Writing Tips of the Day

Games and stories.
Mobius 1
Global Mod
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Mobius 1 »

It's a dilemma that definitely highlights the potential conflict between worldbuilding and storytelling, alright.
SHADOW TEMPEST BLACK || STB2: MIDNIGHT PARADOX
The day our skys fe||, the heavens split to create new skies.
User avatar
Somes J
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Somes J »

Dakarne wrote:But at the end of the day, Somes J... you could have all of that, and if your characters and story aren't up to scratch, it will all have been for nothing. It's not just unnecessary, it's also not really the most important thing to focus on.
It's true that worldbuilding is only part of the picture, and you can write decent speculative fiction in which minimal effort is invested in worldbuilding (a character driven piece about people reacting to an alien invasion, for instance), but I don't think discussion on how to create a good setting is out of place here.
Participate in my hard SF worldbuilding project: The Known Galaxy. Come to our message board and experience my unique brand of terribleness!

"One is respected and judged only as a human being. It is an appalling experience."
Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness.

"Open your mind and hear what your heart wants to deny."
Samuel Anders, nBSG, Daybreak, Part 2.
User avatar
Dakarne
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: England. :(
Contact:

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Dakarne »

Not out of place, no. But is a particular piece of world-building better than another piece of world-building because it uses hard scientific principles as opposed to some more fantastical principles? No. It doesn't even achieve as much of the merit as you say it does because the best piece of world-building in fiction, that being Tolkien's Middle-Earth, used magic all over the bloody place. It was considered the best world-building because it was a living and breathing world - one that felt real because it had a history, people, places, events, personalities and entire detailed languages. If it had used hard science, that part would still have been the strongest part of it.
Image
'For the moment, mortal, they find the thought of killing me more desirable than that of killing you.'
'And what are their chances?'
'The answer to that is evident in how long they've been hesitating, wouldn't you think, mortal?'

-Anomander Rake and Ganoes Paran in Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson
Mobius 1
Global Mod
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Mobius 1 »

However, no matter how muddled the line between sci-fi and fantasy may be, no one would accuse LOTR of being science fiction. A more modern example of sci-fi worldbuilding on the softer side of things that creates a living verse would be Star Wars, which no one can disagree is ridiculously detailed.

And if anyone says "space fantasy" or "space opera," or "here's my no true Scotsman," I'll punch them through the Internet.
SHADOW TEMPEST BLACK || STB2: MIDNIGHT PARADOX
The day our skys fe||, the heavens split to create new skies.
User avatar
Dakarne
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: England. :(
Contact:

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Dakarne »

Considering that Star Wars is the quintessential example of a space opera, based off of similar space operas such as the Foundation/Empire series and the original planetary romances such as Flash Gordon and Lensman... and it is effectively a high fantasy story with wizards, knights, and dark sorcerers wielding magic in a galaxy-spanning setting... you don't have much room for protest.
Image
'For the moment, mortal, they find the thought of killing me more desirable than that of killing you.'
'And what are their chances?'
'The answer to that is evident in how long they've been hesitating, wouldn't you think, mortal?'

-Anomander Rake and Ganoes Paran in Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson
Mobius 1
Global Mod
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Mobius 1 »

Dakarne wrote:Considering that Star Wars is the quintessential example of a space opera, based off of similar space operas such as the Foundation/Empire series and the original planetary romances such as Flash Gordon and Lensman... and it is effectively a high fantasy story with wizards, knights, and dark sorcerers wielding magic in a galaxy-spanning setting... you don't have much room for protest.
You miss the point. While the sci-fi/fantasy line is so muddled as to be nonexistent, comparing LOTR to hard sci-fi worldbuilding is apples to oranges. Moreover, I'm pretty sure most of the entire universe beyond Fatty Nerds (a STRAK tm) would identify Star Wars as the quintessential representation of science fiction. With the particle beams and aliens and walking mecha and superlasers and commlinks and holograms and splicers and clones and megacorps and cybernetic prostheses and jetpacks and giant starships and droids and all (see, two can play that game).
SHADOW TEMPEST BLACK || STB2: MIDNIGHT PARADOX
The day our skys fe||, the heavens split to create new skies.
User avatar
Dakarne
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: England. :(
Contact:

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Dakarne »

It doesn't change the fact that the Galactic Empire ruled by an evil sorcerer. Said evil sorcerer's primary minion is specifically modelled after the black knight, wielding a sword and his own dark mystical powers - this type of character has actually got its own set of D&D classes. The primary opposition to this is a young farmboy who was taught to wield magic and sword-fight by an ageing wizard and a goblin, thus becoming something which is explicitly referred to as a knight from a monastic-religious order. Along the way, the young knight battles his darker mirror, the black knight, and loses his hand in a moment which has symbolic ties to the loss of Tyr's hand from Norse mythology, as well as the loss of his sword. Recovering from his ordeal, the young knight reforges his blade, battles and slays a creature which could be seen as analogous to a dragon, and then proceeds to battle the black knight again. Having learned from his prior mistakes, the young knight finds the strength to vanquish the black knight, and denies the corruptive influence of the evil sorcerer.

