Koakuma's Writer's Parlour ~ Have some tea and discuss fiction and writing here!

[capt. h]

I'll let you know, I'm not all that much into writing canon. In a world ruled by physics and chemistry that imposes natural law even on the tragectory of magic spells, I'm not going to try to justify danmaku that breaks the laws of physics.

Rikako had something about unified fields theory and magic. The sufficiently advanced theory works well with the assumption that Gensokyo has an energy source completely distinct in nature from heat, kenetic energy, electricity, etc. They already gave it the name magic, and going with the idea that magicians channel magic mechanically rather than spiritually would mean that the spells still have to follow laws like action-reaction, gravity, etc. I've been tinkering with the idea of the barrier as more of a magic dam than a physical obstruction as well.

Do readers generally prefer that authors follow the spell card rules, or would readers be more interested in stories where the touhou characters use their full abilities to their greatest extents in combat?

[Alfred F. Jones]

Do readers generally prefer that authors follow the spell card rules, or would readers be more interested in stories where the touhou characters use their full abilities to their greatest extents in combat?

Eh. I think readers have their preferences (I, for one, like to research the hell out of canon so I know exactly which bits of it I'm shattering to pieces as I write), but can accept either one as long as it's well-written. I personally like the use of full abilities, but I know a lot of people like spellcards instead. Up to you, really, as long as you can do it well.

[MayKissingDoveWyks]

Rikako had something about unified fields theory and magic. The sufficiently advanced theory works well with the assumption that Gensokyo has an energy source completely distinct in nature from heat, kenetic energy, electricity, etc. They already gave it the name magic, and going with the idea that magicians channel magic mechanically rather than spiritually would mean that the spells still have to follow laws like action-reaction, gravity, etc. I've been tinkering with the idea of the barrier as more of a magic dam than a physical obstruction as well.

Do readers generally prefer that authors follow the spell card rules, or would readers be more interested in stories where the touhou characters use their full abilities to their greatest extents in combat?

With what Rikako said, it would be Fridge Logic regardless.


The use of spell card rules or full abilities is entirely up to the author. If you find it more awesome and action-packed to have characters use their full ablities to their greatest extent, then by all means do it. It's your story.

Now that your think about it. Full abilities would be awesome...

[GuyYouMetOnline]

I don't see why you'd have to choose between the two. It's not like you can only have onetype of battle in a story. I decide which to use on a scene-by-scene basis. Using my current story, Orphan, as an example, the battles with the demons have been real fights. Orphan held herself back for other reasons in her fight, but Wriggle wasn't holding back during her fight with one. Wriggle's upsoming fight with Marisa, on the other hand, is going to be a danmaku fight. Use whichever's best for the scene; there's no reason you can only use one throughout an entire story.

[Iced Fairy]

Characterization is far more important then powers or spellcards really.  For some characters thier powers are an innate part of their character I feel (like Mokou's immortality), which for others it's merely a distraction (obsessing over Yukari's gap abilities is... a waste probably).  For newer authors I'd avoid powers, or for that matter combat, entirely until you have a firm grip on characterization.

Unless you're writing mecha combat.  Mecha combat is it's own unique awesome thing.

[MayKissingDoveWyks]

For some characters thier powers are an innate part of their character I feel (like Mokou's immortality), which for others it's merely a distraction (obsessing over Yukari's gap abilities is... a waste probably).  For newer authors I'd avoid powers, or for that matter combat, entirely until you have a firm grip on characterization.

I have used powers powers before, just as plot devices rather than combat... or subtleties in description of actions.

Combat isn't difficult if there is an understanding of power.

[andrewv42]

Characterization is far more important then powers or spellcards really.

I would agree; a story can be said to be masterfully written, but only under the condition that its characters can be acknowledged as human; and not idle portraits upon a ceiling, for that matter. It is through exploitation of that actuality that the more capable of authors grow to success. The appreciable virtues of their craft is to be found within the implementation of humanity into their prose, so as to do away with isolation between character and audience, and allow the two to be provoked into an association.

