@Shoryu Magami
Probably the biggest problem I can see with a visual novel is the cost.

Fidel Castro has died at 90 years of age.

May he Rest in Peace.

No bad mouthing the dead please.

Probably the biggest problem I can see with a visual novel is the cost.

Probably.

@NekoMizu@Pudding@Raddum@Witch Cat
There was a major screw up during my last post in the game, so I wanted to use this to let you all (I'm aware that you've never used this thread, Witch Cat) know that the current murderer game ended.

@Pfroggy1
We haven't met, but 'yo'. I don't picture anyone doing that here.

@Shoryu Magami Heavy handed narrative is almost entirely independent of medium, I think. And visual novel generally implies that a person can make choices and interact to some degree. Although I think the MorphE webcomic (mature content warning, if you look it up) is considered a visual novel even though interaction is very limited. But yeah, the ability to use multiple types of media is very useful, particularly for details. And I never said weak storytelling. A straightforward manner does not mean poorly written, simply a different style.

I know the word novella only because of NaNoWriMo (which has a target of 50K words) and thus they said technically it's more a National Novella Writing Month, but that's the only place I've ever heard it used. With...possibly one or two exceptions I've since forgotten.

If you want an example of one story over multiple installments, hm. NOvel-length installments...I don't know if there are any. Mostly because if you reach a certain length, it becomes possible to find resting points where putting a break feels right. Sort of like chapter breaks, but in different books. I /might/ suggest the Daggerspell book and its accompanying series, but the narrative jumps time periods a lot, and is pretty complicated. Actually, you might like it for that, even if it isn't episodic. It's been a long time; I forget how solidly separated the books were.

Now I'm getting confused. You're saying serialization of light novels as opposed to regular novels, and yet I see books in all sorts of series formats. And we've established that light novels are likewise episodic or not as the fancy takes the author.

However I do know with the rise of self-publishing and ebooks, there are things being released that are called novels (or at least books) but are not complete stories. I've read a couple. They sorta have a start, middle, and end, but there's such big unanswered questions that will be handled in later books that I don't consider it a complete story (something I rather dislike them doing, I should add, as it basically forces someone to buy the rest of the "series" or not get answers).

One reason I feel writing to be superior to most other media is because it is the only one where you can really get inside the heads of different people, see what they're thinking and feeling. Particularly if one often misses social cues, as I do. Yes, you can miss things even in writing, or perhaps the author implies but does not state, but it still feels far more connected to the people there, instead of going /only/ off expressions and actions. The drawback is that no matter how much you describe something's appearance, the mental image probably will be different from someone else's.

Ugh, I know I keep saying this, but, obsessive details is a huge turn-off to me. I can handle a wide range, but while details do make the story, so does execution. That is to say, details may make the story, but they can also break it. ^.^;

@shylarah

Heavy handed narrative is almost entirely independent of medium, I think.

That previous example I gave with Fate/Zero wasn't given without any thought -- the character of Kiritsugu is presented entirely differently due to the lack of details. You can be more heavy-handed with certain mediums because the details are where the truth is found. When I said heavy-handed narrative, I was referring detailed and thorough narrative - therefore able to get the point across - or what people have been calling 'long-winded' a lot on this site. There's only so much you can say in one sentence in comparison to forty sentences, and that additional content can make all the difference.

The concept applies to debates as well -- a single sentence of 'you're wrong, because ___' is far less likely to get my attention or even be worth listening to than someone who can present a long and thorough argument that has scrutinized the details. Characterization will only go so far without details, and the details are where you find the lore that's actually been well-thought-out instead of being full of holes and contradictions. I'm a casual literary analyser, and I've helped authors progress their works in the past by pointing out holes that were missed due to not being detailed enough -- the sort of details that best-selling novelists often end up missing. They're lucky most consumers aren't like me or they'd be out of business.

And visual novel generally implies that a person can make choices and interact to some degree.

I've been told about - and witnessed myself - visual novels with no interaction at all. This is what my project would be.

But yeah, the ability to use multiple types of media is very useful, particularly for details. And I never said weak storytelling. A straightforward manner does not mean poorly written, simply a different style.

You never said weak storytelling, but I did -- I rarely see overtly straightforward stories that I truly enjoy. You not feeling the same way as I do doesn't mean I'm putting words in your mouth. I'm not an easy person to impress when it comes to writing - or pieces of fiction in general - because of my attention to detail and my willing suspension of disbelief.

If you want an example of one story over multiple installments, hm. NOvel-length installments...I don't know if there are any. Mostly because if you reach a certain length, it becomes possible to find resting points where putting a break feels right. Sort of like chapter breaks, but in different books. I /might/ suggest the Daggerspell book and its accompanying series, but the narrative jumps time periods a lot, and is pretty complicated. Actually, you might like it for that, even if it isn't episodic. It's been a long time; I forget how solidly separated the books were.

I don't have time to go looking up franchises to confirm or deny this whole concept -- my post was only meant to emphasize that I think classifying books into light novels or regular novels is fundamentally flawed literary analysis from the beginning. I don't think any of them truly fit my work, and my attention to detail demands I take the best of all mediums to create the most compelling work.

I've observed - and worked with - very complicated storylines, some of which were working with several time periods - and, in my own case, multiple dimensions - in a single episode simultaneously, and it was never difficult for me to follow. Perhaps I'd find it interesting - if I like the overall aesthetic (I'm very difficult to please) - but as I mentioned I don't have time. Remaining on this site and juggling it with my project means I currently have no free time whatsoever -- I pretty much only get to step away from my PC to eat or shower, or run errands.

Now I'm getting confused. You're saying serialization of light novels as opposed to regular novels, and yet I see books in all sorts of series formats. And we've established that light novels are likewise episodic or not as the fancy takes the author.

You're missing the point - but you did say you were confused - that I was saying that regular novels follow a serialization method (a.k.a. have an entirely self-contained story in the book, even if it's not the whole plotline), as opposed to light novels which tend to be more varied. I already stated in my post that I'm aware that light novels don't follow a constant format.

However I do know with the rise of self-publishing and ebooks, there are things being released that are called novels (or at least books) but are not complete stories. I've read a couple. They sorta have a start, middle, and end, but there's such big unanswered questions that will be handled in later books that I don't consider it a complete story (something I rather dislike them doing, I should add, as it basically forces someone to buy the rest of the "series" or not get answers).

Any decent storyline is like that (the thing you just said you didn't like). You can't tell an entire storyline for an anime series in one episode - and those who try to end up creating really badly put together adaptations - so, yes, people will need to buy the whole anime series if they want the whole story -- they shouldn't have a problem with that if they enjoyed what they've seen so far. Honestly, if you don't like unanswered questions you should probably avoid my work (on or off the site) entirely, because I build up a lot of stuff I don't plan to reveal immediately -- that's what foreshadowing is meant to be. Unlike many authors who lack details though, I'll eventually explain everything.

One reason I feel writing to be superior to most other media is because it is the only one where you can really get inside the heads of different people, see what they're thinking and feeling. Particularly if one often misses social cues, as I do. Yes, you can miss things even in writing, or perhaps the author implies but does not state, but it still feels far more connected to the people there, instead of going /only/ off expressions and actions. The drawback is that no matter how much you describe something's appearance, the mental image probably will be different from someone else's.