This is all guided, behind the scenes, by the magic of the setting acting as an influence upon fate and destiny, both of which are heavy themes within the story.

If Star Wars isn't fantasy, then I don't know what is.
Image
'For the moment, mortal, they find the thought of killing me more desirable than that of killing you.'
'And what are their chances?'
'The answer to that is evident in how long they've been hesitating, wouldn't you think, mortal?'

-Anomander Rake and Ganoes Paran in Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson
User avatar
Destructionator
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 4:33 pm
Location: Watertown, New York
Contact:

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Destructionator »

In practice, there is no line between science fiction and fantasy. They are one and the same to most folks.
His Certifiable Geniusness, Adam D. Ruppe (My 'verse)
Marle: Lucca! You're amazing!
Lucca: Ain't it the truth! ... Oh, um...I mean...
Marle: Enough with the false modesty! You have a real gift! I would trade my royal ancestry for your genius in a heartbeat!

"I still really hate those pompous assholes who quote themselves in their sigs." -- Me
User avatar
Dakarne
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: England. :(
Contact:

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Dakarne »

Destructionator wrote:In practice, there is no line between science fiction and fantasy. They are one and the same to most folks.
I'm not sure what 'most folks' you're thinking of, but there's a clear and distinctive line between 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Star Trek' in most peoples' minds, even if they may use the labels 'science fiction' and 'fantasy' interchangeably.
Image
'For the moment, mortal, they find the thought of killing me more desirable than that of killing you.'
'And what are their chances?'
'The answer to that is evident in how long they've been hesitating, wouldn't you think, mortal?'

-Anomander Rake and Ganoes Paran in Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson
User avatar
Destructionator
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 4:33 pm
Location: Watertown, New York
Contact:

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Destructionator »

Eh, there probably is a degree of "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it", but at the same time, the channel guides list Star Trek under the "fantasy" category, and half the Sci-Fi channel's lineup is dragons vs wizards; nobody expects the label, at least, to have meaning.
His Certifiable Geniusness, Adam D. Ruppe (My 'verse)
Marle: Lucca! You're amazing!
Lucca: Ain't it the truth! ... Oh, um...I mean...
Marle: Enough with the false modesty! You have a real gift! I would trade my royal ancestry for your genius in a heartbeat!

"I still really hate those pompous assholes who quote themselves in their sigs." -- Me
User avatar
Somes J
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Somes J »

Dakarne wrote:But is a particular piece of world-building better than another piece of world-building because it uses hard scientific principles as opposed to some more fantastical principles? No. It doesn't even achieve as much of the merit as you say it does because the best piece of world-building in fiction, that being Tolkien's Middle-Earth, used magic all over the bloody place. It was considered the best world-building because it was a living and breathing world - one that felt real because it had a history, people, places, events, personalities and entire detailed languages. If it had used hard science, that part would still have been the strongest part of it.
That doesn't address the point I was making. It's not that hard science is inherently better, it's that it can help you be more creative/original by forcing you to break free of well-worn science fiction tropes, because they simply don't work in a hard science universe (at least not without serious modification).

It's rather ironic that you should use Tolkien for an example, because isn't the fantasy genre rather cluttered with universes reusing Tolkien tropes, often with a degredation in quality because the author isn't Tolkien and misses a lot of the subtleties in the original (e.g. "dwarves drink ale and elves are prissy dicks")? That's exactly the problem I'm talking about. Fantasy has to be the genre with the greatest creative freedom in theory - you aren't bound by the rules of reality, and the number of imaginable realities is infinite. But a lot of authors reuse concepts from Tolkien (or take them second or fifth hand from one of his imitators) because it's easier to borrow from others than to make up your own stuff. Frankly I think this probably happens to the detriment of the genre. And you get the same kinds of phenomenon in science fiction (and I imagine probably in every genre, really). What I'm saying is adopting a somewhat unusual premise - like strict adherence to hard science - can be a good way to stop yourself from just regurgitating genre cliches like that.