[capt. h]

Characterization is far more important then powers or spellcards really.  For some characters thier powers are an innate part of their character I feel (like Mokou's immortality), which for others it's merely a distraction (obsessing over Yukari's gap abilities is... a waste probably).  For newer authors I'd avoid powers, or for that matter combat, entirely until you have a firm grip on characterization.

Unless you're writing mecha combat.  Mecha combat is it's own unique awesome thing.

(Yukari as a character is a distraction. If you told me you made a character that could manipulate any conceptual border, I would have told you to throw that character out. She's too powerful to be a hero or a villian, any defeat immediately starts "why didn't she just...?" questions, and its very difficult to like a character that can resolve any problem with a quick shift in the boundary between safe and danger but decides to nag a weaker character into resolving it instead. Especially since you can argue that merely the declaration of a boundary makes it conceptual - I declare that there is a boundary between doing nothing and saving the world, then the concept of that boundary is formed, and Yukari can manipulate it all she wants.

I could even sympathize if she didn't do anything because she didn't want to, and was tired of solving everyone's problems. But she seems to put more effort into getting other people to resolve incidents than if she just did it herself.)

I would agree; a story can be said to be masterfully written, but only under the condition that its characters can be acknowledged as human; and not idle portraits upon a ceiling, for that matter. It is through exploitation of that actuality that the more capable of authors grow to success. The appreciable virtues of their craft is to be found within the implementation of humanity into their prose, so as to do away with isolation between character and audience, and allow the two to be provoked into an association.

Are you two talking about written fiction specifically? Because I can think of a whole bunch of awesome movies that seemed to ignore characterization. Generally, action movies are very light on good characterization.

Truth be told, I consider myself to be fairly good at the characterization part, at least for characters I care about. Not so much for characters I haven't developed an interest in.  In concept, it's easy to make the character have a great deal of depth, but I always have trouble getting the depth across. I think it's easier to do characterization in the first person, as long as the main character is interesting. It seems harder to do the characterization of other characters though, and being outside the head of the character is always the hard part for me; - the thoughts are what make the characters interesting, and if you can only see them through actions, then getting across things like motivations and their true feelings is hard, especially in a not particularly forthcoming character.

It doesn't help that I can't really pick up on the cues that make a character's real thoughts clear.

[Iced Fairy]

Yukari as a character is a distraction.

It's in fact one of the better examples.  Even if you assume her power is absolute (something a lot of people do to my annoyance) it doesn't say anything about her loves, goals and thoughts.

Let me use a more common example.  Superman.  Stories about Superman's powers are universally dull.  Stories about Superman, Krypton's last son, a man who can't save everyone despite how strong he is, are good stories.

Are you two talking about written fiction specifically?

Yes.  Written works are different from film.  If you write like an action flick you'll write terribly.  Similarly writing a manga work is terrible.  You need to write like a novelist.

Truth be told, I consider myself to be fairly good at the characterization part, at least for characters I care about.

Er...  Your writing seems very four komaish at best.

[Ryuu]

(Yukari as a character is a distraction. If you told me you made a character that could manipulate any conceptual border, I would have told you to throw that character out.

thankfully you are not the head of touhou character design because then we'd be out what is, in my opinion, one of the better characters in the series

She's too powerful to be a hero or a villian,

since when does power have any bearing on alignment? or whether or not you can be either or? haven't you ever read comics?

any defeat immediately starts "why didn't she just...?" questions,

no it doesn't. especially as how yukari has been defeated in canon(iamp and swr)

and its very difficult to like a character that can resolve any problem with a quick shift in the boundary between safe and danger but decides to nag a weaker character into resolving it instead.

it's really easy to like yukari imo. and why shouldn't she nag others to fix things? I can think of a million reasons. for one, it might not even be her problem. maybe it's fun to watch them solve things. maybe she wants them to grow stronger. maybe she just likes to bother people. maybe she wants to see their limits. maybe she wants to see how they fight or think. I'm not even scraping the surface with these few statements.