You've listed one of the reasons I consider writing superior. As for the drawback -- this is why I include illustrations.

Ugh, I know I keep saying this, but, obsessive details is a huge turn-off to me. I can handle a wide range, but while details do make the story, so does execution. That is to say, details may make the story, but they can also break it. ^.^;

Whereas I'm completely turned off by writers who miss details. We don't see things the same way here and are unlikely to. If lots of details - in order to flesh out and make the work as thorough and compelling as possible - bother you so much, don't read my story? I'm not forcing you to, and I'm certainly not going to write something I'm dissatisfied with just to please other people -- I hate authors who sell out.

@Shoryu Magami Heavy-handed, at least in my mind, has the connotation of being awkward, rough, and poorly done. If it's done /well/, I would no longer call it heavy-handed. Long-winded is slightly negative, but not as much. What you speak of sounds more like complete, or thorough, possibly well-considered. One gives you the entire picture. The other slams it in your face and breaks your nose.

Not talking about anime and such for incomplete stories. I mean solely books, where it feels cheap to make me pay three times for a story when you never said I was going to have to. The reader who grew up with books as they used to be expects a story to usually finish in one volume. The longer plot may take more, but there should be some sort of conclusion. Not nothing but questions -- unless that is a deliberate stylistic choice (often for final endings, where there is not a book that comes after) and not merely a way to sell more books.

I wasn't suggesting the books as research, but as something you might enjoy. If you don't have time for reading, that's a separate issue.

I don't think I've ever encountered an author where painstakingly thorough detail has been done well. I've only seen it where it was handled poorly. If you could suggest a book or two you feel does it and does it well, I'd like to take a look, just to see precisely what you mean by this. Nor did I say anything about your story -- it's not even out yet; I'll read it or not but that won't be for a while yet, by the sound of things. I'm not saying you should write anything other than what you see fit; certainly I dislike the idea of selling out as well. But there is a difference between /missing/ details -- things that should be included and are not -- and the stylistic choice of how much detail is put into any description. Necessary details -- ones with particular significance -- I would not consider optional. It is the rest, the fine focus as opposed to the gross, where any flexibility might be found. Missing details is simply poor writing.

@shylarah

Heavy-handed, at least in my mind, has the connotation of being awkward, rough, and poorly done. If it's done /well/, I would no longer call it heavy-handed. Long-winded is slightly negative, but not as much. What you speak of sounds more like complete, or thorough, possibly well-considered. One gives you the entire picture. The other slams it in your face and breaks your nose.

It's got two - sort of contradictory - meanings. One of them involves being clumsy/awkward/insensitive in your presentation of something -- unfortunately, whether or not someone is this is almost entirely subjective to the reader. Someone who comes across direct and forthright might seem intimidating or tactless to some, but to me they're simply honest since I'm never intimidated by others and I hate people who wear masks. The other meaning is 'using too much of something' -- once again, this is entirely subjective. 'Too much' is in the eyes of the reader, not the writer. I hate one-liner based role-playing, while other people enjoy it and can't handle the walls of text I give. There's no objective 'too much' or 'too little'; no way to please everyone.

Nevertheless, I can see why people would use heavy-handed to describe me, since I put a lot more into what I do than many people can handle, and frankly I can really drop an anvil on people sometimes when I feel a point needs to be made -- I actually helped end a rather lengthy flame war in the 'bitchfest' thread at one point precisely by being blunt like that. The trope 'Some Anvils Need To Be Dropped' exists for a reason -- some people won't get the point unless you slam it in their face. I've dealt with more of these people than I care to count.

Not talking about anime and such for incomplete stories. I mean solely books, where it feels cheap to make me pay three times for a story when you never said I was going to have to. The reader who grew up with books as they used to be expects a story to usually finish in one volume. The longer plot may take more, but there should be some sort of conclusion. Not nothing but questions -- unless that is a deliberate stylistic choice (often for final endings, where there is not a book that comes after) and not merely a way to sell more books.

Now that you've made it clearer that you're only referring to a single medium -- I don't really think people can always find a good point where they can cleanly end a story without the bigger picture still being out in the open. Depending on how long an 'arc' is, you might not be able to finish it within a single book. If they can do it, sure they should do it. I also don't think there's anything wrong with leaving people with unanswered questions, as I explained earlier if you want to check that part of my post again -- I won't repeat it again unless requested. I will say that I do this (leave unanswered questions to create good foreshadowing for those insightful enough to notice the breadcrumbs) constantly, and yet selling my work is the last thing on my mind.

I wasn't suggesting the books as research, but as something you might enjoy. If you don't have time for reading, that's a separate issue.

Yeah, time isn't my ally -- as I said previously, I don't even have enough free time to go take a walk down the road a lot of the time.

I don't think I've ever encountered an author where painstakingly thorough detail has been done well. I've only seen it where it was handled poorly. If you could suggest a book or two you feel does it and does it well, I'd like to take a look, just to see precisely what you mean by this. Nor did I say anything about your story -- it's not even out yet; I'll read it or not but that won't be for a while yet, by the sound of things. I'm not saying you should write anything other than what you see fit; certainly I dislike the idea of selling out as well. But there is a difference between /missing/ details -- things that should be included and are not -- and the stylistic choice of how much detail is put into any description. Necessary details -- ones with particular significance -- I would not consider optional. It is the rest, the fine focus as opposed to the gross, where any flexibility might be found. Missing details is simply poor writing.

Like I said, an absence of thoroughness is often the very first thing to make me not give a piece of writing a chance. With that said though, I suppose you'll need to just wait until my project becomes available and then let what I do be the example -- I'm actually difficult enough to please in terms of writing that I don't think I can come up with a single novel - detailed or not - that I'd want to recommend to anyone. Yes, I'm that difficult to please. I don't have any interest in a lot of the best-selling works out there. I also don't think many people have attempted to be as thorough as I have in general. Part of the reason I decided to create my project is I've never seen a single work of fiction I could truly call myself a die-hard fan of, so I wanted to create what I considered the perfect (in my eyes) story -- when all is said and done, I'm writing this for me and not for money. The decision to sell it will probably be determined by me needing the money -- if I somehow win the lottery (read: not gonna happen) I'll probably give everyone the bloody series for free.

Unfortunately, whether a detail is necessary or not is also a matter of opinion. The fact that my main protagonist likes pocket watches over wristwatches - and hates the feeling of tight clothing/accessories - might seem like a meaningless and entirely superfluous detail to some people, and while the pocket watch itself will play into the storyline that aspect about his personality never will unless a reason pops up. So is it unnecessary? To some people; it is. To people like me who want their characters to feel as fleshed out and human as possible; no way in hell.

