This chart seems pleb as fuck for genre fiction writers, any

Nice! Was thinking of making this thread. A couple weeks ago an anon suggested
>Aristotle's Poetics
Finally got my copy of it yesterday, in fact, but haven't read it yet.

Based on what I've personally read I'd recommend
>The Hero with a Thousand Faces
>Self-Editing for Fiction Writers

I've also heard good things about
>Save the Cat!
For screenwriters.

Just read King, he got everything you'll ever need.

>>9000162

Yeah. King's "On Writing" is not bad at all.

>I need a book that will tell me how to express myself

>>9000179
>just do whatever you want dude art is subjective, it's from the heart, any amateur can be an artist

File: RLAW.jpg (319KB, 445x621px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 445x621px

pic related is good

>>9000182
How many of these 'How to write a novel in 2 weeks EASY' books did you think Dostoevsky read?

>>9000182
I've been thinking about this quite recently. I mean, you could read hundreds of books on prose, style and "how to write X", but at the end of the day, every novel will be loved by some and hated by others, even novels which are considered great. So really, shouldn't the point be just to write how you would like?

>>9000230
This is also something to think about.

>>9000230

Are you as good a writer as Dostoevsky?

>>9000256
No. Do you think reading this shit will fix that?

>>8999573
>james wood
>not e.m. forester
But I case the greater thing is to remember that at some point you've got to realize that a book is not going to tell you how to be a great writer (not to mention the fact that none of these self-help book authors are Joyce-tier by any stretch of the imagination).

>>9000280
It can help, I'm sure Dosto also talked about writing technique with other people, this is the same except it's not in conversational format.
Just because people before us didn't have the common pitfalls collected and had to learn slower doesn't mean we should do the same, the books won't make a great author but they speed up the process to be a decent one.

>>9000280
>Do you think reading this shit will fix that?

If you're really shitty, it can at least make you decent. These books are just style guides and how to construct a basic plot, and many of them do use examples from great literature. Like it or not, it's hard to get published and gain readers if you lack either of those things. You can write with your heart or some shit like that, but no one will care if you write shit.

>b-but /lit/ told me caring about the plot is for plebs

See this is why /lit/'s writing hobby goes nowhere.

>>9000316
But of you are not concerned with being great, than why invoke any standard by which to care about becoming "decent." You gotta remember contextually you are dealing with some very clear standards of greatness. Otherwise, who cares what you write in your journal or to show your friends? You aren't engaging with literature anyways as much as you are practicing eloquent self-help. And those standards are all over the place.

>>9000310
>Joyce
>good
l m a o

>>9000441
:^)

Sense of Style

Thank me later

>>9000464
I've read The Blank Slate by him, isn't he just a pop science author? What is supposed to be his expertise exactly anyway?