.jpg)
That does sound cool af. As long as it's not to look good for some boy.
Seriously, new glasses can make you feel so good about yourself. Same way that a good outfit can. Got myself 3 new frames in December and I feel cool af. Not even that my old ones were bad. Just wanted to change it up.
That does sound cool af. As long as it's not to look good for some boy.
Seriously, new glasses can make you feel so good about yourself. Same way that a good outfit can. Got myself 3 new frames in December and I feel cool af. Not even that my old ones were bad. Just wanted to change it up.
Exactly! and nothing is better than finally finding, the frames, The ones that fit your aesthetic and face shape just right. I remeber when I found my current pair, best feeling ever
That does sound cool af. As long as it's not to look good for some boy.
Seriously, new glasses can make you feel so good about yourself. Same way that a good outfit can. Got myself 3 new frames in December and I feel cool af. Not even that my old ones were bad. Just wanted to change it up.Exactly! and nothing is better than finally finding, the frames, The ones that fit your aesthetic and face shape just right. I remeber when I found my current pair, best feeling ever
lol. I love how this convo just switched from one random topic to another. <3
When a partner in a couple really wants to have children while the other seriously doesn't, and always the one that doesn't want children changes their mind by the end. It's cute if a fictional couple raises a family, but maybe both should be seriously committed to having children and we shouldn't perpetuate the idea that every couple needs to have kids.
Oof yeah. Thinking specifically about the trope where she takes off her glasses, and everyone's like "she's so beautiful under there!"
(Partially angry at the objectification, partially angry because I think glasses are lowkey hot)
a;lskdjf YES
One of my characters is described as "the diamond among the sapphires" (because where she lives is called the Sapphire State) and she's just really really pretty. She has long, flowing white hair, smooth ebony skin, piercing gray eyes, and full moon glasses. Her friends and stuff are always complimenting her glasses and one of her best friends even goes on a long rant about how they add to her look.
Ok this is something that I've run into a lot this year and I need it to stop like right now. I really, really need less books where all the action happens in like the last 10% of the book. I don't care if the book "gets better towards the end" what about the beginning and middle? A good ending isn't going to be worth it if the first 500 or so pages are a total snoozefest.
Like, I get that most books are going to have their slower points, but their slower points shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm so tired of reading books that feel like very long prologues. Why are there even books like this? How do publishers allow this to happen?
I don't care if a book has the best ending that's ever been written because no ending is going to be good enough to compensate for 500 pages of literally nothing happening. Saying that "it gets better towards the end" isn't reassuring to me, because ideally, a good book should be interesting from the beginning, middle and end. Who tf cares about what happens in the end when the middle part makes up the majority of the book?
Anyways, sorry for the long-ish post. This rant has been slowly building up since February when I read Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut, which is like, a prime example of everything happening in the end. And I've read so many books like this this year, that I literally can't take it anymore.
Ok this is something that I've run into a lot this year and I need it to stop like right now. I really, really need less books where all the action happens in like the last 10% of the book. I don't care if the book "gets better towards the end" what about the beginning and middle? A good ending isn't going to be worth it if the first 500 or so pages are a total snoozefest.
Like, I get that most books are going to have their slower points, but their slower points shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm so tired of reading books that feel like very long prologues. Why are there even books like this? How do publishers allow this to happen?
I don't care if a book has the best ending that's ever been written because no ending is going to be good enough to compensate for 500 pages of literally nothing happening. Saying that "it gets better towards the end" isn't reassuring to me, because ideally, a good book should be interesting from the beginning, middle and end. Who tf cares about what happens in the end when the middle part makes up the majority of the book?Anyways, sorry for the long-ish post. This rant has been slowly building up since February when I read Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut, which is like, a prime example of everything happening in the end. And I've read so many books like this this year, that I literally can't take it anymore.
I hadn't thought of that, but it's really true. The ending should be just as exciting as the rest of the book. Not really worth it if you just cram everything cool into the last 20 pages.
