Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#41
fknmz Wrote:
Quentin Wrote:
Sake Wrote: good writing advice regarding characters of either gender: just write them like any other human being, gender doesn't matter unless you're writing a romance or sex fic

Amen


I would argue that gender does matter, because gender, in a normal Butlerian sense, is performative, and that performance is tied back to cultural expectations. 

The reason why some people get tripped up on writing women is precisely because they write them like genderless characters, but "genderless" is often a shorthand for men. It doesn't even have to be because they're men, but rather that male subjectivity kinda defines a lot of "default" assumptions on characters. 

This is why I find Kristeva to be such a compelling writer; she's building off Irigaray, who in turn was trying to wrestle female subjectivity away from male matrices of subjecthood. The consequence of that was a focus on Abjection - blood, bile, vomit, and feces. The things which challenged a human being - often man - as enclosed, clear, and distinct.

Going to disagree with this on every level on which it is possible to disagree with this.

Gender (in any of its forms) doesn't matter; what matters is characterization, whether or not your characters feel like they are who they are.  On average, in reality, there's more variance between two randomly chosen women, or two randomly men, than there are between men and women as distinct groups, even on the axes by which we define gender expectations; which is to say, for the category "man", and the category "woman", as drawn by gender expectations, there are self-identified men who are in the cluster of expectations we have labeled "woman", and self-identified women who are in the cluster of expectations we have labeled "man".  Now, if somebody would take a woman as she exists in real-life, and label that person a badly-written woman, they are being, well, insert your own expletive here - and that's exactly what you are doing if you treat a too-masculine woman as a badly-written woman.

More, "genderless" isn't shorthand for men; not even close, not even in men's subjective experiences, excepting insofar as insufficient theory of mind is common to the human experience; which is to say, characterizing this as a problem of men is to come at it from a very limited perspective.  If "genderless" feels like "man" to you, that's saying something about yourself, rather than about the generalized (and heavily gender-expectation-defined) experience of being male in society.

For the notion of gender as performance, well, yes, that's exactly what the experience will feel like to exactly the sort of person who is likely to complain about it, somebody for whom the gendered expectations of society are a burden.  If you feel comfortable in the gender roles as they exist, which a not-insignificant number of both men and women do, it is not notably performative, excepting the sense insofar as which life itself is fundamentally performative.  (Hey, look, you can go off-script.  Get out of the car, said the cactus person.  That's all I can do, alas.)

However, you should be careful about extracting information from the accounts as written; one of the gender expectations of men is that men aren't allowed to complain.  The framework by which we analyze gender issues has a distinct bias, because it was enabled and created by society's gender expectations of both men and women (women are expected to complain, men are expected to fix their problems and also not complain about their own because women's problems are everyone's problems but men's problems are their own issues to deal with because manliness), and even today, some seventy years later, our society still holds strong gender expectations on men that men aren't supposed to talk or complain about.

Both men and women are routinely written badly, but we treat it as important when women are written badly, because gender expectations.  If you want to stare the "male default" dead in the eyes, this is where you should do it: Write a man badly, you need more practice.  Write a woman badly, you're a bad person.

So, returning to the original point:  Gender doesn't matter; what matters is characterization, whether or not your characters feel like they are who they are.  All the noise about "properly writing women" is just that, noise.

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#42



AdirianSoan Wrote:
fknmz Wrote:
Quentin Wrote:
Sake Wrote: good writing advice regarding characters of either gender: just write them like any other human being, gender doesn't matter unless you're writing a romance or sex fic

Amen


I would argue that gender does matter, because gender, in a normal Butlerian sense, is performative, and that performance is tied back to cultural expectations. 

The reason why some people get tripped up on writing women is precisely because they write them like genderless characters, but "genderless" is often a shorthand for men. It doesn't even have to be because they're men, but rather that male subjectivity kinda defines a lot of "default" assumptions on characters. 

This is why I find Kristeva to be such a compelling writer; she's building off Irigaray, who in turn was trying to wrestle female subjectivity away from male matrices of subjecthood. The consequence of that was a focus on Abjection - blood, bile, vomit, and feces. The things which challenged a human being - often man - as enclosed, clear, and distinct.

