lack of ability. He has a hugely inflated opinion of his own importance, due to no small part, to his Orwellian cult that he constantly shills for. Everything about him makes my skin crawl, and it's been gratifying to watch his star gradually diminish over the years.


----------



## luckyscars (May 24, 2019)

Amnesiac said:


> One more unpopular opinion: I think Tom Cruise is a disgusting little midget who can't act his way out of a wet paper sack, open at both ends. He's ruined every single movie he's been in, and he's always paired with someone who's an accomplished actor, to bolster his utter lack of ability. He has a hugely inflated opinion of his own importance, due to no small part, to his Orwellian cult that he constantly shills for. Everything about him makes my skin crawl, and it's been gratifying to watch his star gradually diminish over the years.



Ah yes, that famous writer Tom Cruise!


----------



## Amnesiac (May 24, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Ah yes, that famous writer Tom Cruise!



Well, crap. I know he's not a writer, but I certainly feel much better for having got that off my chest.


----------



## luckyscars (May 24, 2019)

Amnesiac said:


> Well, crap. I know he's not a writer, but I certainly feel much better for having got that off my chest.



I guess technically Tom Cruise probably is a better writer than Stephanie Meyer.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (May 24, 2019)

Don't know if this is technically unpopular or not, 'cause I've seen one or two people who agree with me, but...
...rupi kaur kinda sucks


----------



## luckyscars (May 25, 2019)

If we are doing who sucks, the following all suck. Change my mind.

*Charles Bukowski* - About 2 decent poems (Bluebird and The Genius Of The Crowd) and one decent novel (Ham On Rye) among a dirge of narcissism and drunk flatulence.
*JRR Tokien *- A serviceable yet dull storyteller, a really overrated world builder. 
*Jack Kerouac *- Merely a less chaismatic Bukowski for art school boys, with worse poetry.
*James Joyce - *No explanation needed
*Dan Brown *- Ugh
*Joe Hill - *Poor pacing, disorganized narrative, mostly dislikeable characters - especially compared to his daddy.
*VC Andrews *- Really not sure why these are still being ghostwritten. 
*Gabriel Garcia Marquez - * Insipid stuff.


----------



## Squalid Glass (May 25, 2019)

Tolkien is not overrated. That he created coherent languages for his world, an overarching, detailed world history and mythology, and the sheer intensity of his legacy are reasons enough for me to find his talent worthy of the reputation. Plus, I just enjoy the narrative whimsy of _The Hobbit_ and the sheer epicness of _LOTR_. Just my opinion, though.

I also disagree about Kerouac. _On the Road _has some beautiful prose poetry in it. There's one scene where he makes love in a bark while looking at a tarantula that gets me every time.


----------



## Darkkin (May 25, 2019)

Unpopular opinion...hmm...just about anything that comes out of my mouth or makes its way onto my computer screen.    Cap has been and still is my favourite Avenger.  Iron Man comes across as a jerk, and I have no sympathy for Batman when Superman beats the snot out of him in Justice League.  And I am of the opinion that Thor was having a midlife crisis throughout most of Endgame. 

 I'm a big fan of karma.  I love romance novels, and I also take up the case for the other side if I don't like the voice of a narrator.  I also dislike most first person perspective because too often it comes across as overly self involved and shallow.

And the people who say, 'You should smile more.  You're much prettier when you smile...'  Just don't...I smile if I have a reason, if I don't just let it be.  I hate crap like that.  The public is not entitled to endless delight.  Resting bitch face is nature's default setting, please accept that as fact.  

Totally random bits, but then again randomess is half the fun.  I also cheer when a week passes without James Patterson on the bestseller lists.  I don't like his writing.


----------



## luckyscars (May 25, 2019)

Squalid Glass said:


> Tolkien is not overrated. That he created coherent languages for his world, an overarching, detailed world history and mythology, and the sheer intensity of his legacy are reasons enough for me to find his talent worthy of the reputation. Plus, I just enjoy the narrative whimsy of _The Hobbit_ and the sheer epicness of _LOTR_. Just my opinion, though.
> 
> I also disagree about Kerouac. _On the Road _has some beautiful prose poetry in it. There's one scene where he makes love in a bark while looking at a tarantula that gets me every time.



I certainly don't think Tolkien is overrated as a creator of either language or a fabricated history/mythology and I respect him hugely for that, however I guess I don't think that stuff is all that important to being a good writer.

