Aspie fiction writers, can anyone relate to my problems?

Post Reply New Topic

I've had a variety of writing problems since I started putting my story idea to paper nearly 3 years ago. I think it comes down to Aspie VS NT communication styles, but I'm not sure. There are many writing conventions that I don't agree with and only follow because that's what everyone tells me to do. Even so, it's very difficult to implement considering I don't believe it's improving my story. It also makes me close to worthless in critiquing other people's writing. My critique is either stuff I believe but no one else agrees with, or me blindly parroting writing conventions I don't even agree with and other people saying it doesn't apply to the writing I'm making the suggestion for. So here are some conventions, my understanding of the reasoning behind them, and why I disagree.

Show, don't tell: The idea is to let the reader figure out and experience what's going on for themselves. I've identified 2 problems I have with this recently. One, if the writer 'shows', there's a fair chance I won't pick up on what it's showing. The second issue is that I don't stop to picture what's going on when I read, so elaborating doesn't make any difference to me. In both cases I'd rather be told. The second issue is addressable, but I'm not so sure about the first.

Avoiding cliche phrases: The convention is it's lazy writing that robs the reader of their imagination and is a form of telling. I don't see how it's lazier than simply saying the literal meaning, and I don't see how using unique metaphors isn't telling to the same extent. I'm terrible at coming up with my own figures of speech, so my only solution is to always be 100% literal.

Avoiding using the same word frequently, avoiding paragraphs of sentences that are all the same length: Both of these apparently sound 'off' and break the reader out of the story. But they don't bother me all- they're invisible. I can never notice this unless I'm going out of my way to manually check all of it, which seems like too much work. I never would have guessed either of these would bother most people.

Describing the setting of every scene: I consider this an irrelevant waste of words unless the setting is very unusual or directly relevant to what's happening in the story. So if the main character is in a battlefield with lots going on, I'll describe it, but if he's going to a friend's to hang out, describing what it looks like would never even occur to me because it doesn't matter. I only very recently learned other people expect every setting to be described and still don't get why.

I could go on, but that's a lot already. Can anyone relate? Is it possible to train myself to agree with these conventions?

Hi. I've been writing for about thirsty years (and an officially diagnosed aspie). I'm not a professional though, meaning I don't make a living off it. I write for my own amusement. Also, I write in my own language, which is not English. You'll may want to take my advice at your own risk as others will disagree with me completely.

I don't relate but I don't want you to think that I came to reply to your post just to put you down. That's not the case.

First, all what's necessary is that you enjoy what you're writing. You don't need to fit in the established conventions. However, if you're writing something for others to read, the audience must feel engaged with your text. That's why there are so many guidelines. There are things that have been proven not to work with the majority of readers and referred to as "rules" - a completely mistaken terminology. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't do them but if you do, the risks of coming up with what's considered bad writing becomes higher.

It's important that you listen to yourself very well before taking any advice from others. Write stories in your own way. If you consider yourself a beginner, in my opinion and contrary to what everyone else might think, it's important that you shield yourself from unecessary criticism. For now, avoid people who never wrote a single line in their lives and are eager to comment on your work. Don't show your work to negative, narcisistic and competitive individuals. Don't ask for an opinion from those you don't know until you have spotted (and corrected) a truck load of writing problems in your work by yourself. You must develop the love for your own creation and these people aren't there to help you with that. If you write it but don't love it, you must perfect your skills until you become proud of what you do.

That rule exists for a number of reasons, most especially to avoid a literary vice called exposition. Exposition can be bad because it takes the minds of readers out of the story in many ways. Exposition can become boring quickly. Intelligent readers don't like to feel as if they were treated as morons and exposition is exactly that, an explicitation so that the reader can assimilate exactly what the author had in mind. If a writer can never avoid exposition, his writing is probably bad because he can't fit his concepts properly into a story, so he chooses to deliver it as an "essay" or "speech".

The point of reading is that people take a break to enjoy something that keeps them coming back. Therefore, the magic of writing is to make others care about what's written. It makes no sense for the readers to give attention to something that you've pulled out of your head unless the text manages to captivate them. By exposing things, you don't captivate them. You need to raise questions, challenge the readers, work out their imaginations and provoke emotions. Exposition can hardly ever motivate them in those ways. People won't keep reading someone else's work just because the writer himself thinks he writes cool stuff.

This is the only rule for me with regards to all art: we work to make the audiences care. That doesn't mean you're in obligation to please others. You have to spark their interest, what is a sensibly different matter. Also, not all literature interests everyone on Earth.



I think you're speaking of two different things. Cliches, that's one. Being literal, that's another. Or maybe you're not very certain of what a cliche really is? I don't think I got what you're saying here.

You don't need to pack your story with billions of metaphors and fancy dialogue. Whoever told you that is wrong. However - and I'm just guessing here - maybe your characters in your story cease to be characters in a way that they explain the story instead of acting inside it, someone told you that and you became upset.

A character must move the story forward by being a believable part of your fictional environment. If they act as literal hosts to your world through exposition, not unlike cable TV salesmen describing gizmos, the reader won't care.



Repetition is bad style. In day to day communication it's tolerated because we don't stop and rephrase our sentences to make them pretty. That's impractical. If you are taking your time to write, it's required that you don't become repetitive to say the least.

In short, personally reviewing your text a great number of times before releasing it to others, that's a requirement.



That's false. You should describe only what matters to your story and that's enough. If you feel like describing everything to detail, go ahead and do it. There are readers who enjoy that, others who don't. Do it however you like.



Of course! Practice makes perfect. I advice you to take this exercise: see all these things you said you don't agree with? Do them often until you'll master them.