@Shoryu Magami In no particular order and mashed together because I'm falling asleep and actually heading to bed as soon as I finish this:

*giggles* I suspect some people might call your stuff detail-porn, then. *amused* The fact that you can't think of anyone that meets the level of detail you want is a little concerning, but if you're writing for you and no one else, that's hardly an issue. I don't see too much contradiction in the two ideas of heavy-handed, but both are decidedly negative, and you used it as if it was positive when handling details, which threw me. If the details are truly heavy-handed, then I believe some editing would be in order, at least if you're writing a story. Then again, it's always personal preference, and mine tends to lie in flow. Unanswered questions are actually great -- Neil Gaiman, one of my favorite authors, does this well, if I remember right. Leaving things open for the reader to fill in, or making them thing, not telling them outright what is right or wrong, it's great. Then again, I'm surprised, with your focus on detail, that you would be accepting of such an incomplete picture, given how much emphasis you seem to place on each tiny thing. Come to think of it, if there is a vest with four buttons, and each button is different, would you say they are different, or would you describe in detail each button, if there is no plot relevance to any of them? I think the biggest issue with detail-heavy things is that it often falls under the umbrella of marysues and purple prose, things which are almost always big nos -- but then, I'm talking more in a forum sense, and less a published one. *shrug* Who knows, maybe you'll make a new type of story.

On the topic of what to call things, I tend to dislike hard divisions and insisting on labels. Things are what they are. Do what feels right, and if you must tag it, do that later.

And you're right, it seems we're never going to agree. I can see where people might get bothered, but eh. Doesn't hurt me any, and if it makes you happy, that's the important part.

Right, sleep now. z.z shylarah.exe has encountered an error and needs to close.

I think the reason why light novels have simpler words isn't for a "lighter story," but because the target audience has a more limited vocabulary. Just like most YALIT actually. Harry Potter is actually a really good example of this. Sure, you'll have books by Michael Crichton, father of modern storytelling, that can be understood by most despite being masterpieces. But it's actually a requirement for light novels.

And a little more trivia, a visual novel without player interaction is called a kinetic novel.

@BrokenPromise YES KINETIC NOVEL, THAT'S THE TERM I WAS THINKING OF.

And indeed, excellent point about YA books.

@shylarah

*giggles* I suspect some people might call your stuff detail-porn, then. *amused* The fact that you can't think of anyone that meets the level of detail you want is a little concerning, but if you're writing for you and no one else, that's hardly an issue.

I could tack the label 'simplicity-porn' onto anything that doesn't meet my standards of detail - if I wanted to - in the same way they'll call anything too detailed for them 'detail-porn'. Those people are immature are far as I'm concerned.

I can't think of anyone that meets the level of detail I want because I'm insanely difficult to please as a reader, and for reasons far beyond just my preferences for detail (just for the record). I am writing for myself, and for the people who enjoy what I'm creating -- there's plenty of these people since I've started presenting some of my ideas to the world.

I don't see too much contradiction in the two ideas of heavy-handed, but both are decidedly negative, and you used it as if it was positive when handling details, which threw me. If the details are truly heavy-handed, then I believe some editing would be in order, at least if you're writing a story. Then again, it's always personal preference, and mine tends to lie in flow.

There's a noteworthy contradiction -- whether or not something is insensitive is a matter of opinion. What if I told you I find it offensive when fellow writers don't take the time to be detailed with me so I can give an appropriate response? I seldom actually give them a hard time about it, but it nevertheless does offend me. This is actually the reality of who I am, and it creates a contradiction where the idea of being 'insensitive' and the idea of 'heavy-handed' (based off the second meaning) become not only incompatible, but direct opposites. There's only no contradiction there for people who don't want the details, which - frankly - just means that the definitions of the word were written by someone who was being biased, or didn't think over the detail I just mentioned. Next I suppose these people will write the word 'asshole' into the dictionary for whatever minority group they dislike.

I have no respect for editors, in a similar manner to having no respect for critics (who ultimately just get payed to push their bias on people) -- no one has the right to push subjective opinions on other people as if they're facts, and believing otherwise is nothing short of having delusions of grandeur. I could be literary critic if I wanted to, and I could proceed to bash 99% of fiction for lacking what I personally view as vital details (alongside other things I could criticise) for a story to be enjoyable, but that's all personal preference - as you just said - so I'm not going to do that, and subsequently I have zero respect for those who try to criticize my details for the same reason. I might have very strong beliefs and preferences, but I'm no hypocrite and my bias never dictates my statements. This is less a statement to compare us, and more a statement to emphasize why you bringing up the word 'editor' made me sigh. There's not a whole lot of difference between an editor and censor.

Unanswered questions are actually great -- Neil Gaiman, one of my favorite authors, does this well, if I remember right. Leaving things open for the reader to fill in, or making them thing, not telling them outright what is right or wrong, it's great. Then again, I'm surprised, with your focus on detail, that you would be accepting of such an incomplete picture, given how much emphasis you seem to place on each tiny thing.

Honestly, if you don't like unanswered questions you should probably avoid my work (on or off the site) entirely, because I build up a lot of stuff I don't plan to reveal immediately -- that's what foreshadowing is meant to be. Unlike many authors who lack details though, I'll eventually explain everything.

I believe this is a sufficient answer for why it's not a contradiction for someone as detailed as myself to leave an incomplete picture -- it's only incomplete if it never gets revealed. A lot of authors fail to include good amounts of detail even by the time their franchise is 100% completed. As for those who only read part of the series then stop, it's not my fault if they get an incomplete picture because they stopped building the series of jigsaw puzzles at some point before finishing them and connecting them all.

Come to think of it, if there is a vest with four buttons, and each button is different, would you say they are different, or would you describe in detail each button, if there is no plot relevance to any of them?

Since you've pretty much opened this door for me on your own volition, I'll take the opportunity to give a (minor) example of what I mean by having a very good attention to the details. I'll leave it in a hider.


It's entirely dependant on the situation, with relevance to the storyline itself not even being factored into the equation listed above. Assuming there's a right way to do it in every non-plotline situation is missing details in terms of the basics of realistic character interaction (unless you were including this when you said 'storyline relevance', in which case I don't think anything is ever 100% irrelevant). What many people fail to realize is that good stories don't exist without good characters -- this is just one of the reasons why I'm so thorough about fleshing out and detailing my characters. If the characters feel human, the entire story will be enriched by it even just in their basic interaction when it has nothing to do with the plotline.

I've seen plots that were uninteresting but the stories somewhat still managed to win me over due to the depth of the characters. Choose not to flesh out the cast - whether they're major or minor members - and your characters probably won't feel like anything more than devices used to move a story forward -- which is exactly how I view a lot of fictional characters; as tools and not characters. One of the reasons I've been complimented as a GM in the past is because even 'Shopkeeper A' feels like a real human.

The main protagonist of my story disliking tight clothing/accessories is unlikely to have plot relevance, but could become the topic of a sentence of dialogue in character interaction or become relevant in their internal dialogue if they need to wear a suit at some point -- details like this make a character more believable and less a mere object to move a plot forward, and this character couldn't have been portrayed realistically in those situations by a role-player who didn't know those facts about the character like I do. This is one of the reasons I often - but not always as one thread on this site has shown - don't like role-playing characters I didn't create -- no one but me can truly role-play my project's characters, because they're that human and fleshed out. I don't care who the person is, no one besides @Ailyn Evensen (who is working on some of these characters with me now and could therefore write those characters) could ever write my characters in a way that would truly satisfy me.

My examples listed above should also emphasize a basic reason why I think that whether you're describing too much or not enough about your character actually isn't your decision, but is in fact the decision of your role-playing partner(s), and therefore listing as many details as possible is simply common courtesy in my eyes, especially on a role-playing forum that doesn't have an OOC (or with people who don't use it). Even then, it's missing details in my eyes to not bring up matters like these in the OOC so people can react to them more realistically.

