What makes a good writer?

[TomOfSweden]

Any chance we could beg/borrow/steal that from you? I have a sheet for characters but it's designed for (*ahem*...resigned to admitting my geekiness) role playing types.

I've got a similar one. But I put a lot of work on distinguishing features. Things that others easily notice about them. Especially about their looks. This is different for different people depending on perspective, if it shifts in a story.

If we feel threatened, describing the eyes and how the person looks at others, and what the hands are doing I think is important. Ie, "The man with whitening knuckles said..."; while if it's just a character in the background then they're maybe distinguished by some particular piece of clothing or hat. "A man with grimy trucker hat leaned against the bar....".

For me that tells me a lot about what the viewer is feeling and needs to be logged. If the guy who bunches his fists when angry or trucker hat guy comes back, we need to keep track of it and make sure they do the same thing later.

[mkemse]

I'd say that the ability to put words on emotions so they can be carried over to the reader, is by far the most important.

The rest is just fluff.

i could not agree more, very well said

[Dragon's muse]

This is the one i use, it helps me really know the character. And if i don't know the character, how can i let the reader know the character.

[Mad Lews]

Wear your geekiness like a badge of honor. i have been RP'ing since Junior High. i even run a game here once a week (the quest is really getting interesting.) i do maps, backstories, create new theologies, new calendars and astrologies. i have a t-shirt that says,
"Dungeon Masters don't kill characters, Monsters kill characters."

i have another shirt , given me to me by my gamers, that says

"Behind every great Gamemaster is an insane urge to kill everyone"

i can either PM you the link or post it here for the fiction writers character worksheet.

Dragon's Muse,
Hey I'm no ubergeek, haven't used a boffing bastard sword in months er weeks. Only use them for exercise, honest, but do PM the link for uhm educational purposes only you understand.

"Behind every registered madman there's a Lews trying to escape"

[Dragon's muse]

i found the way to get it into a post with out a link. See post right above yours.

[Ruby]

Thanks ElectricBadger and Dragon's Muse, both of those sheets are excellent. One to put the writer into the mind of the character and the other to set the stage.

What makes a good writer?

I'll add:
* a good sense of humor,
* the ability to live in the heads of your characters,
* editing skills that cover more than grammar, and
* the gift of forgiving yourself.

Mistakes happen,
characters run away with our stories,
and every now and then we come up with a gem.

Knowing what to cut, how to keep story consistancy and the character's true to themselves is an art.

This thread has been a delightful read. Please keep it going. Who's next?

[Faibhar]

"Imagination" coupled with derivative and evocative make for creative writing.

[Rubberwolf]

Before you can write, I believe that you should read. A lot. It is only then that you can understand what works and what doesn't. Grammar and spelling are important, but I can overlook the occasional blip, if the general story is OK.

Forget about BDSM etc for the moment. We do not just read/write BDSM stories. I also like Sci Fi, adventure, Fantasy, cop sagas, horror, etc. However, the main thing for me, regardless of the story that I am following, either a serial killer/cop saga or the adventures of a star ship that accelerates close to C with a hold full of cryogenically frozen colonists, even the crew of a 18th century war ship, is the charector depiction and the storyline. Do I care about these people? Do I care about their adventure?

And that is the true craft of the story teller. It has been the same since travelling bards came to tell of heroes and gods at the court of a local lord, Shamans imparted the oral history of of their peoples around a camp fire, or budding authors who post their work electronically.

If the writer can craft a world populated with good charectors and plot, that is believable, or at least enjoyable for the reader, then it doesn't matter how fantastic the original premis is. I mean, would you really read about people who lived on a giant disc, hurtling through space on the backs of four giant elephants, who were themselves standing on the back of a giant turtle, unless the writer could make you care?

Rant over

[Clevernick]

I don't think any one thing is enough. Who was it said writing was 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration?

Each one of us has different innate skills, and no doubt we envy the skills that others have, which we lack. Personally, I find it easy to use words and, from the feedback I have had over time, my writing is emotional and evocative. I find it quite easy to come up with an interesting initial idea, but I find it very, very difficult to turn that initial inspiration into a full story.

