Wrote brilliant novel

>wrote brilliant novel
>come back to it after a month
>its shit
WTF how does this happen? I was certain I nailed it.

Everyone goes through this with any creative project.

The usual process for me is this one:

>like it before I write it
>don't like it while I write it
>feel like I didn't really write all I had to write once I finish it
>like it once I present it to others (apparently I did write enough of what I wanted to write)
>don't like it when re-reading it weeks later (appears too cliché)
>like it when re-reading it months later (appears thoughtful and well-structured)

Probablly you're just memeing, but that always happens when I write short stories. Well, I've decided that I can never judge my own properly because my self-esteem is never neutral, so both the amusement and the frustration are probably inaccurate feelings.

You should find someone to read and judge it.

doesnt mean its really shit.
however definitely undermines your credibility defending it

Rogan looks really, really fucking stupid and humiliated in this picture. He looks like he's really drunk and he's just showed a girl he's got into a room his 1 inch penis and he's like, "Oh shit I forgot I can't have casual sex with women with this."

>Rogan looks really, really fucking stupid
he is

I'm not denying that or affirming it. I actually know nothing about him and only knew his name because I saw some other anons a while ago who got into a discussion about him due to that exact same picture.

In fact, if he is, I'm pretty proud I can read faces like that.

You're bipolar.

The problem with Rogan is that he is so used to being a podcaster and interviewing people now that he no longer has any opinions of his own, apart from "dude weed legalization lmao".

This happens to me all the time too, my theory is there's some Eastern Euro hacker who is stealing my work and replacing it with a shit version to fool me.

EVERYONE SHOULD MAINLINE DMT the podcast

Just take drugs and you'll write something brilliant

No, you're not listening if you think that. He just decides to shut up to be polite. He went on and on about how people who thought global warming wasn't real were stupid with Shane Smith, then with another guy who said 'global warming is a hoax' he just asked him why he thought that.
He just doesn't bash people with his beliefs, or seem to me to like to express a controversial opinion if he can avoid it. Giving that he lives in LA where everyone is drama queens, it makes sense.

It's the opposite for me

>write a few pages at an agonizingly slow pace, constantly changing shit out
>still doesn't seem good, so get frustrated and quit
>come back to it in a week and it looks like beautiful prose that flows together effortlessly

Yup, that's what I find as well. Went about half way through a third draft, thought it was good enough as is, and published it. Turns out it's still shit, and I didn't realise it was shit even 2-3 times after going over it because I simply didn't know. Now I know, however, so I'm going to make a 2nd Edition soon that's correcting those. I'm hoping this second novel I'm publishing today or tomorrow doesn't end up with these invisible issues that I haven't noticed yet, but I imagine it will. Just gotta keep writing, because that's the only way you'll get better, user.

name of novel?

Feels sketchy mentioning it on Veeky Forums, but alright. Living amongst the Dead. J N Morgan (Pseudonym; not my real name). The blaring issues that I thought were ok was the capitalization of words in non-dialogue aspects of the book. I just seen it as yelling, while using italics is merely stressing a word without perhaps yelling. Sometimes I'd use both italics and all-caps at the same time. That, as well as apparently tending to 'tell' rather than to 'show/say' made the book... how was it described? Not very fluid perhaps? I've been told it's relatively well written, but I think my issue is that I should let the reader learn things through character interaction rather than through author narration. Yeah, I think that describes my issue fairly well, but I didn't learn this until AFTER it was published, so the 2nd draft and half a 3rd draft didn't fix the mistakes that I didn't know were there. Anyways, it was my first novel, so I was anticipating that it might be shit due to my inexperience. I think this novella I'm publishing will be much better, but hey, you can't see what you don't know, it might still be horribly written, but in my happy ignorance I for now believe it to be quite good. Time will tell.

My original cover for Living amongst the Dead was also a bit TOO simplistic I think, even though I personally liked it.

Pic related is the original cover I had, but since changed it to something a little less... 'basic'? It gave me a good George A Romero feel, which is kind of what I was going for, but then again maybe I was the only one to get that feel. Going to make a 2nd Edition soon to fix the issue. Any non-dialogue all-caps will be put into italics instead. Or at least most of it, we'll see. I have a 4th wall breaking moment in the book too so y'know, it's rather strangely written in terms of how books usually go...

opposite for me. i hate everything i write as i write it and then when i finally look back on it months later it, i see that it's not that bad

>become infatuated with concept for a short story
>start writing at a leisurely pace with a loose plan, generally letting the story unfold naturally
>constantly re-reading, re-writing parts of it
>constantly thinking about how the story is presented/framed
>eventually write a more comprehensive plan
>eventually resolve the concept, the framing, the plot itself in my mind
>all desire to finish it is lost

I hear that's a common problem. The desire for perfection. Ultimately, the longer you're working on ONE book, is the longer that you're NOT working on another book. Perfection cannot be had, to do it the best you can, and leave it at that. You get better with experience, and a few little grammatical errors is not the end of the world, as long as it's not too many.

Consider gay sex. Would you want to fuck twink James after being taken in the arse by bear Goliath?

The point is, writing is different than reading, and when you are primarily in write (fuck) mode, your reading is different than when you are in reading (taking-it-in-the-arse) mode. When you are in fuck mode, you just want the object of your attention to be smooth, like James's shaved arse, but you don't notice your own bear rudeness. When you are with Goliath, you shave your arse and your object of attention is the masculine power pounding you.

Problem is you wrote as a Goliath, and now read it as a James. You cannot double-James a James, since a Goliath produces a James, as a James beholds a Goliath.

Does that make sense? I used the gay sex analogy because I thought it be familiar.

I always have the opposite problem.
>write story
>hate it so badly that I want to kill myself
>don't have the heart to delete it though
>find it years later after I've forgotten all about it
>it's actually pretty good