Going to disagree with this on every level on which it is possible to disagree with this.

Gender (in any of its forms) doesn't matter; what matters is characterization, whether or not your characters feel like they are who they are.  On average, in reality, there's more variance between two randomly chosen women, or two randomly men, than there are between men and women as distinct groups, even on the axes by which we define gender expectations; which is to say, for the category "man", and the category "woman", as drawn by gender expectations, there are self-identified men who are in the cluster of expectations we have labeled "woman", and self-identified women who are in the cluster of expectations we have labeled "man".  Now, if somebody would take a woman as she exists in real-life, and label that person a badly-written woman, they are being, well, insert your own expletive here - and that's exactly what you are doing if you treat a too-masculine woman as a badly-written woman.

More, "genderless" isn't shorthand for men; not even close, not even in men's subjective experiences, excepting insofar as insufficient theory of mind is common to the human experience; which is to say, characterizing this as a problem of men is to come at it from a very limited perspective.  If "genderless" feels like "man" to you, that's saying something about yourself, rather than about the generalized (and heavily gender-expectation-defined) experience of being male in society.

For the notion of gender as performance, well, yes, that's exactly what the experience will feel like to exactly the sort of person who is likely to complain about it, somebody for whom the gendered expectations of society are a burden.  If you feel comfortable in the gender roles as they exist, which a not-insignificant number of both men and women do, it is not notably performative, excepting the sense insofar as which life itself is fundamentally performative.  (Hey, look, you can go off-script.  Get out of the car, said the cactus person.  That's all I can do, alas.)

You've misread what I'm saying - I'm saying gender is a crucial element to consider when characters grapple with who they are.

Some of the rhetoric in this thread has been discussing characterization as separate from gender as an interpellative force, to which I argue gender is absolutely an element to consider. I am NOT saying men should act like men, women should act like women, etc., or even that questions of what defines man or woman are even fixed (which they aren't, consider non-binary, gender fluid, and intersex, who are thankfully reshaping how we think of gender, but it's still dealing with gender), but rather that there will almost always be gendered expectations which characters are subject to. They can and often should, of course, be sites of resistance to these expectations.


I am not so bought on the idea that characterization and gender are inseparable that we can confidently say that it "doesn't matter". I also feel like the original poster was referring to sex and not gender, since they mentioned romance. 

To clarify, another element that might be helpful to consider is class. Even discussions without explicit interrogations of class end up needing to grapple with it in some way - see Bakhtin and his work on Rabelais or Bourdieu's look at taste in Distinction. 

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#43

fknmz Wrote:
AdirianSoan Wrote:
fknmz Wrote:
Quentin Wrote:
Sake Wrote: good writing advice regarding characters of either gender: just write them like any other human being, gender doesn't matter unless you're writing a romance or sex fic

Amen


I would argue that gender does matter, because gender, in a normal Butlerian sense, is performative, and that performance is tied back to cultural expectations. 

The reason why some people get tripped up on writing women is precisely because they write them like genderless characters, but "genderless" is often a shorthand for men. It doesn't even have to be because they're men, but rather that male subjectivity kinda defines a lot of "default" assumptions on characters. 

This is why I find Kristeva to be such a compelling writer; she's building off Irigaray, who in turn was trying to wrestle female subjectivity away from male matrices of subjecthood. The consequence of that was a focus on Abjection - blood, bile, vomit, and feces. The things which challenged a human being - often man - as enclosed, clear, and distinct.

Going to disagree with this on every level on which it is possible to disagree with this.

Gender (in any of its forms) doesn't matter; what matters is characterization, whether or not your characters feel like they are who they are.  On average, in reality, there's more variance between two randomly chosen women, or two randomly men, than there are between men and women as distinct groups, even on the axes by which we define gender expectations; which is to say, for the category "man", and the category "woman", as drawn by gender expectations, there are self-identified men who are in the cluster of expectations we have labeled "woman", and self-identified women who are in the cluster of expectations we have labeled "man".  Now, if somebody would take a woman as she exists in real-life, and label that person a badly-written woman, they are being, well, insert your own expletive here - and that's exactly what you are doing if you treat a too-masculine woman as a badly-written woman.