I think the biggest issue with detail-heavy things is that it often falls under the umbrella of marysues and purple prose, things which are almost always big nos -- but then, I'm talking more in a forum sense, and less a published one. *shrug*

I'm not even going to try and be tactful about this -- 'Mary Sue' is a badly defined label that's gotten so out of hand in the last decades it actually makes me facepalm each time someone mentions it. First off, being detailed and writing 'Mary Sues' have nothing to do with each other at all, but considering in this era the term 'Mary Sue' or just 'Sue' is used as a stock insult for anything someone personally doesn't like, I can't even take a discussion about it seriously in the first place. In fact, 'Mary Sues' (the original definition of them) are usually built around an absence of details and not from details, especially since they're born from escapism. As a concept, they're entirely subjective, so I have no respect whatsoever for people who use them as a way to bash other people's characters. Remember all those elitist asshats on that first role-playing forum I mentioned I was part of? Bashing any character they didn't like - over personal hang-ups, by the way - as 'Mary Sues' was literally the number one reason I admonished them and basically got the site killed.

You've hit on a significant pet peeve by using that term, and no - just for the record - I've never actually had anyone call my characters 'Mary Sues' (I'm amazed they were intelligent enough not to do it, since I genuinely believe most people I meet in my life are idiots), but rather because I have no respect for the whole stereotype in the first place. I can't tell you the number of people who had their characters bashed - under the two word premise of being 'Mary Sues' - that I thought had created well-thought-out and sympathetic characters, and some of these people are the ones who left the site and joined my community.

Also, as I've frequently told people in the past - and a friend just reminded me that I was missing in my post at the time - there are plenty of people who would be considered 'Mary Sues' in real life. So using this term to insult characters is actually the same as bashing real people. Good storytelling is realistic storytelling -- so calling these types of people bad characters in a story is ridiculous in my eyes. Like things such as 'clichés', they aren't bad when they're done right and failing to use them where they're realistically appropriate is bad writing.

Who knows, maybe you'll make a new type of story.

You wouldn't be the first person to suggest I'll end up doing that, by any means. To be perfectly blunt with you, most people who hear about my project think I'm doing something that more or less doesn't exist. I don't believe in true 100% originality -- originality is taking something that already exists and doing something unique with it, and I do this in spades. It's one of several reasons why I've developed something of 'niche' following already despite the fact that no content is even out yet. Whether people like it or hate it, my inspiration is leading me to something new.

On the topic of what to call things, I tend to dislike hard divisions and insisting on labels. Things are what they are. Do what feels right, and if you must tag it, do that later.

I have no interest in labels or tags, as my attitude towards you using the label 'Mary Sue' should've just shown. The only reason I try to describe my work is because there's a lot of people who're genuinely interested in seeing it happen and think I've got something special here. It's annoying when I can't even give a basic idea of what its format is like. Beyond that, I've got no reason to tag it and frankly I don't think about mediums of fiction when I decide how my work would be classified, although I believe the term 'literary fiction' is more appropriate than 'genre fiction' due to its emphasis on realism and philosophy - alongside it having very strong personal meaning to me - rather than being written for escapism.

And you're right, it seems we're never going to agree. I can see where people might get bothered, but eh. Doesn't hurt me any, and if it makes you happy, that's the important part.

If people get bothered, that's their problem and not mine -- they can put down the book and go elsewhere. On the other hand, if they start criticising something that's all a matter of personal preference? Get ready to see me come down on them like a tonne of bricks, pointing out how superficial and closed-minded they are. I've never critiqued a work without being requested -- I'll think it but I don't care enough to say it. My work makes me very happy, and - as I've stated earlier - it makes those who are part of my inner circle very happy too -- those are the only people whose opinion I give a damn about; the people who actually appreciate what I have to offer and don't waste my time trying to convert me to whatever subjective opinion they have. Everyone else who doesn't have an interest in my work can pick something else up, in places that probably don't interest me whatsoever.

With all this said, I don't expect to change your opinion for the exact same reason you can't change mine -- nor have I been trying to. I'm simply getting incredibly sick to death of people on this site (general statement) thinking they can push their personal writing hang-ups on other people, so I'm not going to hold back anymore if debates pop up.

I've only ever heard Japan and other countries in the east use the term "light novel", usually alongside manga and anime, and I've never actually read any. I've read books in English that use simplistic narrative, and while I can't offhand remember them being called novels, I think they were just "books" or "chapter books" (or books without pictures, if you were young enough ^.^; ).

Just because you recently made a point about knowing what novellas are -- this statement is what made me think you didn't know. Like I said, the truth and context is in the details, which is why even a single word/line being added in or left out can completely change the reader's perception.

@BrokenPromise

I think the reason why light novels have simpler words isn't for a "lighter story," but because the target audience has a more limited vocabulary.

What Neko said is the most common description of a light novel in Japan to the best of my understanding -- they're usually directed at a younger audience (this is - if anything - the reason why light novels usually use less complex vocabulary), and this is one of the primary reasons that I usually don't classify 'Guardian Ascension' as a light novel series. My project is complex and deep enough the a large majority of adults won't be able to fully understand it, let alone the average teenager. The other official defining characteristic of a light novel in Japan is exactly the thing that makes it called light in the first place -- they're usually no more than 40'000 to 50'000 words long, meaning they're significantly shorter than a regular novel. The equivalent of a light novel in America (courtesy of Ailyn for this one -- not that I didn't know this detail but I might not've immediately thought of using the word if she didn't bring it up just now on the phone) would be what's called a novella -- they do exist in the west, as previously suggested.

Pretty much the point of my quote I just listed.

And a little more trivia, a visual novel without player interaction is called a kinetic novel.

There's a detail I didn't know. Well, there you have it people -- 'Guardian Ascension' might be a kinetic novel series, not a visual novel series. Hopefully this'll remove any of the misconceptions people keep getting about there being interaction or routes/endings in the story, since my associates never mentioned the term kinetic novel to me before. Good detail to have since it can avoid confusions.

@CrazyShadowy
Another day where sleep eludes me... So, how goes?

@Shoryu Magami
It goes, so far so good. You really ought to get some sleep.

@CrazyShadowy
That's good, at least. On my end, if I sleep now I'll wake up at the wrong time again and have another wasted day.

@Shoryu Magami
Hmm, still would be best to sleep at somepoint.

@CrazyShadowy
If I actually believed I'd wake up in five or so hours, I'd sleep now.

@Shoryu Magami
Fair enough I guess.

@Shoryu Magami Insensitive and too much are both matters of opinion. I think it may be possible to be heavy handed even with few details, though I believe it would bring things over into uncomfortably blunt. Like saying "this is your fault" in a delicate situation where the person is responsible or something. *shrug* Heavy-handed comes from the idea of a heavy hand -- a blow, or hitting someone. It's not so much that it's too much of something, but more that what is used is inappropriate for the situation. Again, a punch to the face and not merely an offer. Maybe in terms of writing it's taken on different meanings, but I definitely think you can use a lot of detail and maintain a light touch, if you have the skill.

