What's the worst trap you see amateur writers falling into?
Not appreciating the whole story.
Scroll around "Writing Tumblr" for a few hours and you'll see something to the effect of "I was daydreaming about this big fight/plot twist/dramatic irony, but I hate writing all the stuff leading up to it!"
Everything leading up to the big third act is treated as an obligation. The 'homework' before you get to the 'fun part.'
See this enough times, and you start to realize why you see so many stories meandering around for the first two acts until they can have their big, dramatic climax. You start to see why everything that isn't a Baysplosion is considered "filler" now.
If you're only into writing to write memorable third act reveals, then everything you write is going to be terrible.
There's a video by Noralities going over an old anime, which she admits she hated at first because she was skipping the episodes that were dubbed "filler" by some idiot, and her friend who suggested it to her had to sit her down and tell her that the filler was some of the best parts. And she was in disbelief about that.
"A character-based show feels worse when you watch only the plot episodes and none of the character episodes? Say it ain't so!"
It is a moment of spectacular brainrot in what is otherwise an S-Tier Youtuber, because it's such a basic concept that some people will weirdly fight you on.
Character moments, slow moments, things that might be considered boring to a hyperactive, plot-obsessed weirdo, these are all important. Trying to have a big grand plot without these things is like trying to build a bridge without supports. If you don't have as much of a deep love for those things as you do for the big fight scene at the end, you're going to make shit, because you don't actually like writing.
There are entire genres of storytelling that don't have villains, fight scenes, or dramatic plot twists. There are NO genres of storytelling that don't have characters and character relationships as a core component of them.
From Lizzie Ferguson's chapbook, I Never Leave Lost Teeth Under My Pillow, available from Bottlecap Press!
From amelia nason's chapbook, poems i shouldn't have written, available from Bottlecap Press!
you spent hours in libraries and in art supply stores trying to absorb the artist tips from books your parents didn't want to buy you. on each page of every "how to draw" is a version of the same four things: this is how you shade a sphere. this is how you shade a cone.
this is what a man looks like. he is hard and angular and jutting. his chest narrows a triangle down to his sharp hip and long legs. his jawbone is a square. he is powerful, imposing, his hands are big and meaty. he is a leader.
this is what a woman looks like. she is soft and her hands tuck her long hair back behind a delicate ear. she is big-eyed and round (but not too round, she is skinny, here is the faint sketch of her abs showing), she is smaller and lighter and pretty. she has thick black lashes and her tits do not come with a massive ribcage to offset the weight we put on her - she has curves, but they are impossibly slim without giving her backache trouble. there is a large red hourglass outlined on top of her figure, the way there is a triangle outlined on top of the man. her face is a heart-shape, and her lips are pouting.
here is how you draw the woman and the man together. the man should be in action shots. the woman's ass should be in action shots. she should fit against the man to compliment his negative space - she should slot into his shadow so when they hug, they become one uniform space. here is how all the other artists have done it, see how good it looks when the man (angles, fire, passion, action) and the woman (roundness, water, emotion, supplication) complement each other? he begins the sentence, she is his ending.
do you want to kiss another girl? that is round-to-round. that is fitting the wire into the wrong socket! how would the faces look together? a single silhouette you sketch and then hide, scribbling over it.
do you want to look like a girl? by sheer genetic happenstance, you absolutely don't look like that, and you never have. you don't look like a man, either, though, do you. you don't feel like you truly belong to either gender, but there is not a "neutral/fluid" drawing in the book. there is male (triangle) or female (hourglass).
but you have a square jaw and square hands and "masculine" proportions. but you have curves and roundness and full lips and "feminine" features. someone online says, definitively, that any form of gender noncompliance is "a mental illness." this comment has over one thousand likes from people who agree.
here is how you shade a square. none of the clothes at the store look good on you, you always somehow feel like you're wearing a weird kind of costume. here is how you shade a sphere. your friend's mother calls the school because she's horrified you're in the same changing room. here is the neutral body figure: it is a wooden man. technically the wooden man is genderless, but that is because masculinity is the default, and everyone calls the figure "a wooden man." you must be small and posable and skinny and featureless, then you can be masculine enough to not have gender.
here is how to draw a person. begin with some shapes. choose the right shapes to get that person's gender correct. do not kiss her. shade in short, sharp lines.
when she laughs, look away.
dandelions are magic. literally tiny suns in the grass that turn into the moon and then the stars when you blow on them. fucking insane.
Richard Hugo, Essay on Poetic Theory: The Triggering Town