next »

[Blink]

I would love to understand good writing better, but I figure having a focus in graphics/gameplay can be stronger than learning everything on my own. Working with a writer sounds awesome though... but I don't even know how to begin understanding what I should look for in a writer.

Usually I just look for examples of what I like, but given my ignorance on writing, I'm not sure I even have any taste on the subject. Given that, what's a good move from here? Should I learn more about writing, or just learn about how to identify a good writer? And what should I use to identify them?

[gggfhfdh]

1. willing to help
2. can make words

[Superb Joe]

What can you tell me about the four wudu?

[Capntastic]

It's actually hard as heck for someone who doesn't care about good writing to judge someone's ability.

This is because for the vast majority of people, writing is practically a binary skill of "they can write" or "they can't write".  Compared to visual arts, it is much harder at a glance to casually pick out someone's writing style, personal flourishes, or even if they're any good.

Your best bet is to look for someone who has some material you can look at.  See if it is clear and evocative, or fits the tone of what you're looking for.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

here's a quick guide for a non-writer to tell the difference between a good writer and a bad one:

- if their favorite novelists include mainly popular writers like j.k. rowling, stephen king, dan brown, tolkein, and whoever wrote the hunger games or twilight, skip them; it's not that this type of writer is especially bad, but it does mean that they may not be a very heavy reader, and only have a cursory familiarity with novels

- if they don't have any published stories, or any published novels, or anything published at all, skip them. they *may* be good but chances are they aren't dedicated, even if they are good, and if they aren't dedicated they may not finish their work for you

- most of their friends should also be writers. if they don't hang around with other writers, they aren't actually writers, because writers tend to hang around with each other

- they should have at least one russian novelist in their list of favorite novelists -- preferably dostoevsky, but chekhov and tolstoy also work. this is because unless you are a fan of russian novels you aren't a fan of novels (okay chekhov isn't really a novelist but you get the point: russians or bust)

- they should have pretty good grammar, but that doesn't mean they have to be a 'grammar nazi' -- but they should definitely know the correct uses of your vs you're, there vs their vs they're, its vs it's, and so on

- you should ask them to show you a picture of their books. if there aren't at least 200-300 books in that picture, and if they don't say 'there's a lot of books outside of that picture that couldn't fit in the picture', they aren't a real writer

[Capntastic]

Ask them about their drink of choice.

- if they don't have any published stories, or any published novels, or anything published at all, skip them. they *may* be good but chances are they aren't dedicated, even if they are good, and if they aren't dedicated they may not finish their work for you

This is like saying that a game developer/programmer/artist isn't good if they haven't worked on any traditionally published games.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i guess self-published counts, it doesn't have to be traditionally published, i didn't specify that. if they are selling their own e-book from their site that would count too, as long as it actually has some sales (around 100 or so would be fine, but more would be better)

you can't really compare games and writing in that way, though. in writing, you create something first and then seek a publisher. it very rarely works like that with games, in games the publisher decides what to publish first, and then the game is created with the publisher's funding. there are a ton of small publishers in the writing world, and very few small publishers in the videogame world, everything's centralized with us into giant corporations

[Capntastic]

Yeah but you're still equating "has sold work" with "is talented and can produce work". This is flawed reasoning because even self-publishing, as trivial as it is (I've done it on a lark, under pseudonyms, with tiny results), still requires that you be profit minded. 

I've produced maybe ~35 short stories in the last year and a half based on prompts for a weekly writing contest I take part in, and have put less than half of those on my site, and haven't attempted to sell any of them*.  Obviously, I could be turning profit on these if I had the desire to submit them.  But, that's not my primary interest right now. 

Many writers I know do it in their spare time, and aren't too interested in cashing in.  They could if they wanted, but that's not part of their agenda now.  Some of them are talented enough to write for games.

I just disagree with the idea of being for-money as being integral to being a capable writer.

*(I submitted one to an ezine, solely rushing their submissions was part of the contest.)

[Sved]

You are making a game, so you need a generalist that is versatile enough to provide color to your old prophecy, depth to your characters, life to your loading screens and consistency all around. Preferably some kind of script writer with a good culture, ranging from fiction to self-help with a gush of graphic novels, recipe books and few drops of classics.