Yeah, it's true that a Sue is highly subjective. I'm actually more likely to use it in the context of an rper's attitude than for a character alone. The problem is more the way the character is treated, and less in the traits of the character themselves. The traits tend to be warning signs -- symptoms, and not the problem. My opinion about most things is that it's all in the execution -- and I have seen a character with enough of the "Sue" traits that anyone who looked at the character blurb probably had red flags going up all over, but he was played so well he was one of my favorites in that rp. In fact, I'd go so far as to say a lot of the "Sue" traits can actually make a character more interesting, if employed with skill. Generally it's a good idea to be sparing and not use a bunch of them without a considered reason. Sorry if I hit a button for you.

The point about so-called Sues in real life...hm. I think you're right. Even to the point that a real person might make you go "no way is that really true". I think the issue in writing is that if you stretch suspension of belief too far it will break, and unless that's what you're going for it's a really bad thing to do that. Egregiously Sueish characters can do this. Not to mention many people find them annoying, and depending on the person might dislike a book simply because they dislike a character. *shrugs* Again, it all comes down to personal taste, as you suggested.

Ooh, genre labels. Don't get me started here. I'd argue that having a genre (that'd make it genre fiction, right?) is independent of literary fiction, although I'll admit I'm not entirely clear on what literary fiction is. Then again, I hate people who dismiss stuff simply because it's scifi/fantasy, as if that doesn't count as fiction. My opinion is that something can fall under the umbrella of a label but shouldn't be defined by it. Just because it defies expectations doesn't mean it doesn't fall under the umbrella -- and I'm going to stop there since I can feel myself gearing up here.

All criticism, in the end, is personal preference. Even to grammar, though that's got more of an official status than other matters. If I recall right, there's a poet out there that uses no caps and little punctuation, but the poetry was still good. Something about a cockroach hopping on a keyboard...? I can't remember. In the context of an rp, I don't think unsolicited opinions can be entirely avoided. People are actively writing with the character/style of other players and the DM, and so should be allowed to express feelings. Bashing is in bad taste. Constructive criticism, or saying their personal feelings, is another matter. And while with a rp there does have to be the option of "well you can write it like that but not here", in general I would hope well-considered critique comes with the understanding that in the end, it is the writer's choice what to do with it. And that includes saying "screw you" -- though I would hope if the reader is polite that it wouldn't be said in so many words. ^.^

Hm, well. If you're just listing details in a paragraph, that tends to bother me more than if you can incorporate them into the story. Your example of the man with the dislike of tight clothing being unhappy in a suit, that would expand the character to me. But introducing him in sweats and then telling me he hates suits is more likely to throw me -- unless, again, you can tie it in well. I think my dislike runs more to chunky paragraphs of description with no regard for how it fits together. Sort of like my opinion of rap. It's not that I dislike rap, though I thought I did. The music and style themselves are quite good, as my love for Hamilton has shown me. But so many rap artists swear every other word and keep talking about banging and shooting and I don't even -- it took a truly stellar example of a different sort of rap to change my bias against the genre. I guess with details when they fit into the story I don't notice them as being shoved in my face, and thus why I keep using detail-heavy in a negative context. It's the shoving I don't like, not the details themselves.

The idea of listing all the details as being common courtesy comes with a caveat -- it's only courtesy if you can do it without punching people in the face (which I suppose is also a matter of their opinion, but whatever). If you know a person doesn't like slogging through pages of details, then it's not very nice to make no effort to avoid that. So it's a contextual issue, and dependent upon who you're with.

Your detailed response to handling details (*giggling*) has proved very enlightening. I am going to try to avoid my gut reaction to the advanced label, since I think advanced can be shorter posts but very heavy in the lore department. They're connected but not completely dependent upon each other, and the division gets my goat every time, as I've seen the labels used repeatedly for bashing people that do good writing simply because it didn't meet someone else's standard.

In an rp context, few people outside of the most verbose writers (and the most voracious readers) are willing to go through pages and pages for a single post. Even in advanced, I've seen upper limits on post length suggested. So it's definitely a niche group you'd be looking for, to be happy. In other cases, because you're working with other people, if a detail that would have been significant is overlooked and comes up later, there are a couple options. You can retcon, which may be possible if it's not too far back. You can handwave and say, for whatever reason, it was overlooked at the time. You can go "well...oops, we've got a hole, but fixing it will leave holes elsewhere, so let's just keep going." In the end it's up to the players to sort out the issues so that everyone is more or less satisfied, however that might be done.

For solo writing, as I've said, I prefer details to be woven in, and I do like them but I also have a limit. I don't want to take an hour break to learn about every freckle on someone's face. It's a fine balance between dropping everythign to describe some new character or place, and leaving out details entirely. My personal preference, as stated before, is that the author have the skill to keep things moving as they paint the picture, but I'll enjoy a range of methods. I'm not the most picky of readers. ^.^;;

Drawings are entirely different, and if you choose to include them they change the argument significantly. And if you're commissioning an artist, painstakingly thorough details are a plus in most cases, as is the willingness of the artist to tweak an initial sketch to fit the vision of the commissioner. Within reason -- significant changes that aren't errors on the part of the artist may cost more if you make them do a lot of extra work. But I digress.

Ooh, playing another person's characters. This can be a fun topic. I've never felt comfortable playing someone else's chars, be they canon from some other media, or belonging to another person. I've gotten a bit more comfortable with portraying Character B if I've rped with them under the control of their player in the past, and I'm using my character from that rp and Char B plays a big part in my char's life or soemthing. I'm always aware, though, that I'm playing /my version/ of Char B, and not truly Char B. ...And at times I've had my version take on a life of their own and start demanding that I pay them more attention, and I'll end up using them separately, but knowing this is a separate entity from the original. I've had people adopt characters of mine, for one reason or another. Mostly my favorite DM, when he's doing solo writing for NaNo set in the world of our group's rp campaigns, or writing interim stories (gods I love it when he does this). And my regard for him and my trust in him as a DM is such that I'm comfortable with this, and he does ask when he has questions about things. But because I trust him, I'm okay with minor inconsistencies, because wow is the story worth it to me. <3 I have to really trust someone to be comfortable with a person adopting my chars, and I found out someone else had...and done them poorly, without my permission, and I'm not completely okay although I do understand why. He's forgiven, but I'm very aware that it's /his/ version of those chars, and not anything resembling mine. Sandy, my favorite DM, tends to be good at keeping it close enough to my version that suspension of disbelief can accommodate the rest.

I've also been asked to play a character that had a rough idea established, and then I was to build upon it to make a full character, and I've done this several times. Or I'm asked to play someone so an rp will not be a player talking to themselves all the time. I am willing, with the understanding that I'm not going to play it how the creator will play it, and the character is going to change under my direction.

@shylarah
Gonna address the paragraphs one at a time with whatever thoughts I have. On the other hand, almost twenty-four hours without sleep at this point and I think I had - what - four hours or so last time I got to rest. With this in mind, my post might be a little less coherent than they usually are, but I'll try to make myself clear. I'm planning to keep my responses shorter - mostly due to feeling like I'll collapse at any moment - but it might not happen -- I mostly just want to avoid repeating too many things I've already said.