Especially since you can argue that merely the declaration of a boundary makes it conceptual - I declare that there is a boundary between doing nothing and saving the world, then the concept of that boundary is formed, and Yukari can manipulate it all she wants.

think avatar: the last airbender for a second. just because what's-her-face can bend water doesn't mean she can control the entire ocean at once.

I could even sympathize if she didn't do anything because she didn't want to, and was tired of solving everyone's problems. But she seems to put more effort into getting other people to resolve incidents than if she just did it herself.)

this methodology just strengthens the reasoning behind many of the possibilities I listed above.

Are you two talking about written fiction specifically? Because I can think of a whole bunch of awesome movies that seemed to ignore characterization. Generally, action movies are very light on good characterization.

I would really like some examples as to what movies completely ignore characterization as even the most plotless and paper thin characters have characterization if the movie is any good. while yes, it does take a back seat in action movies, it's still there and not ignored at all.

Truth be told, I consider myself to be fairly good at the characterization part, at least for characters I care about.

you shouldn't. especially considering the things you say in the rest of your paragraph.

In concept, it's easy to make the character have a great deal of depth,

actually it's supposed to be quite a lot of work.

but I always have trouble getting the depth across.

this is one of the lines I meant. if you're bad at getting depth across, how are you good at characterization?

It seems harder to do the characterization of other characters though, and being outside the head of the character is always the hard part for me; - the thoughts are what make the characters interesting, and if you can only see them through actions, then getting across things like motivations and their true feelings is hard, especially in a not particularly forthcoming character.

actually a lot of the depth in a character comes from their actions. especially the little things. if yuugi is talking about a pretty girl and parsee balls up the fabric of her skirt in her hands, it paints a pretty clear image that parsee is (of course) jealous. and is much more entertaining and interesting than "parsee got jealous"

It doesn't help that I can't really pick up on the cues that make a character's real thoughts clear.

you should really work on that if you want to be as good at characterization as you claim to be

[capt. h]

Er...  Your writing seems very four komaish at best.

 :colonveeplusalpha:

I'm that bad?!

I mean, I believe it. When you compare me Japanese puns translated into English, I can see why.

If I make another chapter/story with all the quality of my average, it means I stopped caring about what people think of my quality. If I post something interesting in the library, it means I decided to put the effort in to be good. But don't wait for anything.

Thanks Iced! I needed to know that.

[MayKissingDoveWyks]

 :colonveeplusalpha:

I'm that bad?!

I really think you should not be feeling that concerned about your style and execution. It's what makes an author unique and inspiring. Do it the way you want it to sound.

EDIT: Maybe you want to look at prolificacy vs. quality. That's really difficult to work out sometimes.

[andrewv42]

Really, creativity is, in some part, the craft of the subconscious. Your mind only analyses ideas and evaluates their feasibility, but that can occur days or even months after the preliminary basis of a concept is actually composed. It is impossible to command yourself into producing the perfect idea; brainstorming is an action that conduces no certain result. You're basically exploring your mind, and memory, in particular, for a notion which satisfies, but you're never necessarily capable of imagining something that's alien to yourself.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's fruitless to tyrannise yourself into changing the nature of what you imagine; the best of its attempt should only procure a chaotic turmoil of disorganised thoughts whose insensible entanglement can only be confusedly interpreted by your mind. Represent yourself in a manner that allows your expressive character to flow, otherwise writing will become more tedious than enjoyable.

As I mentioned previously, the most successful fiction involves characters who can be recognised as human; they're not going to be perceptible as such if they're not created by an aspect of your imagination that you're familiar with. Go to any bookstore and search for a, "Best sellers," collection, or something of the like - even the most mediocre establishments are likely to display them. I can guarantee that most of the fiction novels there are admired for their play upon society, and the so-called, "Human condition," that authors such as Jane Austen are celebrated for; even those that appear to focus upon a concentric topic of science fiction or adventure must necessarily involve a character relationship that engages the reader in a way that no explosive plotline ever could.

