So, you want to write? Awesome!

This, however, is not going to be a haphazard thing. This is going to be a journey of learning and development, from whatever place you are with your skills to however far you take this adventure. In light of this, I am founding The Stickpage Writing Academy. This is a place where proven writers will post thoughtful, well written, and instructional information for the education, refinement, and overall improvement of others members of the Writer's Lounge (and anyone else who happens to lurk around here).

These posts will be categorized and referenced here. This is your main reference board and directory for any and all posts of Literary Instruction. Additionally, the Academy will also provide a venue for people to take on specific challenges. These challenges will not necessarily be competitions or events -- rather, they will be ways to train and practice specific writing skills and focus on weak areas. You can get feedback from the Founder (le me) and key Contributors/Deans (I'm looking at you, Vern).

This is not a forum for open CnC and creation, which is the purpose served by the wRHG. This is designed to specifically operate as a resource for anyone and everyone who wants to improve their skills as a writer. Resources will be added soon (le me, but mainly I'm looking at you Vern) as this project gets developed.

I look forward to being able to learn with you!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Welcome to Class.
:stickpage:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Directory of Classes

>>>Literary Theory:
>>Writing Theory
>What is Writing? -- by Dean Vern
>The Terminology of Storytelling -- by Dean Vern
>The Basics of Producing Good Written Works -- by Alphaeus
On The Topic of Reading Old Books -- C. S. Lewis, edited by Alphaeus
>>Writing Mechanics
>Hooks and How to Use Them

>>>Technical Structure:
>>The Paragraph
>The Importance of the Paragraph -- by Professor Devour
>>The Sentence
>Sentence Length -- by Professor Devour

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Testing Center

>>>Challenges:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Academy Staff

Founder: Alphaeus

Dean: Vern

Professors:
1) Devour

The Academy will also provide a venue for people to take on specific challenges. These challenges will not necessarily be competitions or events -- rather, they will be ways to train and practice specific writing skills and focus on weak areas.

Where do I sign up for this shiet?

Well, this will be up and coming soon. Vern and I will have a series of threads/posts up about this. Checking interest first.

BUT, I'll remember you wanted to do it.

Just thought I'd state my interest in this too, looking forward to this academy becoming a thing.

Quote from FalconX578

Just thought I'd state my interest in this too, looking forward to this academy becoming a thing.

What he said.

Just letting y'all know, the reason Alph is referring to me so much in this thread is cause this is my idea but he ripped it off. It's all good tho, now I have an excuse to write the stuff I intended to in bite size pieces instead of all of it at once.

Let's get this started. I just skimmed a few battles for something that I thought would be good advice for people.
_________________

Today's topic is in the topic of narration and storytelling, and that is the value of a paragraph.

In a nutshell, every paragraph (if not every sentence but this is less strict) should be used to accomplish something or further the story. Sometimes, I see writing where the writer/narrator enters a small tangent where he goes into detail on a topic that came up that's not very important to the moment at hand. Let me pull an example from the battle zone for clarity. Sorry to whoever I quote here :p

Well, the term “people” should be used loosely, since “people” like Fell were considered to be monsters. But, how could he blame them for thinking that? He knew that it was not normal for someone to be as tall as he was and he knew it was not normal for that same person to have light blue skin. So, instead of fighting that classification, he liked to use it to his advantage in his battle. The fact that there weren’t many monsters in the official RHG system made it easier for him to catch his opponents off guard for the most part. Of course, there would be a few people he would have to pass who didn’t react to him normally and he would be facing one of them that day. Before every battle, each opponent gets a little description of the person they would be facing. This description usually included physical stats that were acquired during the RHG’s rigorous physical testing, which were presented in neat little numbers and graphs. The file also included a little written background about the opponent, which came from the interview that every new gladiator has to do before they are allowed to participate in battles. The man he was fighting was an atheist, people who are able to throw aside the shock of seeing a “monster”. Fell felt that this could be an interesting battle indeed.

