Practice preparing for my own project Thread

Right now I am mainly a designer/programmer of my own project, but I've been always wanting to branch out and work with other people. I don't have any formal credentials, or provable experience beyond samples I can, and will, provide below. For that reason, I don't think I can demand money, but what I expect at least is an environment that will actually challenge my skills. I've been writing informally on and off for many years now, and feel I've refined my style very much in that sort of arena. However, I want to open the door to possibly crash testing my skills in a narrative environment which lends better to an interactive experience.

I'd like to list of genres that I can do, but I don't really operate that way. I don't feel that would accurately represent what I try to accomplish with most of my narrative ideas. I tend to have a somewhat modernist style of writing which demands a full understanding of ambiguities, genre bending, experimenting in structure, black humor, irreverence, occasionally unreliable narrators, flexible styles, variable sentence lengths, strategic awkwardness, stream of conscious, and other rather sophisticated techniques. Things that don't seem to be particularly applied to games quite often. Ideas that might have some difficulty translating themselves into the medium. But I wouldn't feel right leaving out of the process as they are my strongest suit. So, more or less, I have a very specific toolset which I believe can be quite valuable in the right context, but it has to be the kind of project that leans to my sensibilities.

Here are a few samples from the last thing I've written. I'd provide samples of what I'm writing for developing projects, which may fit better in context, but I'm keeping those to myself. These are three random passages that I think do a good job of representing what I do. Some of these quotes contain some fairly harsh language. As should be obvious there is a character named Krandel and a character named Cubic in this. I have added descriptions because I was told they were somewhat confusing.

First Excerpt: Larry Krandel's first meeting with Francis Cubic. As explained earlier in the story Krandel is a washed up actor who retired into comedy as a novelty ex-actor comedian. He had just recently burned out his last gig as a comedian with an outburst to a hostile audience which had him blacklisted from the circuit. He decided to return to acting and accepted a gig with an art director with a reputation for recasting burnt out actors in unusual roles:

Didn't even shake Krandel's hand... He didn't acknowledge Krandel's voice... He didn't even seem to see him. The message was sent pretty strong as Cubic ignored his presence while on set. Krandel turned back to the hand who brought him up to Krandel who simply shrugged. It seemed the crew were not any more willing to confront Cubic. Cubic, his own creative demigod with a split personality serving as his only muse. An introspective genius. A man who's brain worked like calculus. He was a precise machine with no emotions. He obsessed, however, with emotional connection. So film become a means to fill that void. He knew that Krandel was there and Krandel knew that he knew he was there. Yet even the staff was petrified to confront him. The man built a steel shell with spinning saws around him. His own little fortress where he could get high snorting his hubris. He was a perfectionist but fragile as a child. He escaped in himself, and after so many years of convincing himself he was a genius, he somehow externalized that image. He was the correct personality type for the art house scene. Not only an odd peg but a jagged one. One that could not function correctly in the world of technicalities and politeness. Who could not even imagine of connecting to the common man, or anybody. One could even argue that he got to a point where he was so deeply into himself that he lost contact with himself. The umbilical cut to drift...

Second Excerpt: After meeting with directory Francis Cubic, Larry Krandel has a moment of self reflection. He has a conversation with a vague inner voice about the meeting of Gregory Cubic, the son of Francis Cubic. Somebody that, at this point of the story, we know nothing about. Francis Cubic, as expressed, is a rather eccentric figure, and it is implied that his son is even moreso. Without any details given about his son, this is how Krandel accesses the presumed result of their meeting:

"...Cubic is a deity of his own art to himself, voice in my head. Ignorant, sweet, innocent voice who comforts me at these times of want and need. His son is a God of commerce to himself. They think they're on the same side now but they're going to clash very soon, and it will be a woeful endeavor. One to put the kiddies to bed for. To truth they will stain each other with the red tinge of each other's inner flesh. They will bring out the true primordial shark. The mondoshark! With diamond encrusted teeth and blood-ruby eyes sewn into their hallow jugular sockets with the sinew of the freshly stabbed virgin fawn. They might have to find a more dramatic word for holocaust when this comes to forefront..."

Third Excerpt; This comes soon after the first excerpt describing the meeting between Krandel and Cubic. Krandel has several misgivings about his immediate future.