No body wants to know about a broken cup; but imburse that shattered artifice with a voice, and a human intellect, and all of a sudden you have an opportunity for a story.

Well, I certainly went from one idea to another.

[capt. h]

Really, creativity is, in some part, the craft of the subconscious. Your mind only analyses ideas and evaluates their feasibility, but that can occur days or even months after the preliminary basis of a concept is actually composed. It is impossible to command yourself into producing the perfect idea; brainstorming is an action that conduces no certain result. You're basically exploring your mind, and memory, in particular, for a notion which satisfies, but you're never necessarily capable of imagining something that's alien to yourself.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's fruitless to tyrannise yourself into changing the nature of what you imagine; the best of its attempt should only procure a chaotic turmoil of disorganised thoughts whose insensible entanglement can only be confusedly interpreted by your mind. Represent yourself in a manner that allows your expressive character to flow, otherwise writing will become more tedious than enjoyable.

As I mentioned previously, the most successful fiction involves characters who can be recognised as human; they're not going to be perceptible as such if they're not created by an aspect of your imagination that you're familiar with. Go to any bookstore and search for a, "Best sellers," collection, or something of the like - even the most mediocre establishments are likely to display them. I can guarantee that most of the fiction novels there are admired for their play upon society, and the so-called, "Human condition," that authors such as Jane Austen are popular for; even those that appear to focus upon a concentric topic of science fiction or adventure must necessarily involve a character relationship that engages the reader in a way that no explosive plotline ever could.

No body wants to know about a broken cup; but imburse that shattered artifice with a voice, and a human intellect, and all of a sudden you have an opportunity for a story.

Well, I certainly went from one idea to another.

You know, your posts would be much easier to read if you didn't use so much purple prose.

But the nature of what I imagine is what I have been writing in some sense. I only put limits on at the advice of outsiders because they outright tell me that my default writing style is mediocre. And frankly I haven't the slightest interest in writing about the "human condition."  I'm fine with characterization, but the human condition is one topic that I refuse to touch. In fact, I would rather give up writing altogether than discuss what makes a man a man.

It's for philosophical reasons. I don't think there is anything to analyze about being human. You're human, and that's the end of the conversation - anything beyond that is pointless, and possibly even regressing from what I think is the correct view that there is nothing more or less about being human than having the biological characteristics of a human being. Because I think the deeper the discussion about the human condition becomes, the more the participants are turning away from what I think is the functionally correct answer (correct de facto in the physical interactions of people rather than correct by philosophical proof or formal recognition), I am adamantly opposed to the whole notion of a human condition.

The "human condition" is one of those things I feel strongly about, and about which my opinions run very contrary to the norm.

[Ryuu]

You know, your posts would be much easier to read if you didn't use so much purple prose.

that post was super easy to read and had no purple prose what are you talking about

But the nature of what I imagine is what I have been writing in some sense. I only put limits on at the advice of outsiders because they outright tell me that my default writing style is mediocre.

if one person tells you it's mediocre then you can just shrug it off

if multiple people are saying that your writing--or really anything you do(and this goes to everyone)--is mediocre then maybe you should take into account what they are saying because it's probably true.

I don't think there is anything to analyze about being human.

whaaaaaaihsioghoipgahsdgopahgopsghsgpaosg

You're human, and that's the end of the conversation - anything beyond that is pointless, and possibly even regressing from what I think is the correct view that there is nothing more or less about being human than having the biological characteristics of a human being. Because I think the deeper the discussion about the human condition becomes, the more the participants are turning away from what I think is the functionally correct answer (correct de facto in the physical interactions of people rather than correct by philosophical proof or formal recognition), I am adamantly opposed to the whole notion of a human condition.