Ok this is something that I've run into a lot this year and I need it to stop like right now. I really, really need less books where all the action happens in like the last 10% of the book. I don't care if the book "gets better towards the end" what about the beginning and middle? A good ending isn't going to be worth it if the first 500 or so pages are a total snoozefest.
Like, I get that most books are going to have their slower points, but their slower points shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm so tired of reading books that feel like very long prologues. Why are there even books like this? How do publishers allow this to happen?
I don't care if a book has the best ending that's ever been written because no ending is going to be good enough to compensate for 500 pages of literally nothing happening. Saying that "it gets better towards the end" isn't reassuring to me, because ideally, a good book should be interesting from the beginning, middle and end. Who tf cares about what happens in the end when the middle part makes up the majority of the book?Anyways, sorry for the long-ish post. This rant has been slowly building up since February when I read Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut, which is like, a prime example of everything happening in the end. And I've read so many books like this this year, that I literally can't take it anymore.
I hadn't thought of that, but it's really true. The ending should be just as exciting as the rest of the book. Not really worth it if you just cram everything cool into the last 20 pages.
pacing is something a ton of books don't really do well. There' so much stuff out there on how to do complex characters and dialogue and world building, but pacing is so important.
Ok this is something that I've run into a lot this year and I need it to stop like right now. I really, really need less books where all the action happens in like the last 10% of the book. I don't care if the book "gets better towards the end" what about the beginning and middle? A good ending isn't going to be worth it if the first 500 or so pages are a total snoozefest.
Like, I get that most books are going to have their slower points, but their slower points shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm so tired of reading books that feel like very long prologues. Why are there even books like this? How do publishers allow this to happen?
I don't care if a book has the best ending that's ever been written because no ending is going to be good enough to compensate for 500 pages of literally nothing happening. Saying that "it gets better towards the end" isn't reassuring to me, because ideally, a good book should be interesting from the beginning, middle and end. Who tf cares about what happens in the end when the middle part makes up the majority of the book?Anyways, sorry for the long-ish post. This rant has been slowly building up since February when I read Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut, which is like, a prime example of everything happening in the end. And I've read so many books like this this year, that I literally can't take it anymore.
ESPECIALLY when the first 3/4s of the book is filler and the action at the end is setup for a sequel. Like, you could have just written one good book??
Ok this is something that I've run into a lot this year and I need it to stop like right now. I really, really need less books where all the action happens in like the last 10% of the book. I don't care if the book "gets better towards the end" what about the beginning and middle? A good ending isn't going to be worth it if the first 500 or so pages are a total snoozefest.
Like, I get that most books are going to have their slower points, but their slower points shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm so tired of reading books that feel like very long prologues. Why are there even books like this? How do publishers allow this to happen?
I don't care if a book has the best ending that's ever been written because no ending is going to be good enough to compensate for 500 pages of literally nothing happening. Saying that "it gets better towards the end" isn't reassuring to me, because ideally, a good book should be interesting from the beginning, middle and end. Who tf cares about what happens in the end when the middle part makes up the majority of the book?Anyways, sorry for the long-ish post. This rant has been slowly building up since February when I read Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut, which is like, a prime example of everything happening in the end. And I've read so many books like this this year, that I literally can't take it anymore.
ESPECIALLY when the first 3/4s of the book is filler and the action at the end is setup for a sequel. Like, you could have just written one good book??
Blood and Honey by Shelby Mahurin was exactly like this. I mean, it was shitty for other reasons too, definitely, but also because of this
Ok this is something that I've run into a lot this year and I need it to stop like right now. I really, really need less books where all the action happens in like the last 10% of the book. I don't care if the book "gets better towards the end" what about the beginning and middle? A good ending isn't going to be worth it if the first 500 or so pages are a total snoozefest.
Like, I get that most books are going to have their slower points, but their slower points shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm so tired of reading books that feel like very long prologues. Why are there even books like this? How do publishers allow this to happen?
I don't care if a book has the best ending that's ever been written because no ending is going to be good enough to compensate for 500 pages of literally nothing happening. Saying that "it gets better towards the end" isn't reassuring to me, because ideally, a good book should be interesting from the beginning, middle and end. Who tf cares about what happens in the end when the middle part makes up the majority of the book?Anyways, sorry for the long-ish post. This rant has been slowly building up since February when I read Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut, which is like, a prime example of everything happening in the end. And I've read so many books like this this year, that I literally can't take it anymore.