Krandel was ushered off of set as he was frozen in time. Lost in these thoughts. These self confused run on tangents which plagued his mind and the mind of everybody who has ever been in his situation at any point in time or anybody who would ever hope to be in a situation like this where they are lost in their own inner thoughts for awhile to drift into space far from reality but maybe this was the space in which Cubic inhabits that he could eventually use in order to collaborate to create the best performance of both of their careers, in fact. It was feared that he would become an obstruction on set if he stood there long enough. Cubic didn't seem to concern himself with such things, but if he became one to Cubic the deal would be off. Maybe the hand would not drop the pulley after Krandel fell deep within the mineshaft when Cubic first force fed him his uniquely cold introduction - or lack thereof. Krandel was brought back to some lobby. He didn't know that studios had lobbies, and didn't even remember crossing through it on his way in. He was blinded with excitement, and couldn't make out the details. The lobby music drilled into him like a maniacal dentist who tried to drug himself with his own Novocaine but replaced it with a gaseous cocktail of steroids and meth amphetamines. Of course, it was dentist music that was playing in the lobby. The dead lobby. Every corner inch there was splatters of drab. Like the drab killer was out on the loose stabbing people with knives of pure tedium. The drab killer - the worst enemy he had now. The drab killer killing him with something else gaseous. The gas of monotony which leaks in from every single spotted dot in the ceiling. The spotted dots that Krandel was counting. Don't worry, he never got past twelve. I mean, his attention span was near non-existent at that point, or any point for that matter.

Of course, this does a pretty poor job of representing the skills in actual structuring of story that are hard to encapsulate in brief samples. However, I'm feeling that I can provide evidence of that in a discussion if what you've read above interests you in working with me. These short snippets should, in fact, give an idea of the kind of tone I'm going for. Of course, with that said, I'm not completely inflexible. This is just three random sections taken from a single portion of a story I'm writing. If you have an idea that you think might work for me, or at least I've got you curious enough to see whether it will or not, there's no harm in pitching it to me.

Shine Klevit: shineklevit@utopianpeasantry.com

Edited by: Shine_Klevit

Hi! I think a little feedback might help you find collaborators.

I found your example text to be stodgy, confused in perspective and confusing in nature. Consider that as a writer looking to collaborate, you are probably not selling yourself to another writer. You are more likely selling yourself to a producer or programmer - someone not well versed in narrative structure, someone who doesn't enjoy deep block paragraphs and ninety-word sentences, someone who doesn't want to think about a sample for twenty minutes before judging it. To be fair, the vast majority of writers don't appreciate that sort of thing, either.

Maybe weird is your style and the kind of thing you want to work on: but if you're after a gig and want experience and/or credibility, consider writing straight, too. Be weird but do mainstream.

Your sample needs to sell you quickly: don't expect patience from the reader. Flash fiction is good because if you can tell a whole story in 300 words - with a beginning, middle, end and preferably a plot twist - chances are that anyone can read and enjoy it in a couple of minutes. That displays storytelling and character-building abilities, which are really really important. Don't show three paragraphs of words for word's sake - try to show a STORY.

Take care, too, that your example is free of errors. The writer should be an authority on language - not a liability. The moment a reader sees a misplaced apostrophe, or typo, or clumsy sentence, there's doubt in their mind.

If you're into interactivity, consider creating a short Twine project and sharing that. Twine games are easy to make and interactivity is baked in: they make excellent demos for recruiters/collaborators. It also shows you're prepared to take initiative and actually finish a project. One completed piece is worth a hundred mind-blowing projects on the drawing board.

As it stands now, this is kind of a low risk gamble for me. If I don't find a collaborator than I have something to fall back on as I'm working on my own personal projects at the moment.

However, I am very serious about trying to translate this sort of abstract aesthetic into games through my writing. If I'm not doing it particularly well, then that's a problem. The way I saw it was that it was worth the risk as much as it is a shot in the dark. I'm much more interested in translating this kind of obscure style into game form than I am proving my worth as a conventional storyteller. I do believe I could be capable of being a conventional storyteller, but I don't know if I'd get much enjoyment out of it. I mean, if I was primarily a writer for other projects it'd be fine, but that's not my main trade. I do, however, feel I could be an asset if I happenstance across somebody who is interested in this sort of approach as rare as that might be.