The "human condition" is one of those things I feel strongly about, and about which my opinions run very contrary to the norm.

 :colonveeplusalpha:

[andrewv42]

I don't even know what a, "Human condition," is intended to refer to, in all honesty; whether it be our social tendencies or something else entirely, I know not. I see it mentioned when discussing the virtues of authors who are apparently successful in its representation, but my own confused understanding of it is what made me to emplace it between speech marks, so as to imply how it is, really, specialised terminology.

My intended point was that it is the illustration of humanity that is often most attractive to an audience.

(In order to diminish upon my, "Purple prose," I replaced several words and phrases in this post with more colloquial alternatives)

[capt. h]

that post was super easy to read and had no purple prose what are you talking about
 

I hope that's sarcasm.

if one person tells you it's mediocre then you can just shrug it off

if multiple people are saying that your writing--or really anything you do(and this goes to everyone)--is mediocre then maybe you should take into account what they are saying because it's probably true.

Yes. Yes I know that you and Iced Fairy think I'm mediocre. Actually, that's probably a euphamism. I'd be surprised if you two didn't think my writing was just plain bad.

The truth is that Iced Fairy writes stories I have an interest in all the time, and I wouldn't mind writing in Iced Fairy's style one bit. So I agree with his criticisms, which will probably bring me more in line with his style because it follows his philosophy on good writing.

You on the other hand are a mediocre writer. And while I know it has no bearing on the perfectly legitimate criticisms you are offering, I do not want to improve my way into your style. I happen to like my writing style, and while I would consider Iced style an improvement, I would consider yours as a downgrade. Don't put to much stock in that though; I would consider Rou's style a downgrade as well - he just uses to many words, and I can't read his stories to the end in spite of him being good.

[MayKissingDoveWyks]

Well, I certainly went from one idea to another.

The first part is one grand idea. The other seems more like how to appeal in writing.

I hope that's sarcasm.

You on the other hand are a mediocre writer. And while I know it has no bearing on the perfectly legitimate criticisms you are offering, I do not want to improve my way into your style. I happen to like my writing style, and while I would consider Iced style an improvement, I would consider yours as a downgrade. Don't put to much stock in that though; I would consider Rou's style a downgrade as well - he just uses to many words, and I can't read his stories to the end in spite of him being good.

Capt. H... seriously...

If he usually is taking your posts and answering each section with a witty remark of his own, then DON'T deal with him. And saying shit about him in return makes it worse.

So far, from what I have seen, he's been going at it with you like he has a grudge. Please, just don't pander to his nonsense, or make it worse by saying stuff like this. Because doing so causes more anger to be thrown around.

[MaxKnight]

Someone once said (and where exactly, I can't remember) something about writing so that a character sounds the way they want them to sound...  This seems both easy and difficult (to me, anyways), but when writing scenes in my head that aren't to happen for many chapters in the future (inefficient, I know) I've come to the conclusion that I like the idea of Yuuka sounding like a Cardassian from Star Trek.

More specifically, like a female Gul Dukat from Deep Space Nine; she would constantly ooze false sincerity and sound incredibly confidant and smug when speaking to, say, Reimu.  I don't know...  When imagining out the scene that I had come up with, each time Yuuka spoke, that was what I was thinking.  I haven't been able to connect anybody else's voices to characters from anywhere else, so I can't be certain that this is something I would want to concentrate on, but I figured I'd say something, and maybe get an opinion (preferably from people that know what I'm talking about, since it wouldn't do to get an opinion from someone that had never heard the character before).

Hmm... I guess I'll have to give it more thought... or maybe less...

[capt. h]

The first part is one grand idea. The other seems more like how to appeal in writing.

Capt. H... seriously...

If he usually is taking your posts and answering each section with a witty remark of his own, then DON'T deal with him. And saying shit about him in return makes it worse.

So far, from what I have seen, he's been going at it with you like he has a grudge. Please, just don't pander to his nonsense, or make it worse by saying stuff like this. Because doing so causes more anger to be thrown around.