Insensitive and too much are both matters of opinion. I think it may be possible to be heavy handed even with few details, though I believe it would bring things over into uncomfortably blunt. Like saying "this is your fault" in a delicate situation where the person is responsible or something. *shrug* Heavy-handed comes from the idea of a heavy hand -- a blow, or hitting someone. It's not so much that it's too much of something, but more that what is used is inappropriate for the situation. Again, a punch to the face and not merely an offer. Maybe in terms of writing it's taken on different meanings, but I definitely think you can use a lot of detail and maintain a light touch, if you have the skill.

The problem with referring to someone as heavy-handed is that it's entirely subjective, which was the main point I made earlier with the whole 'Some Anvils Need To Be Dropped' concept. A lot of people consider me heavy-handed simply by virtue of fact that I'm strong and very forthright with people. I don't believe it's wrong to be honest with people, but a lot of sensitive people - or those who are insecure about their beliefs - find my conviction intimidating. I don't think I should be blamed for them being overtly sensitive -- yes, whether or not they're too sensitive is an opinion, but so is the claim that I'm heavy-handed. Whether it be in writing or out of writing, I believe in being direct with people and not beating around the bush -- partly because I hate people who wear masks. So if I need to offend a couple of sensitive people in order to be honest with the people who actually appreciate it, I will. My story is not gentle, but then most 'literary fiction' isn't to the best of my understanding.

Yeah, it's true that a Sue is highly subjective. I'm actually more likely to use it in the context of an rper's attitude than for a character alone. The problem is more the way the character is treated, and less in the traits of the character themselves. The traits tend to be warning signs -- symptoms, and not the problem. My opinion about most things is that it's all in the execution -- and I have seen a character with enough of the "Sue" traits that anyone who looked at the character blurb probably had red flags going up all over, but he was played so well he was one of my favorites in that rp. In fact, I'd go so far as to say a lot of the "Sue" traits can actually make a character more interesting, if employed with skill. Generally it's a good idea to be sparing and not use a bunch of them without a considered reason. Sorry if I hit a button for you.

It's only hitting a button because of how many decent writers - or decent characters - I've seen being bashed by what I can only describe as a juvenile meme that's gotten way too out of hand over the decades. The original meaning of 'Mary Sue' is a character that's so perfect that they have the power to make other characters like them, even when doing so results in those characters behaving completely OOC. This was usually done by fanfic writers who did self-insert characters into fandom settings as a means of escapism. The fact that the canon characters had to behave OOC is what I mean when I say that writing a 'Mary Sue' - in the original sense - was all about an absence of details, not a result of too many details -- a writer who was scrutinizing the details wouldn't be making characters write OOC in the first place, and this is why associating 'detail' with 'Mary Sue' is nonsensical to me.

I more or less agree with most of what you said in this paragraph, but that's because anything will be bad in writing if it isn't used without reason, and being detailed is usually where the reason comes from. There's not a single thing (character, plot, detail, line, concept, et cetera) in my story that doesn't have meaning and a reason (in my eyes) to be there, even if the readers are unlikely to understand a lot of the purpose.

The point about so-called Sues in real life...hm. I think you're right. Even to the point that a real person might make you go "no way is that really true". I think the issue in writing is that if you stretch suspension of belief too far it will break, and unless that's what you're going for it's a really bad thing to do that. Egregiously Sueish characters can do this. Not to mention many people find them annoying, and depending on the person might dislike a book simply because they dislike a character. *shrugs* Again, it all comes down to personal taste, as you suggested.

Given what I said earlier about how writers who lack a lot of details in their work almost always end up breaking my suspension of disbelief, I understand where you're coming from with this; however, you can break suspension of disbelief with almost anything if it's badly executed or without sufficient depth, so I don't think it's inherently an explicit trait of 'Sues'. A lot of people find 'Sue' characters annoying out of jealousy or - in the case of the forum I used to be on - because they dislike characters that are genuinely nice people because those characters make them (people who are assholes) look bad in comparison. If they're that insecure, they should think about growing as a person instead of trying to pull others down to their level like a primary school bully. As we've both said, it's all a matter of personal taste -- I've very frequently quit reading/watching a piece of fiction because I disliked a character, and to the best of my recollection none of those characters were 'Sues'.

Ooh, genre labels. Don't get me started here. I'd argue that having a genre (that'd make it genre fiction, right?) is independent of literary fiction, although I'll admit I'm not entirely clear on what literary fiction is. Then again, I hate people who dismiss stuff simply because it's scifi/fantasy, as if that doesn't count as fiction. My opinion is that something can fall under the umbrella of a label but shouldn't be defined by it. Just because it defies expectations doesn't mean it doesn't fall under the umbrella -- and I'm going to stop there since I can feel myself gearing up here.

Having a genre isn't what makes something classify as 'genre fiction'. Before I go further, I'll give you this information:

Literary fiction comprises fictional works that hold literary merit; that is, they involve social commentary, or political criticism, or focus on the human condition. Literary fiction is deliberately written in dialogue with existing works, created with the above aims in mind and is focused more on themes than on plot, and it is common for literary fiction to be taught and discussed in schools and universities.

With this in mind, it's entirely possible for a piece of fiction in any sort of genre to be considered 'literary fiction' if a heavy emphasis is put on philosophy, psychology, et cetera, and the story isn't just focusing on 'the good guys beating the bad guys' or 'whether or not that girl will get the guy she's crushing on'. Naturally, all works of fiction should have a plot; however, it's the fact that 'literary fiction' seeks to find a balance between the plot and with being mature and rooted in realism - merging philosophical discussions and heavily detailed characterization into the fictional work, and giving them as much focus or more than the story itself - that separates it from 'genre fiction', which is entirely focused on the story and seldom ever has a genuinely 'relevant' point to make. My project is as much a story as it is a set of philosophy books -- one of my good friends believes I could easily use my story as my thesis if I went and got a degree in philosophy.

One of the reasons I think Naoki Urasawa's Monster is one of the best anime series ever created is because of how human the characters are and how philosophical/psychological it is. In my eyes, that series is 'literary fiction' despite still having an entertaining and compelling story -- the story is made more compelling for me by its literary merit. To now create a comparison, a series such as Death Note would be 'genre fiction' because - even though it's heavily psychological in nature as well - the purpose of the psychology and mind games is purely written for entertainment purposes and only on a few occasions does the story ever try to give a relevant message (and, according to the author, those instances were not intended to be taken as serious philosophical discussions -- this is the complete opposite of my story, where every single mature discussion in the project is meant to be taken as very relevant food for thought). I think Death Note is entertaining, but it's not 'literary fiction' -- rather, at the very least, the author never intended for it to be, whereas I'm certain Naoki Urasawa's Monster was aiming for social commentary and discussion of the human condition.

Just for the record, I'm not personally that interested in many science fiction stories (especially when it's only sci-fi and no other genres are mixed in with it), but there's nothing wrong with people liking the genre -- just keep in mind that the less rooted in reality the genre is, the more difficult it is to give a relevant message (and therefore be 'literary fiction') -- it's not impossible (I have 'gods' and such in my story, but this is because my work discusses ontology and metaphysics), but the less relatable to our world the setting is the less relevant it can be. Part of my nature as a literary analyser is that I perceive the line between these types of fictions very clearly. It isn't so much a 'label' so much as it's the overall definition of whether or not the work is trying to be more than just a story, if you will. My story is written around my philosophy and experiences, so everything that happens in the plot is created to facilitate the fact that the project is a manifestation and expression of my soul -- this is pretty much what defines 'literary fiction' from 'genre fiction' (a.k.a. storytelling). Of course, 'literary fiction' will tell a story too, as the example I gave with Naoki Urasawa's Monster clearly shows, but the more adult aims of the work is why these stories are usually less appropriate for immature audiences. Don't misunderstand me though -- I'm not saying that it's wrong for people to write 'genre fiction', but I usually have a personal preference for works that would be considered 'literary fiction'.

