Rincewind.

He is motivated by an insecurity complex native to any Wizzard incapable of doing the most basic of magic, intense cowardice through which he seeks to survive the most dangerous of situations, and a group of cruel gods who repeatedly place him in the most dangerous situations imaginable.

Edmond Dantès, without a doubt. What motivates him is revenge, plain and simple. The most fascinating part, however, is how real and human Dumas writes him. Contrary to the trend of giving him a happy ending in film adaptations, there is no going back to the way he was. Devoting his life to the single purpose of complete and total revenge destroys something in him.

Benvenuto Cellini
Motivated by huge cocky ego. Good at what he did and knew it.
Became what he was by his wits and observation skills. His wits got him into trouble, saw when things turned against him and his wits kept him alive to make trouble again.

complete cummings

protip: its a bunch of wank

(but seriously)

File 135323759199.jpg - (196.91KB , 1018x1600 , the-windup-girl-pb.jpg )

>Thailand
>Scifi

Anon, are you asking about ebooks or paperbacks? A lot of the best stuff I know is available in one form or the other but not both.

Neuromancer

Sry m8, i ain't native EN speaker :P

For programming and hacking, check out the Computer Knowledge MegaCollection.
It's got a ton of books organized in nice little folders and it's definitely helped me improve my Python and C++.

We seem to share the same interests.
Check my personal library.
http://sdrv.ms/YEFOlA

>>16457
As what could probably have been considered the primary arguer of 'op sucks' in this thread, "in poor tastes" is what came to my mind. I didn't say anything because, bad taste or not, I couldn't really disagree with any of it.

This thread degraded
From content to bickering
Instead of helping

We'd make /lit/ better
If we could cooperate
Such is life, I guess

>>16465
I would prefer no content to shit content. Cooperating with and helping someone with brain damage won't elevate such a person to the level of a fully functional human being. It only succeeds in leeching the time of those more capable.

>>16438
This. Characters have to be written as early as possible. The dialogue is not simply a vessel for conveying cleverness or profound ideas. If done properly, it can develop the characters much, much more than direct description.

The most important thing is to never assume your reader is stupid and can't tell from context or diction HOW the words are being said. If the way the character speaks isn't made clear without unnecessarily telling the reader exactly how they spoke, you're doing it wrong. Dialogue tags should be 99% "he said" or "she said" or "[name] said"; and the idea is that they eventually become almost invisible to the reader and allow the story to flow. Maybe if you're trying to add an extra punch, put in "he yelled" or "she cried out" or something else like that. But never EVER do something like:

"I said I loved you," he said desperately.
"I don't care," she hotly replied.
"You should care, damnit," he moaned.
"Maybe you should love ME more," she said sarcastically.
"But she's my mother!!" he bellowed.

over every single page. This is probably the most common mistake new writers make with dialogue. Figuring out how to make the conversation believable without adding in those snippets will come with practice. The speaker's intent and meaning can come through in real life with body language and tone of voice. Simply putting that a sentence is said "sarcastically" forces the reader to believe it; saying that a sentence is said by a person under their breath with crossed arms and a sneer implies it, and allows the reader to assume it. Readers like to figure things out for themselves; it's rewarding and satisfying. It's like solving miniature puzzles, subconsciously, which leads to a more enjoyable reading experience.

"Well, that's just wonderful," Daniel said sarcastically.

Daniel crossed his arms and his lips curled into a sneer. "Well, that's just wonderful," he said under his breath.

See the difference?
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>16443
"A Tom Swifty never goes out of style," Tom said fashionably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Swifty :)

For the OP:
Dialogue, like everything else, must serve the needs of the story: plot, character, information, context, tone, and there are probably a few more things I've forgotten. On the first pass, make sure there is a reason for the entire dialogue, taken as a chunk, to exist.

Then write like the characters might speak. Make sure you don't break the illusion by having a speaker sound out of character.

Finally, go back and strip out all of the useless or dull portions of the conversation. Characters in books rarely say hello or goodbye, they don't pause, rarely even call each other by name, that sort of thing. Trim most of that out. What you have left will look like a conversation, but still serve the story.

Probably 1984. Most people seem to point out only the "hurp durp dictatorship ees bad" side of it.

I, however, see it as an exploration into the world of power. There are so many points Orwell makes that are absolutely spot-on, yet have almost nothing to do with the anti-utopian aspect. 1984 made me genuinely interested in gaining power in life.

Balzac's Gobseck comes as a close second. It also explores power, but in this case the power of money. This story, like no other, made me understand the real potential of money. If I ever get rich, I will never, like so many do now, say that I don't know what to spend their money on.

As of now, probably "Hardboiled in Wonderland And the End of The World". Parts of it were a little slow, parts of it were tinged with mundanity, but it all felt necessary, and the way the plotlines were explained, the way they intertwined, and the sheer level of genius involved in the way it all played out was amazing.

... Maybe Slaughterhouse 5, actually... I hate being asked to choose favorite books, I really do. (And yet I chose to participate.)

At the moment, Les Enfants Terribles ('The Holy Terrors' is the English title) by Jean Cocteau.

>>16427
I'm not him, but
>detailed description
looking up at me with no visible hint of annoyance, eyes a pale blue, gleaming like two delicate drops of sea.
The sentence just kept going, and going, and going, and going. All of the details are individually fine, but packed together, they become a case of "it was a dark and stormy night."

>attempts at cleverness
"It was all very laughable and I enjoyed observing the silliness of it all."
If you have to tell us it's funny, it's probably not really funny at all, and you're telling us because deep down you know that it's just plain uninteresting. As much as I hate the word, I feel that the author was, in fact, trying to be 'edgy.'

I could go on with further examples in both categories, but what he said is on the nose.

Personal annoyances: You didn't mention that the book she was reading was a flimsy paperback the length of your average pamphlet. The Metamorphosis does not a book make: it's a short story. Also, unless she's reading Die Verwandlung as opposed to an English translation, I know she's lying about it being interesting. Much of Kafka is lost in translation, but some of his works retain literary merit despite this fact. The Metamorphosis is not one of these works.

>>16427
Yeah, sorry, I guess I am too lazy/negative, my bad.

What >>16429 said is basically more or less what I had in mind.

Oh, and if you're writing dialogue, it's IMO better if you describe what the person does/how they look/the way they speak between the lines. It helps the reader to imagine the situation better and also develops the characters a tiny bit.

>>16420
OP here, I agree with most of your criticisms but I'm not quite sure how to fix them; I guess I'll keep writing. The idea for this story has been burning a hole in my mind though, and I figured I'd share it to relieve some of the tension. I think I just need to start over with a clearer goal and more focus on less garbage writing.

After reading it again, yeah, it's pretty forced..

Good critiques, guys. I'll post some of what I've been writing recently. It's a lot less pretentious.

In private.

Gunpoint.