You're right. sorry.

Someone once said (and where exactly, I can't remember) something about writing so that a character sounds the way they want them to sound...  This seems both easy and difficult (to me, anyways), but when writing scenes in my head that aren't to happen for many chapters in the future (inefficient, I know) I've come to the conclusion that I like the idea of Yuuka sounding like a Cardassian from Star Trek.

More specifically, like a female Gul Dukat from Deep Space Nine; she would constantly ooze false sincerity and sound incredibly confidant and smug when speaking to, say, Reimu.  I don't know...  When imagining out the scene that I had come up with, each time Yuuka spoke, that was what I was thinking.  I haven't been able to connect anybody else's voices to characters from anywhere else, so I can't be certain that this is something I would want to concentrate on, but I figured I'd say something, and maybe get an opinion (preferably from people that know what I'm talking about, since it wouldn't do to get an opinion from someone that had never heard the character before).

Hmm... I guess I'll have to give it more thought... or maybe less...

If your audience is as unable to hear the characters talking with the voices you intended, well...

I do not hear the characters voice when I read. I don't know about how other people read stories though. But if you have in mind a "Vito Corleone" voice for a character, unless you tell me he sounds like Vito Corleone I will never be able to guess the voice, or even think to give the character a voice.

I only speak for myself because I don't know what the average is. Maybe most people assign roles to voices when they read. I do know that having characters for which the audience knows that there is in fact a voice and letting the audience know what the voice is makes the characters much, much better. It's why I liked Agatha Christie's Poirot's books much more after watching the show and learning how Poirot sounds. But if you use words alone, subtlety will not work in the slightest. Describing the voice and it's texture will not be sufficient. Pointing at exactly the voice you intend to convey is the only thing that will get through to me. And even that won't work here, because I don't know what the character you are referring to sounds like. (EDIT: In this case, to get through to me personally, you would pretty much have to post a youtube clip of her voice or I will not be able to picture it.'s sound)

That said, I kind of hope most readers can pick up on the Columbo voice with a good description alone rather than simply telling the audience it's Columbo's voice. Not all of them (because I won't be able to), but most of them.

[andrewv42]

I do not hear the characters voice when I read. I don't know about how other people read stories though.

Haha well of course, one can only interpret the world through their own eyes.

[Esifex]

I was the one who mentioned the character-voice technique.

I only do that to plot out how exactly they'd talk - would they be precise and to the point, would they chatter, would they meander about from topic to topic, would they offer a smartass remark in return to a request for whatever...
Stuff like that. All it does is helps me write. If I can pull it off successfully, the readers will start to develop their own image of the character, and I can refrain from the 'he said, she said, he said, she said' rigmarole and trust the readers to understand who's saying what just by what is being said.

But sometimes its fun to point out and assign voices to the characters, like Roukan's 'Jack' in Del Sancti. I read his lines, and imagined them as being said in Hagrid's voice, from the Harry Potter movies.


RE: Difficulty reading - if you think some of the stuff being discussed here is loaded on purple prose, or that Roukan uses too many big words, I recommend expanding your reading habits. Before you can write well, you should be able to read, and enjoy it. I don't mean dive directly into 'Pride and Prejudice' or something like that, but in some of your free time, read a book or two, rather than veg out on games or something. Especially if you want to pursue a writing hobby - it'll only help.

[andrewv42]

Oh god pride and prejudice, what a masterpiece.

I never managed to finish reading it; I totally have to pick it up sometime and do so with promptitude... I'll contrive to finish Blue at the Mizzen before I should, though; I'm affectionate towards completing the Aubrey-Maturin series before I should adventure upon anything different.

[Iced Fairy]

Re characters speaking:
I know I'm on to something when the character changes one of my lines to better suit the characters views instead of my own.  That's a rare occurrence though.