Tolkien's Elvish language and it's associated script is definitely great but I am not reading fiction to marvel at an invented language, and I only care about world building as far as it affects the story. To that degree, Middle Earth just isn't that impressive IMO. The geography is incomplete with vast swathes of emptiness on the map, illogical and rather perfunctory in design (mountains surrounding Mordor in a near perfect square, for instance). More annoying still is the mindless homogeneity of the races. The notion that 'Elves are like this', 'orcs are like this', etc, with relatively little diversity in terms of characteristics and very basic morality within _most _of the various races/species and _most _of their associated characters. This sort of basic herd mentality combined with overtly religious 'good vs evil' tropage pisses me off in Fantasy and I do blame Tolkien for a lot of that. 

Tolkien's world also seems to me to lack a lot of authenticity. When I read fantasy I like the world to feel complete. History and whatnot aside, there seems relatively little interest by the author in making the day-to-day reality of Middle Earth feel like it could actually be somewhere real. There's not much in-depth discussion of the economy, trading patterns, fauna and flora (beyond the odd dragon, etc), religions, etc. At least not much that makes its way prominently into the story lines to create a sense of 'this is a real place'. At least not that I can recall.

On The Road? Meh. As a product of its zeitgeist, it's fine. I read it avidly as a teenager and now find it unbearable. Agree it has some nice lines. Here's the thing, though, should one novel with 'some beautiful prose poetry' earn a writer that level of acclaim? I don't think the story of ON THE ROAD itself was anything remarkable and Kerouacs other novels all vary, in my opinion, somewhere between unreadable and irritating. His poetry (like most beat poetry, honestly) is little more than word salad. To each his/her own, I guess.



Darkkin said:


> And the people who say, 'You should smile more.  You're much prettier when you smile...'  Just don't...I smile if I have a reason, if I don't just let it be.  I hate crap like that.  The public is not entitled to endless delight.  Resting bitch face is nature's default setting, please accept that as fact.
> 
> Totally random bits, but then again randomess is half the fun.  I also when a week passes without James Patterson on the bestseller lists.  I don't like his writing.



It's funny how people always assume women want to be 'prettier', isn't it? If I was a woman I'd counter with 'I don't want to be pretty, I want to be fierce'. 

I was going to include James Patterson on my list of suck, but I'm not sure if he really counts as a writer these days. Like VC. Doesn't he have most of his stuff ghostwritten?


----------



## Rojack79 (May 25, 2019)

Does having someone else write for you even make you a writer? How did ghost writing even start in the first place?


----------



## luckyscars (May 25, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Does having someone else write for you even make you a writer? How did ghost writing even start in the first place?



Depends on the situation, I think?

- James Patterson hiring people to write almost the entirety of a novel under his brand name based on a thin outline he provides because he doesn't feel like doing the work and is now so rich he does not have to = Not writing.

- Stephen Hawking, who cannot physically write, or somebody illiterate or otherwise not in possession of the faculty to 'write' (such as a blind person) but who does know their story and is able to tell it, hiring somebody to help them create copy = Writing.


----------



## Rojack79 (May 25, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Depends on the situation, I think?
> 
> - James Patterson hiring people to write almost the entirety of a novel under his brand name based on a thin outline he provides because he doesn't feel like doing the work and is now so rich he does not have to = Not writing.
> 
> - Stephen Hawking, who cannot physically write, or somebody illiterate or otherwise not in possession of the faculty to 'write' (such as a blind person) but who does know their story and is able to tell it, hiring somebody to help them create copy = Writing.



When put like that I can see the reason for having a ghost writer. And a reason to not like James Patterson.


----------



## Squalid Glass (May 25, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I certainly don't think Tolkien is overrated as a creator of either language or a fabricated history/mythology and I respect him hugely for that, however I guess I don't think that stuff is all that important to being a good writer.
> 
> Tolkien's Elvish language and it's associated script is definitely great but I am not reading fiction to marvel at an invented language, and I only care about world building as far as it affects the story. To that degree, Middle Earth just isn't that impressive IMO. The geography is incomplete with vast swathes of emptiness on the map, illogical and rather perfunctory in design (mountains surrounding Mordor in a near perfect square, for instance). More annoying still is the mindless homogeneity of the races. The notion that 'Elves are like this', 'orcs are like this', etc, with relatively little diversity in terms of characteristics and very basic morality within _most _of the various races/species and _most _of their associated characters. This sort of basic herd mentality combined with overtly religious 'good vs evil' tropage pisses me off in Fantasy and I do blame Tolkien for a lot of that.
> 
> ...



I think your recollection of Middle Earth as a tangible world is a little off. One of the things that makes the story so good is the fact that the world is so tangible. His other works also expand on these things. As to the good vs. evil tropage, I actually find that simplicity really nice. Star Wars does the same thing. Sometimes such simple conflict goes a long way.