But above all, you need someone who will be enthusiastic about your project, who will take ownership of it and bring flesh and guts to your work. As a rule of thumb, I would trust a writer who tells me where I don't need text.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

@capt - i believe it's important because if someone likes to write and doesn't want to make a career out of it, then no matter how good they are at it, it's still a hobby. and if you want to work with a writer on a (presumably) commercial game, what you are looking for is a professional writer, not a hobbyist writer. even if that hobbyist is of equal skill, they might lack the self-discipline it takes to finish work on time, etc.

[wccrawford]

Yeah but you're still equating "has sold work" with "is talented and can produce work". This is flawed reasoning because even self-publishing, as trivial as it is (I've done it on a lark, under pseudonyms, with tiny results), still requires that you be profit minded. 

I've produced maybe ~35 short stories in the last year and a half based on prompts for a weekly writing contest I take part in, and have put less than half of those on my site, and haven't attempted to sell any of them*.  Obviously, I could be turning profit on these if I had the desire to submit them.  But, that's not my primary interest right now. 

Many writers I know do it in their spare time, and aren't too interested in cashing in.  They could if they wanted, but that's not part of their agenda now.  Some of them are talented enough to write for games.

I just disagree with the idea of being for-money as being integral to being a capable writer.

*(I submitted one to an ezine, solely rushing their submissions was part of the contest.)

I think what you're missing is that this isn't just about being able to write well.  It's about being able to produce, on-demand, for a project.

How many of your short stories were dictated by someone else's requirements?  How many had to pass approval of the manager of the project?

I think Paul is absolutely right to bring in 'has sold books' into the equation because we're talking about a work scenario here, and not just a hobby short story.

[Muz]

- if they don't have any published stories, or any published novels, or anything published at all, skip them. they *may* be good but chances are they aren't dedicated, even if they are good, and if they aren't dedicated they may not finish their work for you

- most of their friends should also be writers. if they don't hang around with other writers, they aren't actually writers, because writers tend to hang around with each other

- they should have at least one russian novelist in their list of favorite novelists -- preferably dostoevsky, but chekhov and tolstoy also work. this is because unless you are a fan of russian novels you aren't a fan of novels (okay chekhov isn't really a novelist but you get the point: russians or bust)

- you should ask them to show you a picture of their books. if there aren't at least 200-300 books in that picture, and if they don't say 'there's a lot of books outside of that picture that couldn't fit in the picture', they aren't a real writer

A lot of these aren't really viable. I take it you're talking about a "professional, dedicated, full time writer who's paid as much as a music composer"?

I mean, why Russian novels for one? I'd say over 99.9% of people in my country have never read a book written by a Russian. Even if Russian novels are the only real novels, you're making the assumption that the OP is looking for a novelist in the first place. I think most of us are looking for stories.

Similar goes to the general assumption that you'd need to have read a Shakespeare play to know English literature. I could play my cultural advantage and say that nobody knows poetry unless they've read Arabic poetry or that nobody knows how to write erotic scenes unless they appreciate Japanese ecchi mangas.

There are even plenty of people who fit that description whose writing I don't even like (e.g. Stephen King or JK Rowling). They can tell some great tales, but their writing doesn't convert too well to imagination. By contrast, my favorite writer, Robert E Howard writes brief, uncultured stuff but skips all the fluff and has a lot of energy in his writing. Howard develops a world as detailed as many other writers, but doesn't fall into the trap of forcing that world on the reader.

Writing skill is sort of like cooking; everyone has some of it and they do some genres better than others. You can't judge a professional unless you've met and paid for one. I've met a lot of really, really good writers, but few actually sell their stuff. Most are smart people who go for a career path that makes more money. But you have to decide whether you want a writer for a quick, great one-shot meal, or one who can professionally cater to specific requirements with average quality.

Some people are only good when writing for themselves and expecting people to come to them. And some people can actually work with someone else's idea. I think Paul is getting at the latter. But someone who has actually published stuff might not be good at working with others... they might just be the type who lock themselves in a room and churn whatever's in their heads onto paper.