More, "genderless" isn't shorthand for men; not even close, not even in men's subjective experiences, excepting insofar as insufficient theory of mind is common to the human experience; which is to say, characterizing this as a problem of men is to come at it from a very limited perspective.  If "genderless" feels like "man" to you, that's saying something about yourself, rather than about the generalized (and heavily gender-expectation-defined) experience of being male in society.

For the notion of gender as performance, well, yes, that's exactly what the experience will feel like to exactly the sort of person who is likely to complain about it, somebody for whom the gendered expectations of society are a burden.  If you feel comfortable in the gender roles as they exist, which a not-insignificant number of both men and women do, it is not notably performative, excepting the sense insofar as which life itself is fundamentally performative.  (Hey, look, you can go off-script.  Get out of the car, said the cactus person.  That's all I can do, alas.)

You've misread what I'm saying because I don't disagree with you; I'm saying gender is a crucial element to consider when characters grapple with who they are.

Some of the rhetoric in this thread has been discussing characterization as separate from gender as an interpellative force, to which I argue gender is absolutely an element to consider. I am NOT saying men should act like men, women should act like women, etc., or even that questions of what defines man or woman are even fixed (which they aren't), but rather that there will almost always be gendered expectations which characters are subject to. They can and often should, of course, be sites of resistance to these expectations.


I am not so bought on the idea that characterization and gender are inseparable that we can confidently say that it "doesn't matter". I also feel like the original poster was referring to sex and not gender, since they mentioned romance.
No, I was referring to both biological sex and socially constructed gender. The expectations that society places on men, women and others on how to behave don't matter unless you want to make them matter; however, nowehere these differences are more apparent then the matters of romance, sex, courting, dating and marriage. That's also were biology somewhat comes into play as well. And let's be honest, the average consumer of these kind of stories would like it no other way. Let's take, for example, 
this author: https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/375007.Rebecca_Paisley

Look at the covers of her novels. Super manly half-naked man paired with reluctant ultrafeminine woman in semi sexual pose. Now imagine there are not only countless authors like her, but also countless(mostly middle-aged women) who consume this sort of fiction, usually self inserting into a woman. I'm half proud half ashamed to admit I used to consume a lot of this kind of fiction when I was a kid-teen. It's filled with heteronormative gender role stereotypes that the author and the audience not only celebrates, but expects and enforces. It's hard to say that gender or biological don't matter in these works-on the contrary, they are the point and driving force behind character dynamics.

Where gender and sex don't matter? I dare say, everywhere else. They especially don't matter in xianxia, litrpg and other fantasy action-oriented stories that are predominant on this site. You can easily swap males for female and vice versa there, and nothing plot wise is gonna change.

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#44

fknmz Wrote: You've misread what I'm saying - I'm saying gender is a crucial element to consider when characters grapple with who they are.


I'd say you specifically claimed that gender is a crucial element to consider when female characters grapple with who they are.  Mind, I disagree with the gender-neutral version as well.   Gender can be a crucial element, or it can be entirely unimportant to a character; but the idea that women must struggle with their gender performance is just another layer of the gender performance, another stereotype piled on top of stereotypes, another line in the script.

As for class, I'll dryly note that writing about class is itself a class marker.  Class discussions are, in a sense, a monologue by those who consider themselves the superior, directed at those they consider the inferior.  Not to mention the carefully cultivated language, so far removed from the discourse of the lower classes, which serves to remind them that they are not welcome.

Not that there aren't mirrored conceptual patterns, discussing something similar to but distinct from class; certainly we can recognize, in a "lower class" fictional story, that when the wealthy man from the city gets upset when his fancy shoes get muddy, and he is generally useless, that something is being discussed - but to insist that the thing being discussed is class is itself a form of classism, an insistence that the carefully cultivated language is inherently superior, that the particular conceptualizations of the superior are the natural, proper, and right conceptualizations.

Framing the wealthy man from the city as upper-class, and the writer mocking him as lower-class, is of course one way of framing it.  But if the writer was from the culture I grew up in, the point would not be about class, but about civilization, because I've described a particular element of a particular kind of story, the western.  The theme would be that the people who create civilization don't necessarily belong in it, because the culture of creating civilization isn't as well suited to actually living in it, which is why they ride into the sunset (westward, towards the frontier, the wilds, and away from civilization).  Class just plain don't enter into it; all are equal in the harsh glare of the uncivilized sun.  The western, as a genre, is a eulogy for a transitional way of life which is unwelcome in the very thing it makes possible.