Now, I don't want to give off the impression I'm being bullheaded or arrogant here. I am willing to take any feedback that's available, and I have taken what's been said to me in consideration. I just want to kind of put the focus on trying to sell what I want to do rather than simply sell myself as a writer. I mean, I am more interested in collaborating with like minds and developing new ideas than I am with making a profession out of it.

I don't have time to write a full short interactive fiction, but maybe I can try to cook up a flash fiction or something of that nature. It's not my typical thing, but there's no harm in trying to improve my chances. It might be just as weird but hopefully in a more complete and digestible way. Plus, I'll keep at, and try to improve my approach if it improves my chances of finding somebody interested.

Edited by: Shine_Klevit

TBH,

I found your excerpt confusing and laden with literary pin weal’s than actually a coherent narrative.

Beyond the point that these 2 people are working together in a film studio context, I have no idea what your story is about, and why what they’re saying to each other is important.

Many writers lose themselves in trying to prove their literary prowess that they forget the purpose is to have others read and understand their work as quickly and as simply as possible.

I know you’re probably trying to show off your literary abilities, but chalking in 10 things where 3 will do is not the sign of a good writer. In fact, it makes you look like your trying to put in as many advanced words and concepts as possible, to show it all off at once, which clutters the meaning.

I'm not reading it a 2nd time, since no one should need to read something more than once to get the idea of a narrative arc. (Especially a portfolio piece for a chance at a job)

All the fancy foot work makes me wonder if that's a smoke screen for actual solid content and creative narrative ability.

Trying to find people who like you and what you do for you is one thing, refusing to adjust your ways to reach a wider audience because you think people should take it or leave it, is another thing entirely.

The #1 rule to being a successful person regardless of field, is to try and meet people where they are, only if you do that 1^st, do you have the chance to take them where you want to go.

Edited by: GeneralJist

Well, it's actually 3 completely different excerpts. That's probably what might lead to the confusion. I'm going to reedit the post and include some short descriptions of what is going on for context.

You have to understand that these 3 different pieces to an 8000+ word story. A story in which it would make no sense to tell every detail of the characters within the span of a paragraph.

As for what is good writing, and what is bad writing, lets not be too narrow-minded here.

I don't mean to offend you, and fine, I read it a second time.

And my conclusion is still the same.

I have no idea who the characters are, more so because you go analogy after analogy after analogy, and by the time I'm done with the sentence, or paragraph, you've given me too much information and too many tangents, and tangents upon tangents, that I don't know what I'm meant to infer from all of it, and even forget which character your going on about.

It's like me saying:

James hated johns dad's wife's cousin, he hated him like a black hole of misery, misery so deep it ran red with blood and regret, regret so dangerous it was like a shark, not one of those sharks from shark tank, no an actual shark, like a great white shark, which shouldn't even be named that, since they only got a speckle of white. A speckle so spectacular it was just like the 4th of July, on that one time in that one place where James lost his virginity. A virginity so virgin it was literally just like Mary giving birth to Jesus, in that manger under that one star, that was definitely not David's Star, but maybe it was the star of David. You know, the one we put on those trees, oh how James hated, he would go to his quiet place in his mind, so quiet it would drown out his other thoughts, like a tsunami of daggers, daggers placed like a prison of murder, murdering any stray thoughts that got in the way of his pure explosive hate.

And on and on and on like that.

You don't have to quantify each noun, or analogize each emotion.

It honestly sounds like you are just writing down everything that comes to mind, any association, to any other, to make your writing as vivid as possible, it's too much.

Too much for the laymen, too much for another writer trying to appreciate your work, too much for any kind of game.

Could you imagine a character in a choice based RPG saying any of your dialog?

It's unrealistic.

I should know, sometimes I talk linking associations, on and on and on and on. But I don't write that way.

Writing is meant to distill thoughts not start a chain of analogies and tangents that try to describe a scene or an emotion.

I'm sorry, but length is not the marker of a good writer.

A good writer uses words strategically to evoke a specific reaction from the reader, your evoking 10, were 1 will do. Your diluting your points in a sea of images, and at the end, we don't know which one you intended the most.

You need to edit, or you need an editor.

Why write more than you need to? To show us you can? To try and show us how creative or intelligent you are?

The above can be simplified to:

James hated his friend's cousin so much, it felt like a supernova went off every time he was mentioned.

That will do, and then move on with it.