More importantly you have to remember textual speech isn't real speech.  It should sound like something a real person could say, but it'll always be more detailed because you need to convey more information.  Word choice and vocabulary is really helpful here, though admittedly it's hard to keep consistent without a proofreader.  When I did my Battletech crossover getting Clan speech right (no contractions) was much harder then it seemed like it should be.

Before you can write well, you should be able to read, and enjoy it. I don't mean dive directly into 'Pride and Prejudice' or something like that, but in some of your free time, read a book or two, rather than veg out on games or something. Especially if you want to pursue a writing hobby - it'll only help.

This.  A thousand times this.  There are writing tricks suffused throughout the English language and they just don't teach them in English class.  At least not well.  Only by reading lots of different works can you fully appreciate things like diction, and how they make the writing move.  My ideas for Touhou may have come from the Sandman and Mage: the Ascension.  But my writing is drawn from Heinlein to Brust.  I may default to Stackpolesque 'brick to the face' prose, but sometimes you need something more in depth.  A writer should be able to write a full chapter on something as simple as eating a good meal, and they should be able to indicate their characters had a good meal without ever using the words "a good meal" or giving any description of the actual food involved.

(Note: Most of my reading has actually been within the Fantasy-Scifi area, though of course I branch out.  The main thing isn't the "quality" of the work from an English major standpoint.  It's reading a diverse body of works in depth and actually watching the language flow.)

[Ryuu]

sms: there's only one person I have a grudge on and it's not capt h, thank you very much. there is no anger going on here, unless I am pissing off capt h in which case I apologize.

capth:
-if I am mediocre, then please offer examples as to why you think so
-tbh I am actually quite fond of your enthusiasm for writing which is why I am so hard on you
-the criticism I am giving you is not to "improve into my style" or however you say it, it's just general advice.
-you should really learn to appreciate styles you don't like. while I am not fond of any sort of (real) purple prose, I can still recognize a talented prose writer compared to an amateurish one. this will not only help you find exactly where you should be as a writer, but make your comments on writing seem much, much more legitimate and not so opinionated.
-related to above point, just because someone writes in a way that makes it difficult for  you to understand, it does not make them a bad writer.
-you seem to be very hung up on how you see things and how things affect you, and while that is good information to have if someone were to aim to please you specifically, the truth is that most of us aren't. in fact, many of us just write for ourselves. imo you should probably try and take a step back and think about how other people like things and how things affect other people, instead of just yourself.
-also what everyone else said

quoting posts and then pulling them apart is too much effort

[MayKissingDoveWyks]

I'd like to point out the fact how sometimes what people say is being thrown around and used as be related to other things, out of context.

sms: there's only one person I have a grudge on and it's not capt h, thank you very much. there is no anger going on here, unless I am pissing off capt h in which case I apologize.

It's the way you respond or try to give him advice.

When he's making an opinion or stating what he feels, breaking up the post and answering to snippets at a time does not look like advice or response. It looks more like you're nitpicking at what he's saying.

[Ryuu]

I'd like to point out the fact how sometimes what people say is being thrown around and used as be related to other things, out of context.

It's the way you respond or try to give him advice.

When he's making an opinion or stating what he feels, breaking up the post and answering to snippets at a time does not look like advice or response. It looks more like you're nitpicking at what he's saying.

I am nitpicking. it's easier to respond to each separate thought that way.

that doesn't mean I have a grudge on him

[MayKissingDoveWyks]

that doesn't mean I have a grudge on him

So far, from what I have seen, he's been going at it with you LIKE he has a grudge.

ending my portion of discussion here

EDIT: I'm sorry if I use similes and metaphors in my writing. My writing is poorly worded, I guess.

[Alfred F. Jones]

Can we please end this line of discussion here? I don't particularly relish the idea of this conversation continuing in Koakuma's. Take it to more private channels.

[Esifex]

To sum up what I think is Ryuu's best point here -

Pull the ZUN approach to writing. If you can't find a story out there that you like and enjoy reading, then maybe you should write it. If you write it, at least you'll know you like it.