So, no.  Don't consider class.  Class is just the application of an imaginary hierarchy onto different cultures which occupy the same geographic space.  Consider the culture. 

This is basically the fully general answer here; consider how the cultural expectations on the character interaction with the character's own sense of self.  Gender can be part of this, it can be irrelevant; it depends on the character in question.  To pick another example of cultural expectations that clash with character, someone with ADHD in today's era probably finds the modern expectation of a fairly advanced capability of navigating bureaucracy to be an incredibly burdensome expectation; although I haven't seen specific language addressing it, I do see a lot of stuff talking about "being an adult" as a particularly problematic performance, which I suspect is talking about this (among other things).  What a character struggles with is what that character struggles with; insisting a particular struggle is necessary is just insisting that people talk about what you think should be talked about.

Edit: For a variety of reasons having some kind of internal struggle usually works better than not, and likewise for a variety of reasons having a character specifically struggle with their place in society - how their sense of self interacts with cultural expectations - usually works better than not, but nothing should be taken as absolute advice.  Write the character you want to write; the most important thing is to do it on purpose.

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#45



I'm typing on my phone so all my responses are short, but I think you'd really enjoy Bakhtin; his approach of carnivalesque (an analysis of Rabelais and His World) is a really good look at that! It interlocks class and culture as fascinating topics. 

Also remember the keyword: consider. Whether it is applied or not is a different matter, though I would always prefer myself that its tackled, it gives a lot of interesting insight. 

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#46
You're referring me to a nobleman-turned-intellectual-elite as having particular insight into how class and culture are interlocked.  Not only that, a member of the nobility so thoroughly removed from material concerns that the idea of touching poop is something he would find to be profound symbolism, as opposed to a janitor's Tuesday afternoon; as somebody who worked for some time as a janitor, it's very hard to take somebody who was so thoroughly removed from materialism seriously when they write about the profundity of materialism.  Not to mention how offensive it would all be, if I could take him seriously enough to be offended; his attitudes are all very Noble Savage.

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#47

AdirianSoan Wrote: t's very hard to take somebody who was so thoroughly removed from materialism seriously when they write about the profundity of materialism.  Not to mention how offensive it would all be, if I could take him seriously enough to be offended; his attitudes are all very Noble Savage.


I think we just gotta agree to disagree, I think our conversation is probably mugging up the thread.

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#48
Firstly, I don't agree with for the advice for writers too spam their story/book on social media. I understand it is a necessary thing to get your work out there but when is it too much.
 I got advice from a publisher for marketing but it seemed not to fit my personality. I want people to read my books but not at ths expense of possible readers thinking I am just spamming them.

Secondly, show not tell thing, I agree with people on this is hard to pin down but there are times you do need to tell your reader something and others when you need to just let the words flow. Writing is more fluid than some arbitrary rules for people to follow. Sometimes you just need to write and find out way to creativity.

Thirdly is voice. Need to find your voice, it is important blah blah blah. You know how to find your voice, don't worry as your voice will change and flow while you write. I

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#49

Derin_Edala Wrote: I don't necessarily disagree with it, but people shouldn't say "show, don't tell" unless they actually know what that piece of advice means. The vast majority of people I've seen throw it around either a) don't seem to know what 'showing' vs. 'telling' actually is in a writing context or b) treat it as a be-all, end-all rule that applies to all circumstances, instead of just a piece of generally good advice if your writing feels too 'dead'.
This. It's words on a page. There is now showing. It's all telling. The correct way to describe it is "using sensory information" that makes the reader feel like they're in the story, rather than laying on the couch reading a story.

Telling in summery is extremely useful in fiction and just as important as using sensory details.

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#50
'You don't have to write to be a writer.'
Not gonna even bother to explain that one.