Also to quote Thomas Hobbes, "If I read as many books as most men do, I would be as dull-witted as they are." It's one thing to have only read the popular books, but someone who reads everything might also be equally bad. The best books are read slowly.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

actually i would add shakespeare to that list. if someone has never read a single shakespeare play, they could not possibly be a writer. not because reading it is essential to being a writer, but because it's required reading in a standard writer's education. so it means that the writer has probably never taken a single class on writing or english literature, and never even attempted to self-educate themselves in writing or english literature, either. in fact i'd be suspicious that someone isn't a writer if there is a single play by shakespeare that they *have not* read; most writers have read all of them

in any case i'm not going to defend my list point for point, or give my rationale in detail. i was offering it as advice to non-writers, as is. i'm primarily posting to add the shakespeare criteria to that list. other writers are free to give different criteria if they wish, but i stand by all of my list, even the russian criteria (books like lolita and crime and punishment are both fairly standard reading assignments for book reports in high school and college, so i've a hard time believing that only one in a thousand people has ever read a russian novel considering how core russians are to world literature)

(also the idea that a writer could not read all that many books is a laugh. that's like saying a great game designer could have only played 20-30 games in their lifetime and still be a great game designer, or that a great composer/songwriter could have only have heard 50 songs in their life and still be a great composer/songwriter. familiarity with a media is core to being able to create works in a media. listening to a song slowly or over and over again isn't a substitute for being familiar with a wide variety of songs, unless you only want to write songs in that style)

i have one more criteria to add. it has been said that writers do not get good at it until they have written at least one million words. it's similar to the 10,000 hours of practice rule. i think that's a fair test: if their sum total of writing does not exceed one million words (this can include practice exercises, unpublished stories, or even journal writing) then they probably are not all that experienced at writing yet. for reference, one million words is about 3000 pages of text

[Superb Joe]

ah after ten thousand hours im free, time to conquer the earth

[Wilson Saunders]

Being a published author doesn't mean having a 500 page novel in Barnes and Noble. Getting an article published in a journal/magazine will suffice, and should be a minimum prerequisite for anyone a game dev team would want to work with. Most writing a person does for school is to reach an arbitrary page count. There is no need for it to be easy to read or make sense. It is only when an author works with an editor with the intention of releasing for the general public do they get real writing experience.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Being a published author doesn't mean having a 500 page novel in Barnes and Noble. Getting an article published in a journal/magazine will suffice, and should be a minimum prerequisite for anyone a game dev team would want to work with. Most writing a person does for school is to reach an arbitrary page count. There is no need for it to be easy to read or make sense. It is only when an author works with an editor with the intention of releasing for the general public do they get real writing experience.

yeah, exactly. being published can mean many things. here's something simple: i've had a very short play produced. in canada. by a canadian university's drama club. it's not a big thing. i got no money for it. it wasn't seen by millions of people. but it's still, technically, "publication". i've produced something which has been seen by an audience

you can see that play performed on youtube here:



the production quality is pretty bad, and i'm more ashamed of it today than proud. but it still technically means i'm a published playwright

[Superb Joe]

Must find sailors.

[feminazi]

hire me

[DrDerekDoctors]

Depends on the type of writing, really. If it's scads of descriptive writing, then obviously proven ability in this is important. If it's dialogue, then the ability to write a novel is utterly moot. I'm very much the latter rather than the former, although I don't mind doing the former as a change is as good as a rest.

Get a sample of their writing in the format you need it. Did you like it? Good.
Ask them to change it. Did they happily do so? Good.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

that makes no sense -- good dialogue is one of the hallmarks of novels. the best novels have much better dialogue than the best movies or television. if a novel has poor dialogue it usually isn't a good novel. bad novels are routinely criticized for bad dialogue. some novels are up to 50% dialogue by "weight", although 30% is more standard. saying that something that usually consists of 30% dialogue has nothing to do with dialogue makes no sense; there's as much or more dialogue in the average novel than in the average movie (the movie equivalent of description is when there is no dialogue and it's just showing you a scene visually)