Others, I know, come up with full detailed, complex plots, and find it intensely difficult to create realistic characters, or to use words to describe atmosphere effectively and so engage the audience.

So - you need the lot, and the bits that don't come naturally, you just have to work at.

I like this one -- especially since as a voracious reader, I have noticed that even among my favorite professional authors, some of these skills are weak in each of them! In each case, they use their proficiency at the others to engage me anyway.

For example, in SF, Asimov cannot write character or interesting dialogue. Niven's characters are less than two-dimensional. But their ideas make it all worthwhile.

Meanwhile Sturgeon has few memorable ideas but can write engaging character and his empathy is very high, making him great to read and re-read.

So along with Moptop's wisdom I'd add -- if you're really good at some of these things, write to your strengths and you'll build enough of a fan base to give you time to work on your weaknesses -- or make them irrelevant!

[Mad Lews]

I like this one -- especially since as a voracious reader, I have noticed that even among my favorite professional authors, some of these skills are weak in each of them! In each case, they use their proficiency at the others to engage me anyway.

For example, in SF, Asimov cannot write character or interesting dialogue. Niven's characters are less than two-dimensional. But their ideas make it all worthwhile.

Meanwhile Sturgeon has few memorable ideas but can write engaging character and his empathy is very high, making him great to read and re-read.

So along with Moptop's wisdom I'd add -- if you're really good at some of these things, write to your strengths and you'll build enough of a fan base to give you time to work on your weaknesses -- or make them irrelevant!

Just don't tell me Heinlien's characters would have felt most at home in a forties comic book. Many of his pets became three dimensional eventually; honest.
As a fiction writer one must learn to lie convincingly.

[TomOfSweden]

As a fiction writer one must learn to lie convincingly.

I've heard that one too. I don't buy it. I can't lie convincingly for shit. If I just make it up it sucks. I always have to describe a real person in a real situation I remember but change things like size or scope. Minor things, but which of course can have major implications.

[Clevernick]

Just don't tell me Heinlien's characters would have felt most at home in a forties comic book. Many of his pets became three dimensional eventually; honest.

I think Heinlein's character (singular) was strong, convincing, and fascinating. The fact that the entire dramatis personae of his complete oeuvre was played by that same character, over and over, in drag, age makeup, and blackface where necessary, is just another fascinating tidbit. Oh, nearly forgot the other character: a strawman "bad guy" who pops up once in a while, having all the character of a broom with a face painted on it and a black hat perched atop. But he doesn't count.

If you doubt this assessment, re-read "The Number of the Beast", which should confirm it nicely for you.

And even with all that said, I re-read Heinlein with pleasure just to get more into the head of that one character, Admiral Lazarus Valentine Podkayne Stone Smith.

[Mad Lews]

I always have to describe a real person in a real situation I remember but change things like size or scope. Minor things, but which of course can have major implications.

And this is not a convincing lie, hung on the bones of experience? This is some fundamental truth that I missed?

I'll buy that one.

Mad

[Mad Lews]

I think Heinlein's character (singular) was strong, convincing, and fascinating. The fact that the entire dramatis personae of his complete oeuvre was played by that same character, over and over, in drag, age makeup, and blackface where necessary, is just another fascinating tidbit. Oh, nearly forgot the other character: a strawman "bad guy" who pops up once in a while, having all the character of a broom with a face painted on it and a black hat perched atop. But he doesn't count.

If you doubt this assessment, re-read "The Number of the Beast", which should confirm it nicely for you.

And even with all that said, I re-read Heinlein with pleasure just to get more into the head of that one character, Admiral Lazarus Valentine Podkayne Stone Smith.

Michael Valentine Smith... a very nuanced form of the singular character you see. Unlike you I think many of the versions of Heinlien's 'character/s' were overblown and less than convincing. and I was reading them as a wide eyed child of the fifties.

[Chuckdom19]

I have to agree with Storm and Simonelocke, among several others: I rather strongly believe that a good author must be able to walk around in the character's shoes. He/she may not *like* the character, but you have to understand them.

That may be the hardest of all the characteristics of a good writer.