Of course, you don't need hard science to have a novel promise, but it does have the virtue of being a consistent world-system that's radically different from pop SF tropes in a number of ways that's already prepared for you, instead of having to make it up yourself.

Of course, a sufficiently good writer doesn't need to worry about this at all - but isn't this thread aimed at amateurs who will probably be all over the map in quality?
Participate in my hard SF worldbuilding project: The Known Galaxy. Come to our message board and experience my unique brand of terribleness!

"One is respected and judged only as a human being. It is an appalling experience."
Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness.

"Open your mind and hear what your heart wants to deny."
Samuel Anders, nBSG, Daybreak, Part 2.
User avatar
Somes J
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Somes J »

Destructionator wrote:Eh, there probably is a degree of "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it", but at the same time, the channel guides list Star Trek under the "fantasy" category, and half the Sci-Fi channel's lineup is dragons vs wizards; nobody expects the label, at least, to have meaning.
I imagine it's largely a matter of the aesthetics with which the plot devices are presented. Science fiction presents them with funky machines, lab coats, and "sciency"-sounding explanations full of the right buzz words. Fantasy presents them with wands and wizards and openly admits it's magic. But at the bottom line to the average person in both cases it's more-or-less basically voodoo with arbitrary properties that basically exists in the story to serve as a plot device.

Eliezer Yudkowsky calls this the literary genre of science.
Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:The X-Men comics use terms like "evolution", "mutation", and "genetic code", purely to place themselves in what they conceive to be the literary genre of science. The part that scares me is wondering how many people, especially in the media, understand science only as a literary genre.
Participate in my hard SF worldbuilding project: The Known Galaxy. Come to our message board and experience my unique brand of terribleness!

"One is respected and judged only as a human being. It is an appalling experience."
Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness.

"Open your mind and hear what your heart wants to deny."
Samuel Anders, nBSG, Daybreak, Part 2.
User avatar
Dakarne
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: England. :(
Contact:

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Dakarne »

But in the area of being more creative and original, you don't need to use hard science in order to achieve that. And to be honest, writing advice is actually not about whether you're using the old clichés of elves in fantasy, visible lasers in science fiction or anything else along those lines. Being more original and/or creative in your world-building counts for precisely jack and shit in the long run when it comes to storytelling, and storytelling is what this thread is about. There is a list of 'things which are much more important than that' when it comes to storytelling. It's not even the most important thing in world-building.

Here is that long list of things, in descending order, and only the first four are genuinely important;
  1. Making sure the main characters are interesting to read.
  2. Making sure the plot is both consistent and interesting.
  3. Making sure your overall story is at least believable for an audience
  4. Making sure that your writing style is decent enough to fit your story
  5. Making sure the main characters are at least somewhat original - or is at least deliberately using recognisable elements in a new fashion.
  6. Making sure the plot is at least somewhat original - or is at least deliberately using recognisable elements in a new fashion.
  7. Making sure the world you're working in is somewhat interesting
  8. Making sure the world you're working in is complex and developed
  9. Making sure the world you're working in is original - or is deliberately using recognisable elements in a new fashion.
If I'm going to offer advice to writers learning their craft, I'd say that it's far more important that areas 1-4 are fulfilled than anything else. Actually building a world and making it work? That's completely unnecessary for storytelling. You'll notice that original worldbuilding is also actually last on the list in importance for a reason.
Image
'For the moment, mortal, they find the thought of killing me more desirable than that of killing you.'
'And what are their chances?'
'The answer to that is evident in how long they've been hesitating, wouldn't you think, mortal?'

-Anomander Rake and Ganoes Paran in Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson
User avatar
Destructionator
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 4:33 pm
Location: Watertown, New York
Contact:

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Destructionator »

I think the point he is making is merely that hard science helps in areas #2 and #3.
His Certifiable Geniusness, Adam D. Ruppe (My 'verse)
Marle: Lucca! You're amazing!
Lucca: Ain't it the truth! ... Oh, um...I mean...
Marle: Enough with the false modesty! You have a real gift! I would trade my royal ancestry for your genius in a heartbeat!

"I still really hate those pompous assholes who quote themselves in their sigs." -- Me
User avatar
Somes J
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Somes J »

Destructionator wrote:I think the point he is making is merely that hard science helps in areas #2 and #3.
Yes. From a storytelling perspective an interesting and original setting should exist to help you tell interesting and original stories.