All criticism, in the end, is personal preference. Even to grammar, though that's got more of an official status than other matters. If I recall right, there's a poet out there that uses no caps and little punctuation, but the poetry was still good. Something about a cockroach hopping on a keyboard...? I can't remember. In the context of an rp, I don't think unsolicited opinions can be entirely avoided. People are actively writing with the character/style of other players and the DM, and so should be allowed to express feelings. Bashing is in bad taste. Constructive criticism, or saying their personal feelings, is another matter. And while with a rp there does have to be the option of "well you can write it like that but not here", in general I would hope well-considered critique comes with the understanding that in the end, it is the writer's choice what to do with it. And that includes saying "screw you" -- though I would hope if the reader is polite that it wouldn't be said in so many words. ^.^

I haven't heard of the poet, but I'd easily believe someone like that exists and the content of their words would mean more to me then how they're written. Ultimately, I agree that people should be able to express feelings towards each others writing during a role-play, but I prefer to think of it as discussion instead of blatant criticism. If it gets to the point where role-players feel the need to blatantly criticise each other then they're probably not compatible writers -- better to move on and find a different partner or GM, instead of waste time on needless bickering. I'll be honest -- I don't have people criticise my work much, and each time someone has commented on my only IC posts here so far it's been extremely positive reception. With that being said, if I'm not role-playing with someone I have no interest in their criticisms, and even if I am role-playing with them I'm only interested in bettering my ability to collaborate in the OOC with them -- I won't change my style of writing to please other people.

Hm, well. If you're just listing details in a paragraph, that tends to bother me more than if you can incorporate them into the story. Your example of the man with the dislike of tight clothing being unhappy in a suit, that would expand the character to me. But introducing him in sweats and then telling me he hates suits is more likely to throw me -- unless, again, you can tie it in well. I think my dislike runs more to chunky paragraphs of description with no regard for how it fits together. Sort of like my opinion of rap. It's not that I dislike rap, though I thought I did. The music and style themselves are quite good, as my love for Hamilton has shown me. But so many rap artists swear every other word and keep talking about banging and shooting and I don't even -- it took a truly stellar example of a different sort of rap to change my bias against the genre. I guess with details when they fit into the story I don't notice them as being shoved in my face, and thus why I keep using detail-heavy in a negative context. It's the shoving I don't like, not the details themselves.

A lot of (not all) the details I give are written in what I'll call - for lack of a better term - 'context narrative' -- I dislike it when writing simply states the fact and doesn't explain it. For example, you can write that a character responds to something out of anger, but I want to see a written explanation for why they're angry, which is usually best given as internal dialogue or having the narrative explain the character's thought process. Similarly, a lot of my details are information about my setting or lore which give context to a point that the story has just brought up -- the scene feels incomplete to me without going into the background behind it. If this is what you mean by incorporating it into the story, then I do this a lot -- the difference here is I feel like my 'context narrative' has more depth/content than a lot of other works. None of it would inherently be pointless, but a lot of information would nevertheless be given in order to build the world more and create the atmosphere of the situation. This includes setting and lore information, and also explanations about the character or their experiences and thoughts.

Using the example of the main protagonist we've been discussing, very early on in the story I make a point that the clothing he wears is baggy, to the point that he appears to be wearing clothes a size too big for him, and the 'context narrative' is given at this point is to explain that the motivation for him doing so, which is due to finding tight clothing uncomfortable. It's just a little bit of characterization that's given in a single sentence to make the character more human. I should also remind you that, as I mentioned in another thread, this character is directly based off myself, so this personality trait is one I have in real life -- the same goes for the pocket watch thing. The suit situation was entirely hypothetical on the other hand, since the only situation I can think of where he'd ever need to wear one is at a wedding.

As for what you said about chunky paragraphs and 'shoving the details in your face', my thoughts vary a bit. I think whether or not a paragraph is chunky or not is entirely subjective, but I don't personally feel like I put together big paragraphs without trying to stay on topic with them. Most of the time the paragraph is giving context to a thought a character just had or something about the world that just got brought up - with occasional elaborations where the context is given further context in order to show how well-thought-out the setting is and also show more of the lore - and I don't personally feel like it doesn't fit together -- unfortunately, whether it 'looks nice' and 'fits together' is a matter of opinion, so what looks good to me and what looks good to you might differ and we really wouldn't know unless I gave you a sample. My reasoning for believing I don't shove details in people's face is that they're frequently given as 'context narrative' for something -- whether this context is 'important' or not is entirely subjective, but for someone who loves detail - like myself - they're essential. The only complete sample of my official project I have is from one of the first chapters of the story -- it's painfully out of date and only in the draft phase, so I couldn't show it to you unless I went and touched it up.

On a side note, I'm not a fan of rap myself and I don't know who Hamilton is.

The idea of listing all the details as being common courtesy comes with a caveat -- it's only courtesy if you can do it without punching people in the face (which I suppose is also a matter of their opinion, but whatever). If you know a person doesn't like slogging through pages of details, then it's not very nice to make no effort to avoid that. So it's a contextual issue, and dependent upon who you're with.

'Punching people in the face' is - yes - all opinion. It's a contextual issue, for sure, and this is why I simply think it's better for me to not role-play with people who aren't compatible with my style of writing, and vice versa. Outside of role-playing - in a solo writing situation - it's entirely the readers fault in my eyes if they decide to pick up a book with a style of writing that doesn't suit their tastes -- you aren't going to blame me for writing a horror novel if you're the one who chose to buy it despite hating the genre (hypothetical, not assuming you hate the genre), are you?

Your detailed response to handling details (*giggling*) has proved very enlightening. I am going to try to avoid my gut reaction to the advanced label, since I think advanced can be shorter posts but very heavy in the lore department. They're connected but not completely dependent upon each other, and the division gets my goat every time, as I've seen the labels used repeatedly for bashing people that do good writing simply because it didn't meet someone else's standard.

When I say 'advanced', I don't usually mean long posts so much as I mean detailed posts. I don't care if a post is two paragraphs long or eight paragraphs long -- I care about whether or not it tells me all the details I want to know. Unfortunately, there's a limit to how many details you can give in shorter posts, but that isn't to say it's impossible and sometimes a short post is appropriate because there legitimately isn't many details to contribute. Lore alone doesn't define detail though, since plenty of stories have very well-thought-out lore but then the characters are mostly undetailed and lifeless entities which - as stated previously - serve no purpose other than to be tools to move the story forward -- this is more common in 'genre fiction' since the plotline is the focus and not the study of the human condition. I'd much prefer a story with very good characterization but no lore over the opposite extreme, but ideally a story should have a good amount of both.