As to Kerouac and the Beats, it really is a matter of taste, more than many other genres. The avant garde can either land completely with you or just feel like word salad, as you said. I think of Ginsberg reading "Wales Visitation" on _Firing Line _and the reaction the reading received.


----------



## luckyscars (May 26, 2019)

Squalid Glass said:


> I think your recollection of Middle Earth as a tangible world is a little off. One of the things that makes the story so good is the fact that the world is so tangible. His other works also expand on these things. As to the good vs. evil tropage, I actually find that simplicity really nice. Star Wars does the same thing. Sometimes such simple conflict goes a long way.
> 
> As to Kerouac and the Beats, it really is a matter of taste, more than many other genres. The avant garde can either land completely with you or just feel like word salad, as you said. I think of Ginsberg reading "Wales Visitation" on _Firing Line _and the reaction the reading received.




I really don't think Middle Earth is tangible. YMMV obviously, but I have no real idea from reading Lord Of The Rings what life would actually be like living in most of the locations described. 

What do Orcs eat for breakfast? What's a Dwarf wedding like? Do Hobbits have to clip their toenails? How does the monetary system work? What kind of things do people do for jobs? Is there an education system? How about medicine and science? It's not answers to these specific questions I am interested in, of course, and it may well be that kind of information is buried away somewhere. The point is I always like fantasy worlds to present a reality in which I feel like these kinds of minor details aren't left shrouded in mystery, that the writer had given the everyday reality of his world some thought. I don't believe Tolkien considered imagined societies on nearly that level. I think Tolkien mostly concerned himself with the 'big picture' stuff, the battles and adventures and big events on important dates and so on, and so even when he threw in a fantastic creation he was reluctant to provide a whole lot of insight into them. 

For example, I always liked the idea of Ents. But of course when I go to https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Ents the first line reads 'Almost nothing is known of the early history of the Ents'. If you look up Hobbits, what's the first line say? You guessed it! 'It is unknown when Hobbits first appeared in Arda'. There is a lot of that sort of thing. It seems to me he couldn't care less about forming congruity, and therefore authenticity, when it came to the humbler aspects of his world. And I think that kind of sucks.

As far as good vs evil? It's not my thing much these days. I think that approach to story needs to go, because there is simply no way to make it work anymore. There's an unpopular opinion!

P.S I do like Ginsberg! I didn't mean to say I didn't like beat poetry, it just so happens most of it is pretty inept. Ginsberg is very good. Gary Snyder is not bad. But Kerouac? Snore.


----------



## Squalid Glass (May 26, 2019)

Haha, to each his own!

Though you should give LOTR another try. Actually a common criticism of the stories is that they spend too much time going into the nitty gritty of the world. A Long Expected Party and Tom Bombadil set the tone early with this stuff.


----------



## Theglasshouse (May 26, 2019)

The Silmarillion might be worth reading to those who want to learn more. I think he wrote about Nordic mythology. I don't think it has all the answers to his story but is worth reading. Be warned that there are many names. I'd get the digital version. It is difficult keeping track who he is talking about since it is the history of the world of Lord of the rings.


----------



## luckyscars (May 27, 2019)

Theglasshouse said:


> The Silmarillion might be worth reading to those who want to learn more. I think he wrote about Nordic mythology. I don't think it has all the answers to his story but is worth reading. Be warned that there are many names. I'd get the digital version. It is difficult keeping track who he is talking about since it is the history of the world of Lord of the rings.



I thought about reading it but I was always disinclined to read a made-up history book to make up for the fact the author was either incapable or indifferent when it it came to fleshing out the world within the actual story. Seems like a cop out. 

To me that would be like Agatha Christie neglecting to include the identity of the murderer in one of her mystery novels and telling me I had to read a second book, a compilation of made up courtroom records she had written, to find that out. No thank you. In a mystery novel I need to know who the murderer was by the end and when reading epic fantasy I need to feel like the imaginary world was real.

As Squalid said, to each his (or her) own!


----------



## Amnesiac (May 27, 2019)

I frickin' HATE the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. I've started it so many times, and...... when I woke up, about an hour later, I set it aside, meaning to pick it up again later. Since I am able to fall asleep easily and without any sort of sleeping aid, I guess I'll cross the literary equivalent of Valium off my reading list.


----------



## Theglasshouse (May 27, 2019)

I respect the opinions others may have on this topic and don't want to make people feel irritated because I don't do this on purpose. I have heard some complaints on the characterization but enjoyed it as it was probably the first fantasy novel I read. I had never read anything with elves or dwarves. I was not even twenty when I started reading it. The imagination to me was what mattered and the plight of the characters. I read lord of the rings first and then the hobbit. Because he travels alone on a quest that is doomed for failure it seems. I found it compelling. It had perhaps been my first quest novel as well. It's better written for someone who might have been not read much fantasy. I can't explain it's qualities. It wasn't all world building either. I know people thought it wasn't exceptional and just had a unique idea ( influenced by philosophy). Apologies for the irritating opinion which was not my intent.