I mean that's basically what I've been trying to say. Let's say you're trying to write a book about a war in space, between different star systems. You can go with all the classic soft SF conventions or you can go with hard science. Going with hard science may help you make a more original, and therefore more interesting, plot by forcing you to deal with issues like "it'll take decades to reach the enemy" and "why are they even fighting?" that most SF just handwaves away with magic. These problems will make a lot of cliche plot elements unworkable, at least without serious modification, and this may lead you to come up with a more distinctive, original, and therefore interesting story.
Participate in my hard SF worldbuilding project: The Known Galaxy. Come to our message board and experience my unique brand of terribleness!

"One is respected and judged only as a human being. It is an appalling experience."
Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness.

"Open your mind and hear what your heart wants to deny."
Samuel Anders, nBSG, Daybreak, Part 2.
User avatar
Dakarne
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: England. :(
Contact:

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Dakarne »

And yet I can guarantee you that not many audiences will be interested in how the battle takes twenty years because it is all slower-than-light. Interesting to a science nerd is not necessarily interesting to many other people. Or, in fact, any other people. Hard science can occasionally help, but it's unnecessary. It is vastly more important to work out a decent story and characterisation than it is to work out something which is scientifically plausible. Because all the hard science in the world can't make a decent character, or create a decent plot. It can influence a decent plot, but if the decent plot doesn't work with hard science, perhaps it's time to reconsider using hard science as opposed to reconsidering the use of a plot.

Can it help? Possibly. Is the advice at all necessary at the stages where you're more concerned about being able to develop such things as characters and plot in the first place? No. I don't even think it's even all that beneficial. All you're doing is offering up another set of genre conventions that are not needed, and really don't need to be there in order to create a believable plot, because suspension of disbelief will wallpaper over scientific errors quite easily.

Creating consistent characters, consistent lines of storytelling, and making sure the audience isn't frustrated by your prose are so much more important than hard science in the area of storytelling that I don't even think I should even have to say that it is fucking not important. Writing is, first and foremost, an extremely literal art; it is a form of cultural and creative expression which occasionally has some amount of significance. I would see to it that you work out the artistic side of things way before you start worrying about the sciences. The only sciences that one should worry about to begin with are the laws of grammar.

And focusing too much on hard science whilst trying to sort out these more important issues? That can actually hurt a story more than hinder it; if you take it too far, the story stops being about Luke Skywalker's battle against evil, but about how his lightsabre functions by concentrating an amount of plasma within a particularly strong electromagnetic field. Hard science should, if used at such an early stage of writing, be mere background detail. Background details are, for the purposes of storytelling, exactly that; in the background. They are unimportant.
Image
'For the moment, mortal, they find the thought of killing me more desirable than that of killing you.'
'And what are their chances?'
'The answer to that is evident in how long they've been hesitating, wouldn't you think, mortal?'

-Anomander Rake and Ganoes Paran in Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson
User avatar
Somes J
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Somes J »

Dakarne wrote:And yet I can guarantee you that not many audiences will be interested in how the battle takes twenty years because it is all slower-than-light.
On the other hand they may be interested in the consequences for the character and his family who won't see each other for the next 60 years; a potentially quite interesting angle that would never have come up if you just handwaved away the distance problem.
Interesting to a science nerd is not necessarily interesting to many other people. Or, in fact, any other people.
The technology and science itself may not be particularly interesting except to a tiny niche market, but things like the capabilities of the technology and the implications of the vast distances between the stars will have social and plot implications that may have quite interesting consequences for a story. Isn't exploring that kind of stuff part of what speculative fiction is supposed to be all about?
Hard science can occasionally help, but it's unnecessary. It is vastly more important to work out a decent story and characterisation than it is to work out something which is scientifically plausible.
This is true. I am simply saying the latter may sometimes help with the former, by helping you think up a fresher and more original plot.
Creating consistent characters, consistent lines of storytelling, and making sure the audience isn't frustrated by your prose are so much more important than hard science in the area of storytelling that I don't even think I should even have to say that it is fucking not important.
Keep in mind, again, I wasn't talking about hard science as an end in itself but recommending it as one possible means (out of many) to achieve an interesting plot. I'd say achieving an interesting plot is certainly relevant enough to writing that advice on things that might help you with it have a place here. Of course, hard science is only one of many ways to do it.