ESPECIALLY when the first 3/4s of the book is filler and the action at the end is setup for a sequel. Like, you could have just written one good book??
Blood and Honey by Shelby Mahurin was exactly like this. I mean, it was shitty for other reasons too, definitely, but also because of this
tbh i think the whole "it gets better towards the end point" is also totally useless too, if the rest of the book is boring enough to make people drop it like mid way
And when they start off with a really good action scene and the rest of the book is just, bleh and bland, hate that, like a good hook is important but the rest of the book has to be good to you know.
Also, I think I might have gone on this particular rant already but lets add authors using their books to show off how woke they are to the list of things that needed to stop yesterday.
Like, don't get me wrong, diversity is great and I'm all for it. But please stop writing the minority character who only exists to tell us that discrimination is bad. Write about social issues all you want, but maybe do better than writing a character who is constantly reminding the reader that racism is bad for 400+ pages. Your reader probably already knows that racism/homophobia/sexism/etc. is bad, so they probably don't need that shoved down their throat.
And if racism is gonna be a thing, don’t make it a central topic. Let people mention it also. Like. Casually. Bc that’s how it is.
^^^^^
There's a difference between, spreading awareness, acknowledging an issue and making social commentary about it, and just including a topic to keep up with the times. I'd rather have a well cooked piece of generic chicken, than a half hecked batch of Pão de Queijo, Like don't make Pão de Queijo if your not going to use tapioca flower it doesn't turn out, trust me it doesn't. And the bad experience might turn people away from trying Brazilian food in the future. As does bad representation and discussion of issues turn people away from reading books that contain them.
I mean how many people do you think read Wuthering heights and never wanted to read a Victorian novel that discussed the frailty of woman's place in the world and their struggle to be independent from men ever again. When "The Tenet of Wildfell Hall" Is right there showing the struggles in a much more raw form, and it doesn't glorify a brooding toxic man.
Honestly I'm just mad Wuthing heights is required reading instead it makes me mad .
Antagonists. They make the story interesting, yes. But they're not required to make a good story. An interesting world is best to create a good story.
Actually on a technical level, your story does need an antagonist. It does not need a villain. There has to be some opposing force, whether it's a person, an idea, internal conflict, hell even the weather, but a story without conflict isn't a good story.
That won't stop me from constructing a reality that I can escape to where nothing goes wrong and it's just a magical village
Actually on a technical level, your story does need an antagonist. It does not need a villain. There has to be some opposing force, whether it's a person, an idea, internal conflict, hell even the weather, but a story without conflict isn't a good story.
Not exactly. A good story is interesting and/or has good writing, not a story with conflict. it could just be a magical world that has something always going on in it that doesn't cause life to be worse for the characters inside of it (ex: Aurora Borealis). It's just my opinion, though.
A story about binturongs (or bearcats) would be good, as it's interesting to have a less popular animal as the POV. It just has to be interesting for a good story, not an added antagonist or villain.
Interesting stories have an antagonist, though. That's how plot happens
:/
Interesting stories have an antagonist, though. That's how plot happens
^^^
Interesting stories have an antagonist, though. That's how plot happens
Not always. Some other stuff can occur (like magic outbursts, etc), but eh, not gonna argue
Interesting stories have an antagonist, though. That's how plot happens
Not always. Some other stuff can occur (like magic outbursts, etc), but eh, not gonna argue
Magic outbursts are an antagonistic source of conflict though. Trying to conceal magic and keep it from being exposed is the antagonist of the story in that case. You're confusing an antagonist with a villain.
Interesting stories have an antagonist, though. That's how plot happens
Not always. Some other stuff can occur (like magic outbursts, etc), but eh, not gonna argue
Magic outbursts are an antagonistic source of conflict though. Trying to conceal magic and keep it from being exposed is the antagonist of the story in that case. You're confusing an antagonist with a villain.
Alright. My mistake.