It feels like you almost crack open a thesaurus before you write any sentence, and go,"hmm, how many words and cool sounding images can I squeeze into this one?"

Don't mean to bee rude, really I don't, but maybe there is a reason why you have trouble collaborating with others...It's very clear from your writing style.

OK, now I've read your post A 3RD TIME, and I do have to say, there is something kind of intriguing about stringing so many analogies in sentence upon sentence, my points still stand, but maybe you should do poetry, that may be the best use of your observed skills. I'd still not choose to read a book in your style tho, nor bring you on as a games writer.

I still can't imagine any narrative or choice based game that would ask for this style of writing...

In games, you need to leave room for artists and others to do their work, to put in their creativity, so many writers forget that.

Anything you write has the chance to become hours of work for other people, and or read by all your followers, knowing how to get your point across to the type of audience you want is critical.

In games, you don't have time to take the audience through a vortex of images and bombard them with an eternity of emotions.

Especially in modding and indie. Go back to the drawing board, and figure out what kind of game you want to write for, there is slim to no chance a project recruiter will happen upon your post, and go "OMG, do I have a game for this writing style!"

Edited by: GeneralJist

I am fully capable of writing kitchen sink screenplay type stuff. However, I feel it'd be redundant to just present straight up "realistic" dialog. It doesn't take a whole lot of skill to represent how people naturally talk from a linguistic point of view. It is natural by any form of logic. However, the real skill in screenplay writing is having the words in dialog correlate to the sequence of events. If you don't know the events, figuring out the quality of the dialog is impossible.

The techniques I'm employing, which you so condescendingly criticize, are not uncommon at all in modernist fiction(and post-modernist but I find the differences in output between the two as non-existent). The point is not to simply to blandly tell a sequence from A to B to C in an easily digestible way. I am capable of doing that, but there's no way to express the ability to do that competently with any semblance of brevity. So, I focused on what sets me apart.

If you do not like the approach, I am perfectly fine with it. However, it should be abundantly clear that it's a stylistic choice as you can infer from what I said in the first post. It is very willfully meandering and even kind of playful about it(the shark thing was kind of supposed to be sardonic. I feel it's insulting the reader's intelligence if I have to explain that rather than just letting them enjoy it).

Yes, I could have simply stated in the first excerpt that Krandel approached Cubic as:

"Krandel met the director Francis Cubic, and extended his hand. Francis Cubic completely ignored him in response. He turned to the stage hand who brought him there but he simply shrugged in response. It was obvious that the stage hand was terrified of Cubic.".

But, didn't simply describe it that way because I don't think it reads well, personally. At least, that approach honestly bores me. I don't think it's bad writing but it's just not my sensibility. To me, It's just fine for screenplay because screenplay is written in a way where the director can fill in the gaps. However, the excerpts do not come from a screenplay. There should be allowed experiments in prose. That, in itself, is the nature of the medium.

They were just an attempt to establish a tone. That tone does not have to translate word for word into dialog. Maybe it's not the best way to to sell myself, but I'm more interested in sell that approach then selling myself, anyway.

However, when it's abstracted the intent is not to describe the situation but to make the reader feel what's going on with the characters from a subconscious level. I'd rather the reader feel the events than just have them spewed off into his or her ears a bland expository fashion.

If nobody is interested in what I'm doing on it's own merits, my feelings won't be hurt. But you've got to approach this with an open mind.

Edited by: Shine_Klevit

@Shine_Klevit : GeneralJist and jjc_uk have taken the words off my mouth so I don't need to repeat them. I just want to emphasize that in game, text blocks like this are more likely be skipped cause players are keen to see some actions instead of texts.

Speaking of actions, what kind of game which could use your story? action, adventure, RPG or what?

We're not saying your writing style is terrible, and will most likely never get you anywhere, we're saying your meandering writing style will most likely not get you anywhere in games, and will most likely not appeal to a mainstream audience. (unless you, yourself connect the dots between what you can offer, and what is needed. Your asking not only where you fit, but what shape you are....)

I have no doubt others may speak and write in that style, in fact, I linked this to a friend, and he says he has a friend who talks that way.

Link to me a published author or book that uses your style, and I'll reconsider the point on it appealing to mainstream readers.

Observe in my above post where I say:

In games, you don't have time to take the audience through a vortex of images and bombard them with an eternity of emotions.