'You don't need to write everyday.'
True but 100 words a day will get you closer to your goal than none. This usually involves people accusing those who say to write everyday of causing mental health problems but I disagree. If you truly loved your story you would want to work on it everyday, even if it's just a little, even if it's just to write down ideas or edit that last chapter. How can I love a story that the writer didn't want to write?

'Start your story off with action.'
But what if my story doesn't have action? Should I start my sweet small town romance off with a gunfight and then never mention it again?

I hate pretty much anything that has to do with encouraging writers to write fancy. I believe the writing should be invisible. Sarah J Maas for instance has so much repetion and purple prose that I cannot get through her books.

'Stop using adverbs.'
I half hate this. If you say someone 'smiled happily' then the adverb is unnecessary since we're assuming the person is smiling because they're happy. 'Smiled sadly' shows a contrast and it gives a better idea of how the person is smiling. I could spend a paragraph detailing the tilt on the lips and the sad eyes etc but I think readers would appreciate some description more than others. 

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#52
"Stop using adjectives and adverbs."

No.

Too many authors have their nebulous barely defined characters just vaguely interacting with a flat gray space that has a few objects stuck in it.

"Don't use cliches."

Everything is a cliche to some people, and cliches exist for a reason.

"Try to subvert the reader's expectations!"

No. Stop trying to make the reader feel like an idiot to show how clever you are.

"Let me give you some writing advice..."

No. Let me hit you in the face with a brick.

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#53

Ralts Wrote: "Try to subvert the reader's expectations!"

No. Stop trying to make the reader feel like an idiot to show how clever you are.
Why do you think the reader feels like an idiot if an author subverts their expectations? We mean yeah, if it's done poorly then it's going to be terrible, but there's a ton of good examples that paid off and added a lot to the story when done well.

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#54

Vivian Wrote: Ralts Wrote:
"Try to subvert the reader's expectations!"

No. Stop trying to make the reader feel like an idiot to show how clever you are.

Why do you think the reader feels like an idiot if an author subverts their expectations? We mean yeah, if it's done poorly then it's going to be terrible, but there's a ton of good examples that paid off and added a lot to the story when done well.
For me, this topic has always come down to the difference between "subversion" and "destruction" of expectations.  It's easy to destroy them but a clever subversion should take the story in a surprising and equally (or more so) interesting direction.  


My most hated advice is "you have to adhere to the three-act structure". Helpful in some novels, sure. But I feel it can be ignored in the age of web serials and multi-book series.

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#56

WolfeLocke Wrote: Show verse tell. 

Sorry. I'm a story teller. Not a story shower.


So, this entire conversation is interesting to me, because at least in the West, we don't actually Show in our writing, we Tell. Even the Romans told in their stories. Even Shakespeare told in his plays. I mean we can mock them now for saying, "on this starry night". But that's a form of telling the reader. There is actually a ton of advice on checkoff gun and showing people the same object multiple times before it goes off. 

It reminds me of a conversation I recently stumbled upon about Yuri on Ice, not being gay. Because it's not explicitly shown they are gay or they don't have conversations about being gay, or they don't talk about being gay. But in Japanese storytelling, their storytelling is all about what isn't being told, readers are supposed to interpret every little thing not said. 

In Japan Yuri on Ice is very gay. But to Western audiences it wasn't explicit enough because we don't actually show stories we tell them. 

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#57

Vivian Wrote:
Ralts Wrote: "Try to subvert the reader's expectations!"

No. Stop trying to make the reader feel like an idiot to show how clever you are.
Why do you think the reader feels like an idiot if an author subverts their expectations? We mean yeah, if it's done poorly then it's going to be terrible, but there's a ton of good examples that paid off and added a lot to the story when done well.
The majority of the "subvert the reader/audiences expectations" are done poorly and are usually complete ass pulls, complete with character assassination, bending the story, adding in things that weren't actually shown to the reader, or just plain going "It's like this because."


The majority of this is just the author furiously masturbating to how clever they are while telling the reader/audience "See, I fooled you! SUBVERSION! You're not smart enough to have seen it coming!" and it irritates the hell out of me.

It's annoying and the majority of people who try it shouldn't be trusted to carry a dictionary down a flight of stairs.

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#58

JeneClyde Wrote:
WolfeLocke Wrote: Show verse tell. 