In here is a series of mini-tangents. They're actually interesting concepts that come up that the writer wants to mention, such as Fell's acceptance of his monsterhood, people's different reactions to it, a bit about how the "official" wRHG process works, etc. They're all interesting ideas. But presenting them like this has a whole bunch of negative drawbacks:
-Being compressed like this, every interesting topic loses its individual value when presented so casually and alongside so many other interesting topics.
-As an extension of this, so many different points together makes them forgetful. If the ideas are introduced like this, and the reader forgets them later, and then idea gets brought up again in the future as a point that's already been mentioned, they're going to be confused when they have no knowledge of what's being talked about.
-The topics are no longer new to the reader. By casually mentioning that Fell's opponent was an athiest who wouldn't be shocked by his monstrous appearance, it will no longer surprise the reader with how badass the opponent must be when he sees Fell and is entirely unimpressed. It's like holding a winning hand in Poker and showing off your hand before you can even raise the stakes.
-Without any prior introduction, the reader also may not care about many of these topics yet and get a bit bored.

In case anyone is thinking the words, "But Devour, how else am I to explain a bit about how wRHG works in such a short story? Or any other of these topics? I can't give everything its own section." The answer to that ties into the solution to this problem: "Focus on what you're writing on and the story you want to tell." Is your character already established in the wRHG system? Then he won't be explaining to himself how his opponent might know his stats, or how they're presented in neat numbers and graphs. The story is about the main focus of your story, whatever that may be. It needs to be locked onto that like a laser-guided missile. Every sentence on a topic that's irrelevant to that, could be a sentence used to make your story more tense, more interesting, or more moved-towards the moments that everyone really wants to see.

Another way to teach the readers these little interesting details, is how you choose to present them. This is really big for the topic of Show, Don't Tell which is a whole 'nother thing that I won't go into here. How are you going to insert your idea, whatever it is, to the reader? Is it going to be as a passing thought in the narrator's words, or will it be in a way that makes the reader realize it themselves? Which way sounds more interesting?
If your character is extremely sensitive about a particular topic, don't just say it as an afterthought in narration. Make the topic get brought up in conversation, and show your character's response to it. Show the consequences of his reaction, and the reason the topic got brought up in the first place. This adds to the story in a meaningful way. It teaches the reader what you wanted to show, and it's entertaining while it does it. These topics and interesting ideas can be absolutely anything, and it's up to you to be creative with how you present it.

To wrap this up while it's still a coherent lesson, here is what you should think about when writing exposition at all times:
-What am I focusing on right now? How am I going to get there?
-Why does what I'm talking about right now matter?
-Could I reveal this information in a better way?
-Can I narrate this section in less words without losing any quality or entertainment value?

I'm probably missing some points that I could go into more detail on. If I've lost track, I'll elaborate more if anyone asks any questions.

This section is about Sentence Length. It's going to be a little bit abstract.

"This sentence is five words. Here are five more words. Five-word sentences are fine. But several together become monotonous. Listen to what is happening. The writing is getting boring. The sound of it drones. It's like a stuck record. The ear demands some variety. This is what you need:"

See, I learned this myself not from being told, but rather through it being something that I did because it sounded nice. It's only later on, now that I've had the time to think about what I really know about writing, that I've realized that this is actually a general rule that people can learn themselves.

Pay attention to what I'm doing now. Can you notice what I'm doing with every sentence I write? These sentences vary in length every time, as if I'm talking to a rhythm. Moving to the flow of a beat. Writing isn't just words; it is music. Through weaving these sentences like the steps to a dance, moving to an unheard melody as we step through each new part, you create something that invokes emotion. This is skill becomes integral to your voice as a narrator once you learn to do this without even thinking. I do this in all my writing, and even in the other Teaching Segments that I've written. I don't have to think about it anymore.

Sentence length in a dramatic piece isn't just about randomizing how many words each sentence has. It's almost like a buildup of energy. It builds up and releases itself when you know the reader is ready, and you create these long sentences that make them feel like the writing is always changing its tempo. Then after it's passed, the energy comes back down. You let them rest again. Then the melody begins anew and the dance continues.

So the more clever amongst you might now be thinking:

Quote from A clever git

Don't be silly Vern. Writing is easy. Look, I press buttons on my keyboard and words come out. 'What is writing?' More like what is this question amirite?

If this was your first thought, keep on reading. If it wasn't, then cool beans bro. Keep on reading anyways.

It is crucial to understand what it is we do, before we look into how we're gonna do it. So what is this magical 'writing' I speak of? Simply put, writing is the expression of story in a written medium. Simple enough, but to most this means very little.