I use 3 words that evoke imagery to get my point across. Adding in anymore would dilute the point,and potentially overwhelm the reader. Think of it this way, people need time and space to muse on the images you just gave them, it's the difference between using a machine gun,where a pistil will do.

We're criticizing it, not just because of the above, but because you want advice as to how to incorporate the style into games. We're telling you we can't, or not yet. (from the best of our knowledge)

If you wanted to remain a lone ranger writer, than we'd all shut up, and let you try your own hand at success, but your asking for advice as to how to collaborate with your style. And we're telling you, we can't, not with what you currently have.

Sometimes if you don't bend you will break. Collaboration involves critical critique. I know we're telling you to change the way you been writing for years, but that's what you get if you wait years before you ask for feedback/ advice.

True writing paints the events through dialog, good dialog explains why the events are noteworthy.

Your asking for a game that allows you to directly see the thoughts of a character, and to go down a rabbit hole of analogies to paint a vivid picture in the player's mind. Why do we need that if we have an artist making art, so they see the mood, a composer making music & Sfx so they hear the tones?

A writer friend ones told me:

I prefer books to every other medium since nothing can compete with my imagination.

Your asking for internal unsubstantial thoughts a character feels to be expressed in something other then imagination, in a game/ any technology. That is currently not possible, and would be the golden goose breakthrough , if that's ever developed.

Your asking for the one main unique quality of the written word, to be shown.

I put it like-this:

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but I say a word is worth infinite pictures.

adjust your expectations...

If your applying for a writing job, you don't hall out a box of postit notes you've written a script on, and lay them all out so they can read your masterpiece of literary genius. The interviewer asks you why you did it this way than on normal paper or on a word file, and you tell him you wanted to show off your creativity, and you been doing it this way on your own for years, and that you want him to find /figure out what kind of writing project he has that might fit your eclectic writing style and format. You tell him you’ve always written on postit notes, and refuse to use a computer, or write it on typically sized paper.

Your goal was to try and convince someone you would be a good writer for their games project. And that you’re a good writer for their needs.

What you've shown us gives us the opposite impression. Your persistence to your style, and a refusal to change your writing dependent on the situation is a very bad sign. And on that alone, I'd call you a bad writer.

It's not just that your style is obscure and hard to understand, it's that you seem to think what your doing is classic artistic genius, and we're all fools to not see your potential, and allow you to convert all our project documents to this style, since it's better. And saying something for simply what it is, is boring, and unoriginal.

Refusing to adapt to the situation is what leads to stagnation, and ultimately failure.

Or maybe your one of those people so beyond his time that no one understands, if your one of those, why don't you go try and create your own game or genre that will work with your writing style, and prove us all wrong, you are a programmer after all....

You don’t conform a product to the written specifications, you conform written specifications to the product. That’s like asking construction workers to design a building without blueprints, and making the blueprints from the completed building once it’s done. And if the blueprints don’t exactly match the building, you change the building, not the documents. That’s what you’re asking when you’re telling us to “find a game that could use your writing style.”

Each manner of artistic expression has its pros and cons; each has limitations of the medium.

You don't tell a recruiter “oh, I want a job, it must be all in my comfort zone, and play to all my existing skills, I don't want growth, I don't want to try new things, and I want to do it all the same way I've been doing for years.”

And then the recruiter tells you ok... “but show me your past works, and your like here, here's 3 random jobs I've held in the same field, and I'm not telling you anymore, I'm going to sensor my resume, but I still want what I want.” (The only way you could get away with that, is if you had decades of expertise.)

Your not making this easy for any of us, and why would we bother considering working with a person who is so caught up in their own world, they think it's the only one that exists.

TBH, maybe you’re the character cubic? your writing about, disconnected , eclectic convincing himself he was a genius, and not insane... The 1st excerpt would have all this make perfect sense.... if you think of yourself that way.

If so, then you maybe, many artists, especially writers have issues connecting with the world, and their only way is to pour it into their craft, in an attempt to reach out, in their attempt to connect with others who can't see what they see, who can't feel what they feel, who can't know or understand what they intuitively know, and have always known.

writers often uncover their own psychology wen writing...

If you are cubic, I confirm you are a "true artist" with all thier pros and cons, that may be the silver lining in all this critique.

I still stand behind all my points nevertheless.

Edited by: GeneralJist