Also, not to be petty but I'd just like to point out that you were the one that originally brought up the role of scientific realism in fiction, by dismissing it while I guess telling me that I shouldn't be annoyed that authors like to give nonhumans superhuman abilities without any of the downsides they should logically come with, and I responded by defending hard science as potentially having a role in helping write a better story. It's not like I came in here and was all like "I think aspiring authors should totally all try to write hard science fiction".
And focusing too much on hard science whilst trying to sort out these more important issues? That can actually hurt a story more than hinder it; if you take it too far, the story stops being about Luke Skywalker's battle against evil, but about how his lightsabre functions by concentrating an amount of plasma within a particularly strong electromagnetic field. Hard science should, if used at such an early stage of writing, be mere background detail. Background details are, for the purposes of storytelling, exactly that; in the background. They are unimportant.
I would contest your statement that background is not important, because background is often what shapes the foreground. Take Dune for instance. The "background" of how the Spice works, how it's necessary to interstellar civilization, how shields work etc. is all crucially important to the plot. You can tell decent stories where the background is minimally thought out, but a lot of speculative fiction writers like to write in rich universes in which case yes, the background of how that universe works is going to be significant to the story. For starters, one of the reasons you often really want to have some background worked out beforehand is if you don't you risk inadvertently answering important questions one way on page 12 and another on page 136 because you haven't thought through the implications of what you wrote down, in a way that breaks suspension of disbelief for anyone who does give any thought to the subject. Now a good writer makes the plot flow naturally from the background and the narrative flow naturally with the plot so the background is unobtrusive, but that doesn't mean it's not important.

Now as for your first point, I'm honestly not really sure what you're worried about; whether it's hard science killing good plots or the author taking infodumps all over the text. The latter is simply bad technique, and I already said that a good author makes the background seem unobtrusive. Besides, it's not like it's a failing unique to hard SF, in fact I've encountered more in soft SF like Star Trek or (soft) military SF. As far as the former goes, it's a concern and ultimately if there absolutely is a clash between science and a good story the story should win. Personally I think that card is a little overplayed though. You really can't think up any interesting stories in a universe that follows the rules of reality? Really? If you look around the real world right now I see plenty of material for interesting stories.
Participate in my hard SF worldbuilding project: The Known Galaxy. Come to our message board and experience my unique brand of terribleness!

"One is respected and judged only as a human being. It is an appalling experience."
Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness.

"Open your mind and hear what your heart wants to deny."
Samuel Anders, nBSG, Daybreak, Part 2.
User avatar
Heretic
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: IN AMERICA

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Heretic »

I don't want to interrupt you intellectual titans, but here's a picture and my own advice that a thousand other writers already said.

First, the picture. It never gets old.

Image


Heretic's writing tip no. 1:
Continuously write. Don't fret over how cliched or stupid it may be, just write. Worry later.

Though this may be tough (especially for me), try to let go and write. Helps ideas and improves writing without having your forehead bleed out.
Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.
-Joseph Campbell
User avatar
Destructionator
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 4:33 pm
Location: Watertown, New York
Contact:

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Destructionator »

Dakarne wrote:All you're doing is offering up another set of genre conventions
What are the hard sci-fi genre conventions? Are you thinking of things like rotating spaceships and invisible lasers? If so, blargh.

When I say hard sci-fi, I'm generally not thinking of conventions, but instead a state of mind: Nothing is sacred, keep your mind open, and edit mercilessly.


edit: My blargh here could be related back to the TVTropes thing. A story isn't a bunch of tropes strung together, and the usefulness of hard science has nothing to do with what conventions you string together.
His Certifiable Geniusness, Adam D. Ruppe (My 'verse)
Marle: Lucca! You're amazing!
Lucca: Ain't it the truth! ... Oh, um...I mean...
Marle: Enough with the false modesty! You have a real gift! I would trade my royal ancestry for your genius in a heartbeat!

"I still really hate those pompous assholes who quote themselves in their sigs." -- Me
User avatar
Somes J
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Somes J »

Dakarne:

Having had a little time to think about it, I think we should just drop this argument. I don't think we're actually fundamentally disagreeing here. You agree that hard science can be helpful, and I agree that it's not necessary or even necessarily relevant to being able to tell a good story. We're basically arguing over whether it's important enough to be mentioned in this discussion, which is somewhat subjective and I think really a rather lame thing to argue about. I don't really feel like continuing this, if it's all the same to you.

Truce?
Participate in my hard SF worldbuilding project: The Known Galaxy. Come to our message board and experience my unique brand of terribleness!

"One is respected and judged only as a human being. It is an appalling experience."
Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness.

"Open your mind and hear what your heart wants to deny."
Samuel Anders, nBSG, Daybreak, Part 2.
User avatar
Dakarne
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: England. :(
Contact:

Re: Writing Tips of the Day

Post by Dakarne »

I can agree to that.
Image
'For the moment, mortal, they find the thought of killing me more desirable than that of killing you.'
'And what are their chances?'
'The answer to that is evident in how long they've been hesitating, wouldn't you think, mortal?'

-Anomander Rake and Ganoes Paran in Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson
Post Reply