Writing is about telling a story. It's about gripping your audience from start to finish, and leaving them with a meaningful experience. Such a thing is easier said than done, however. To have a shot at this, we must first understand its building blocks. You heard me right: Building blocks. If you still think writing is subjective, it is time to throw that myth out of the window. Your individual appreciation of a book may be subjective, but what sets it apart from a poorly written piece is not. It's an art for a reason.

Story follows a set of principles and conventions. These are not set in stone. Principles are flexible. An author could decide to break these rules if he feels the story calls for it. Conventions don't like being played with as much. These are things such as the scene where the lovers meet in a love story. (They're called conventions for a reason) However, even here one could make exceptions. If one feels brave, they may attempt to break convention and spearhead a revolution in storytelling. Either way, it is choices like these that set a Hemmingway apart from your average amateur garbage. It is the choices you make within and surrounding these rules that shape meaning and engagement. What these rules are, we will look at another time.

One thing to keep in mind is that writing is but a means to an end. Language is but a tool to express story, nothing more. No matter how vivid your description, no matter how lively your language, they can not cover up the vacancy of content beneath. Your first task is to tell a story, not dazzle us with fancy words. Story is meaning. Story is emotion. For this reason, the building blocks of story are universal. Whether you are writing for the stage, for the screen, for a book or for a game, these rules always apply.

So suffice it to say, I will not be here to teach you how to write. Devour is already doing a good job in that regard. Instead, I will teach you how to tell a story. I will show you the intricate fabric of the craft, in the hopes that you one day might learn.


In the next lesson, we will cover the terminology of story, so that we may beter situate the lessons to come.

Hooks, and How to Use Them

In a nutshell, hooks are what keeps a reader reading your story. When they open your story, not sure what they're looking at or what it's about, a hook is what you use to capture their attention. Something interesting, or a small breadcrumb of information that hints what the catch to your story is. And like a breadcrumb trail, hooks are not one single sentence or one single moment in a story. If you create a good hook, decide that that was enough and then spend the rest of your story building up to your climax in melancholic fashion, you won't have the reader's interest by the time he reaches there.

There are also different sizes of hooks. Hints and clues of Bigger Things are one form of them. Bigger hooks are usually done in dramatic reveals, usually in pivotal moments in the story leading up to your Big Moment. Your story should be full of them, pulling the reader ever-closer to your big moment, and hopefully increasing their interest as it goes.

It's a breadcrumb trail indeed. In a wRHG battle, the 1st hook is usually your main character's supernatural powers, or the fact that they're getting ready to fight someone. Though it could be anything. Then, just as an example, further hooks can be things like raising the stakes if the MC loses, making the reader care about the battle's outcome. It can be complications, or perhaps simple Really Cool Ideas as supernatural beings did their supernatural things. As usual, it's examples Im giving here but I could never begin to list all the different ways you can do it.

Want to know another definition of Hooks? They're also called Complications. And those are what this image is about:



Imagine each dot as a complication to your story.A complication isn't only an obstacle for your character. A complication can also mean that your story is becoming more complicated, as more interesting information is introduced. You can have as many dots as you want, as long as it's not so many that it becomes overwhelming... or so few that the reader loses interest. Imagine them, peppered throughout your entire story, from the tiniest hooks to the greatest reveals.

This, hooks, and this format, are a foundation of how to create a story that keeps readers interested.

EVERYONE -- ANNOUNCEMENT

The Challenge system will be under construction starting this week, and will start full-throttle in December (if possible), but most likely January so that people can do their holiday stuff without worrying about deadlines and the like.

We've all been there at least once. We try to pick in on a conversation, only to realise we've got no clue what these people are talking about. It's almost like they're talking in an alien language. Well, to that I say no more. To make sure you won't be standing there smiling like an idiot, I'll tell you what's what. The concepts I'll cover will be handled in greater depth in their respective lessons, for now just try to familiarize yourself with them. That way, they won't seem as alien anymore when they pop up again in the future, and you'll have a point of reference. Without further ado, let's get to it.









There are still concepts left untouched in this list, but these are the essential ones. Understanding what has been said here, is already understanding half of what I have to teach. All lessons following this one will, in a

The Basics of Producing Good Written Works

Though the focus of this is on academic writing, most of the material in this book excerpt is focused around the ability to write well in the first place, and producing good work, which is a universal subject. On that note, here is 3 Short Excerpts from a Scholarly Resource.

There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about "isms" and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.

Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o'clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ("mere Christianity" as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?"—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.