However, if you really dislike the guidelines that much, I can't understand why you would mind. If you honestly dislike the rules because you don't agree with them, don't follow them. Now... if you don't subscribe to the rules because you want to justify bad writing somehow, this will be an obstacle for improvement in your life.

I have dealt with some rough criticism, particularly from a group on Reddit that made me want to quit writing altogether. I have an IRL critique group I fare better with, though.

I think the problem with show don't tell goes to I mostly care about the information, so showing and making it emotional doesn't provide much benefit for me. I can still have emotional reaction to things, though. I can at least try to immerse myself into stories now, since I've identified that as an issue.

Cliche phrases would be things like "Dead right", "Heavy heart," "skin of your teeth", etc. I can't come up with my own figures of speech so I make everything literal, but then people complain that makes my writing weaker and less emotional, and I agree.

The problem with me catching repetition is it seems to come naturally to other people, while I don't notice it at all.

My critique givers want me to describe every scene setting, no matter how mundane. Not doing that in particular was a big factor in my Reddit group acting like my story was next to unreadable.

I've identified one problem- I haven't read many books, so I don't have much to compare to. I'll try to get in on that.

If you want to write, reading is mandatory. Really. I have nothing else to add.

Regards.

I am not an expert on writing fictional stories. I read a book one time on how to write science fiction and one of their main points was to always describe scenes using the five senses. Not only what you saw, but what did it smell like, feel like, taste like, sound like.

My writing style (non fiction) has evolved in my old age. Instead of creating an outline, I just go into a total brainstorming mode. I jot down various random thoughts about the project. When I have put down pages and pages of disorganized thoughts, I sort them into regions and that becomes the outline or plot. It is highly efficient. So I never write linearly but always fragmented.

I have noticed that several science fiction writers rely on their own individual traits. For example there is a science fiction writer who is an American Indian. His stories integrate his trait (American Indian) into the plot. In your case since you are an Aspie, it gives you the ability to integrate Aspie traits into the plot of the story.

My advice, for what it's worth:

The way they communicate and the way you communicate will create some difficulty. I've recently had to face that, after years of struggling to write in ways which aren't natural to me. I've also impressed people with my writing, so realizing you communicate differently isn't a bad thing. You have to be true to yourself. If your writing keeps you engaged and makes you happy, you're on the right path. I know some people here hate any amateur diagnosis, but I feel that Franz Kafka, Samuel Beckett, H.P. Lovecraft, and Emily Dickenson are some writers who show autistic traits in their lives and writing styles. They're certainly artistic role models for me, and that's what counts. I recommend looking at them, and see if you also see some similarities in your writing and theirs. Kafka approaches metaphor in a literal way which brings the metaphors to life.

Also, check out this very short story which is very information-oriented: https://kwarc.info/teaching/TDM/Borges.pdf

It's not full of useless detail which is there only for the sake of atmosphere. It's literal and direct, while being emotional. There is a sense of loss there which makes the story metaphorical, despite being presented in an entirely literal way. Does that resonate with you?



In this area, you're not so unfortunate. I think many (apparently) NT writers aren't very poetic, either. But, I think you can develop that skill, too. Your dreams are basically your feelings put into images; into metaphors. So it's not like you don't think this way at all. Consider that, and it may help. And read more. Maybe find some poetry you like.



Do they read the kind of things you like, and which you want to write? Obviously an outside perspective is good, but take into account that they may have very different taste. I've tried critique groups like this before, and some people were helpful, but few seemed to read widely or have much critical skill. They had a certain ideal for fiction based on what few things they liked, rather than much reading experience. I submitted a poem once where I capitalized the first letter of each line--a common practice--and one guy said he hated that, and thought I had a formatting issue with Word. So definitely bear in mind that no one's view is wholly objective, and some people have strange rationales for their opinions.

As far as doing setting, I would try to integrate that naturally, which you alluded to before. I recommend looking at the first acts of some Shakespeare plays. Though he doesn't really describe settings per se, he does integrate exposition (which in a sense involves settings) very naturally through different characters' points of view. That may help you, since it's boring to rattle of details of a setting or character's appearance merely to put an image in the reader's mind.

As an aspiring author myself I can absolutely relate to all of your problems. Things that have meaning for an aspie (or NLDer in my case) just aren't the same things that have meaning for a NT or even other aspies so it can be hard to reach an audience. Anyways, I have improved my writing over the years, so if you would like a critique of your writing or advice ask here or send me a pm.

^It's "anyway", not "anyways."

OP - I belong to Absolute Write. Feel free to have a gander at that site. The reviewers can be pretty brutal but it's all to help you become a better writer.

I admit it. I get lazy about my grammar when I post on public forums.

Anyways I am going to take you up on your offer even if it wasn't to me.

Did you train yourself to understand those points? How long have you written?

I could send you a sample. My first book is on its third draft now after being critiqued twice. It's YA-ish dystopian, but sequels are more sci-fi New Adult.

I'll give it a look. That Reddit group died a few months ago. I'm showing my IRL group my second book, so I want to show someone else my first book's newer draft. I'm terrible at giving critique though...

Yeah, that short story seemed fine, if difficult to replicate. I really need to branch out in books, so I can research those writers. Thanks.



I hate all poetry! It's gibberish.



A lot of that group's critique made little to no sense to me. They had a lot of problems with things I saw as important parts of the story. I'm not sure how much of it was objectively bad stuff and how much of it was just them having different opinions (and being jerks about it). My IRL group hasn't been quite as harsh. The Reddit group fizzled out a few months ago.