----------



## Amnesiac (May 27, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I guess technically Tom Cruise probably is a better writer than Stephanie Meyer.



You know, if you ever wanted to give Stephanie Meyer another chance, (although I know you probably don't! LOL) her novel, "The Host," was actually quite good. (How's _that_ for an unpopular opinion?) LOL!


----------



## Rojack79 (May 27, 2019)

Amnesiac said:


> You know, if you ever wanted to give Stephanie Meyer another chance, (although I know you probably don't! LOL) her novel, "The Host," was actually quite good. (How's _that_ for an unpopular opinion?) LOL!



Now that sounds like a novel I'd like to read. Just the name alone invokes the feeling of wanting to read it.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 28, 2019)

Any writing rules may be broken any time you feel like it.

It is not a truly unpopular opinion, but if I say it people always agree with qualifications, stuff like "Of course you have to spell things correctly, but generally I would agree". No, I mean 'any' rules. So long as it is not simply accidental caused by ignorance you can break any rule you want in my book. That may look like I am qualifying it too, but I don't count that as 'breaking' the rule, you know what you are supposed to do and don't, that is breaking the rules.


----------



## Cephus (May 28, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> Any writing rules may be broken any time you feel like it.
> 
> It is not a truly unpopular opinion, but if I say it people always agree with qualifications, stuff like "Of course you have to spell things correctly, but generally I would agree". No, I mean 'any' rules. So long as it is not simply accidental caused by ignorance you can break any rule you want in my book. That may look like I am qualifying it too, but I don't count that as 'breaking' the rule, you know what you are supposed to do and don't, that is breaking the rules.



Of course, you can take that to absurd levels. Try writing a book with the words in random orders and see how well it does. Sure, you can do it, but if your book is incomprehensible, it isn't going to sell.


----------



## AdrianBraysy (May 28, 2019)

Stories don't have to be immersive, logical, consistent believable or lacking in plot holes. Instead, I like stories that present themselves as a truly symbolic world, rather than a world where people actually live. This is not true of all stories, of course, but some of my favorite films for example are Eraserhead, Kubrick's Clockwork Orange. One of my favorite books is Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche. None of these works of fiction are particularly immersive. They just have something to say about what it means to be human, and they use symbols to do it. Often, such as in Kubrick's case, the work is distorted on purpose to create a "wall", between the viewer and the film.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 28, 2019)

Cephus said:


> Of course, you can take that to absurd levels. Try writing a book with the words in random orders and see how well it does. Sure, you can do it, but if your book is incomprehensible, it isn't going to sell.



I did say any time you feel like it, for me to feel like it I would have to see some point. I suppose there might be a situation where random words would have a point, but I can't think of one off hand. No, don't think I will try that one. Some one might feel like it and not care it is never read though, I reckon they are entitled if that's what they want to do.


----------



## luckyscars (May 28, 2019)

AdrianBraysy said:


> Stories don't have to be immersive, logical, consistent believable or lacking in plot holes. Instead, I like stories that present themselves as a truly symbolic world, rather than a world where people actually live. This is not true of all stories, of course, but some of my favorite films for example are Eraserhead, Kubrick's Clockwork Orange. One of my favorite books is Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche. None of these works of fiction are particularly immersive. They just have something to say about what it means to be human, and they use symbols to do it. Often, such as in Kubrick's case, the work is distorted on purpose to create a "wall", between the viewer and the film.



I think what you're getting at is surrealism, possibly even absurdism, which is definitely a thing ...but I'm not sure I'd agree that such stories don't have to be immersive on some level. 

The examples you gave - Clockwork Orange, Eraserhead, etc - are all definitely immersive and don't have plot holes that I can think of. 

I think maybe there's a conflation here between stories that are inconsistent with the real world and stories that are inconsistent with themselves. A story must never be inwardly consistent. If it is, it ceases to be a story and starts being gibberish.


----------



## Amnesiac (May 29, 2019)

Once upon a potato, there was a flock of murky cheese.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 30, 2019)

Amnesiac said:


> Once upon a potato, there was a flock of murky cheese.



Then there is the question of how random is random? the human mind can make an image out of almost anything, look at those experiments with 'nonsense' words, people could remember them by association. Suggest you expand this a bit and post it in poetry, it would probably go down a storm


----------