Yeah, I agree that the labels shouldn't be used as an excuse for bashing -- I can just as easily see people bashing my walls of text and using the 'advanced' label negatively as the basis for it. With that said, I prefer to think of the 'free'/'casual'/'advanced' concept as a guideline to make it easier for people to find suitable role-playing partners, not as a justification for bashing. I wouldn't be comfortable with role-playing with a one-liner role-player since there's no way I'd feel immersed, so having myself listed as an 'advanced' role-player in my bio serves as a helpful warning to people who don't like walls of text that I'm probably not the person they should choose to write with. Similarly, I really don't like play-by-post role-plays that use Tabletop mechanics such as dice, so having a forum dedicated to those types of role-plays allows me to know where I should keep away from, and the arena forum is there so that people who don't want to do arena role-play know where to stay out of. These can be thought of as labels, but they're useful guidelines too.

In the end, I obviously feel the same way as you when it comes to thinking people shouldn't be criticising other people's writing because it doesn't meet their personal standards. Almost this entire discussion has been centred around me defending my style of writing and expressing my unwillingness to tolerate those who try to attack it or convert me to some other style.

In an rp context, few people outside of the most verbose writers (and the most voracious readers) are willing to go through pages and pages for a single post. Even in advanced, I've seen upper limits on post length suggested. So it's definitely a niche group you'd be looking for, to be happy. In other cases, because you're working with other people, if a detail that would have been significant is overlooked and comes up later, there are a couple options. You can retcon, which may be possible if it's not too far back. You can handwave and say, for whatever reason, it was overlooked at the time. You can go "well...oops, we've got a hole, but fixing it will leave holes elsewhere, so let's just keep going." In the end it's up to the players to sort out the issues so that everyone is more or less satisfied, however that might be done.

Don't misunderstand me; I honestly don't think my walls of text are as long as you might be imagining in terms of a single role-play post -- they're certainly longer than some peoples though. While I don't - by any stretch of the imagination - consider it my best work (especially since I'm not working with my project's setting here and the setting and role-playing style isn't really my preference), this is a pretty good example of the sort of role-playing I'll do in a casual situation. I say a casual situation because, for all intents and purposes, I joined this role-play to unjust a little since it's been over five years since I did any role-playing on a forum. While it's entirely subjective if you think my posts are too long or too short, this thread is the only IC example I have on this site for you.

With this in mind, be sure to remember that the type of role-players I'm looking for as partners aren't the ones who dishes out huge walls of text (most of my role-playing associates post significantly shorter than I do), but rather are those who will appreciate the length of my own posts and be willing to provide a decent amount of detail in their own responses -- when I say this, remember my previous point that I think you can give a good amount of detail without making an extremely long post, but if a post it too short there's usually not much you can elaborate on. The post length is less important than the depth of the content.

I agree it's up to the players to decide how to solve contradictions, but you'd do best to keep in mind that I consider retconning an significant example of bad writing -- to be fair though, this applies far more to solo writing then it does to role-playing. It's the whole idea of how Marvel (just an example, but a real one) tends to be so incompetent sometimes that they've pretty much turned it into a habit to retcon their whole universe each time they write themselves into a corner they can't write themselves out of. Once again, none of these problems would ever come up if they'd been more thorough with their details in the first place. Also, my attention to detail, perfectionism, and suspension of disbelief overall means I really don't like 'hand waving' things.

For solo writing, as I've said, I prefer details to be woven in, and I do like them but I also have a limit. I don't want to take an hour break to learn about every freckle on someone's face. It's a fine balance between dropping everythign to describe some new character or place, and leaving out details entirely. My personal preference, as stated before, is that the author have the skill to keep things moving as they paint the picture, but I'll enjoy a range of methods. I'm not the most picky of readers. ^.^;;

I think I've explained some of my methods in a previous paragraph, so I'll leave it at this unless something else comes to me. As I've made a point, I'm actually a very picky reader (and a very picky... well... everything), but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with you not bring picky. I'm just a lot more demanding than some people, which probably intimidates people. I don't expect anything from someone that I don't expect from myself though -- one of the reasons I'm not interested in other people's critique's is because I'm harsher on myself than I am anyone else, and I'm my own biggest critic.

Drawings are entirely different, and if you choose to include them they change the argument significantly. And if you're commissioning an artist, painstakingly thorough details are a plus in most cases, as is the willingness of the artist to tweak an initial sketch to fit the vision of the commissioner. Within reason -- significant changes that aren't errors on the part of the artist may cost more if you make them do a lot of extra work. But I digress.

More or less off the main topic, but still an enjoyable detail to discuss. I can't see myself ever getting someone else to draw my characters for me, but if someone wants me to draw a character of theirs I'd normally insist on a very detailed description so I can get the specifics of the character right. I've actually offered to draw people's characters in my art style before if they're going to take part in my setting, if they'd like to see what those characters would basically look like in my canon.

Ooh, playing another person's characters. This can be a fun topic. I've never felt comfortable playing someone else's chars, be they canon from some other media, or belonging to another person. I've gotten a bit more comfortable with portraying Character B if I've rped with them under the control of their player in the past, and I'm using my character from that rp and Char B plays a big part in my char's life or soemthing. I'm always aware, though, that I'm playing /my version/ of Char B, and not truly Char B. ...And at times I've had my version take on a life of their own and start demanding that I pay them more attention, and I'll end up using them separately, but knowing this is a separate entity from the original. I've had people adopt characters of mine, for one reason or another. Mostly my favorite DM, when he's doing solo writing for NaNo set in the world of our group's rp campaigns, or writing interim stories (gods I love it when he does this). And my regard for him and my trust in him as a DM is such that I'm comfortable with this, and he does ask when he has questions about things. But because I trust him, I'm okay with minor inconsistencies, because wow is the story worth it to me. <3 I have to really trust someone to be comfortable with a person adopting my chars, and I found out someone else had...and done them poorly, without my permission, and I'm not completely okay although I do understand why. He's forgiven, but I'm very aware that it's /his/ version of those chars, and not anything resembling mine. Sandy, my favorite DM, tends to be good at keeping it close enough to my version that suspension of disbelief can accommodate the rest.

We've had this discussion before, and I do think it's actually cool how you've got this relationship with that GM. I'm in a very similar situation with @Ailyn Evensen, and - in a different context - with another associate who I haven't seen in a while -- in his case, it's more like he understands my setting and lore at level that he's capable of writing up character sheets that fit my project so well that you'd believe me if I told you I wrote them myself. I don't believe he could inherently write my own characters perfectly, but you get my point. Since I'm a perfectionist and my suspension of disbelief is very easy to break, I'm very difficult to impress when it comes to someone else writing my characters -- I don't think it's possible for people to do it perfectly, and I'd sort of demand that, so I never ask anyone to use my characters unless it's one of the ones I'm basically giving Ailyn freedom over.

I've also been asked to play a character that had a rough idea established, and then I was to build upon it to make a full character, and I've done this several times. Or I'm asked to play someone so an rp will not be a player talking to themselves all the time. I am willing, with the understanding that I'm not going to play it how the creator will play it, and the character is going to change under my direction.

This is more or less what the characters Ailyn has adopted are now, within reason. The groundwork is established, but she's more or less been allowed to flesh those particular characters out because they're more enjoyable to me in her hands. It's only those specific characters though -- I wouldn't be having her or anyone else write all the other characters as a general rule.

Yo