Sorry. I'm a story teller. Not a story shower.


So, this entire conversation is interesting to me, because at least in the West, we don't actually Show in our writing, we Tell. Even the Romans told in their stories. Even Shakespeare told in his plays. I mean we can mock them now for saying, "on this starry night". But that's a form of telling the reader. There is actually a ton of advice on checkoff gun and showing people the same object multiple times before it goes off. 

It reminds me of a conversation I recently stumbled upon about Yuri on Ice, not being gay. Because it's not explicitly shown they are gay or they don't have conversations about being gay, or they don't talk about being gay. But in Japanese storytelling, their storytelling is all about what isn't being told, readers are supposed to interpret every little thing not said. 

In Japan Yuri on Ice is very gay. But to Western audiences it wasn't explicit enough because we don't actually show stories we tell them.



I had a character introduce her friends (other main characters) as 'this is my friend Denny and his husband Austin' and was told that them being gay wasn't obvious enough and was essentially queerbaiting. Western audiences definitely like things said explicitly. If you think it's too explicit, it's probably still too subtle. In this case I told their relationship. The advice would have been to show it. But some people don't like PDA so why should I? 

I personally do like canon things to be explicitly said and sometimes Japanese writing [or Chinese translated novels] can be too vague but other things need to be left to the imagination. Guardian (chinese drama) had amazing acting with two guys who never once kissed, held hands, or went to bed and oh boy did the fans go crazy over their relationship.

I think the show don't tell thing works best with character personality descriptions. Too often the author tells us that a character is smart but we never see them do something smart. I heard the advice was to tell feelings but show emotions. Most amateur writers I think do need to learn how to show more not tell but it's another one of those rules that have to be known in order to be broken effectively. The most important something is to a story is the more it needs to be shown. If a character is a sharpshooter in an action movie, he needs to hit all his targets but you can tell me that he loves to watch romance movies in his spare time because while it does help us to learn more about him, it isn't as important.

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#59

RayneStorm Wrote: I think the show don't tell thing works best with character personality descriptions. Too often the author tells us that a character is smart but we never see them do something smart.
That is common as hell.


"They're the most talented officer in the military!"
>Gets flanked by obvious means, doesn't have patrols report, outruns their logistics.
"Oh well, nobody could have done it any better. Here's a medal and a promotion!"

NO! JUST NO!

Re: What’s a piece of common writing advice that you really disagree with?

#60

RayneStorm Wrote:
JeneClyde Wrote:
WolfeLocke Wrote: Show verse tell. 

Sorry. I'm a story teller. Not a story shower.


So, this entire conversation is interesting to me, because at least in the West, we don't actually Show in our writing, we Tell. Even the Romans told in their stories. Even Shakespeare told in his plays. I mean we can mock them now for saying, "on this starry night". But that's a form of telling the reader. There is actually a ton of advice on checkoff gun and showing people the same object multiple times before it goes off. 

It reminds me of a conversation I recently stumbled upon about Yuri on Ice, not being gay. Because it's not explicitly shown they are gay or they don't have conversations about being gay, or they don't talk about being gay. But in Japanese storytelling, their storytelling is all about what isn't being told, readers are supposed to interpret every little thing not said. 

In Japan Yuri on Ice is very gay. But to Western audiences it wasn't explicit enough because we don't actually show stories we tell them.



I had a character introduce her friends (other main characters) as 'this is my friend Denny and his husband Austin' and was told that them being gay wasn't obvious enough and was essentially queerbaiting. Western audiences definitely like things said explicitly. If you think it's too explicit, it's probably still too subtle. In this case I told their relationship. The advice would have been to show it. But some people don't like PDA so why should I? 

I personally do like canon things to be explicitly said and sometimes Japanese writing [or Chinese translated novels] can be too vague but other things need to be left to the imagination. Guardian (chinese drama) had amazing acting with two guys who never once kissed, held hands, or went to bed and oh boy did the fans go crazy over their relationship.


My writing tends to be this kind of East meets West, because I genuinely find Eastern storytelling more engaging to my brain. However, I also recognized that I was writing for a Western audience. So I generally agree with;
-be explicit when it is necessary to be explicit 
-and be vague when it is necessary to be vague