2. Stop adjusting your shirt.
3. Stop tightening your muscles.
4. Stop sucking in your gut.
IT WORKS.
Also,
5. Look at Renaissance paintings of women.
Like this one:
And this one:
And this one:
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
How To Stop Feeling Fat
1. Stop adjusting your pants.
2. Stop adjusting your shirt.
3. Stop tightening your muscles.
4. Stop sucking in your gut.
IT WORKS.
Also,
5. Look at Renaissance paintings of women.
Like this one:
2. Stop adjusting your shirt.
3. Stop tightening your muscles.
4. Stop sucking in your gut.
IT WORKS.
Also,
5. Look at Renaissance paintings of women.
Like this one:
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Stupidity and Scrupulosity
Hello!
[Note: I'd like to clarify that I'm not opposed to religion in the slightest and that in this specific and complicated instance then it would have been better for M to rely on his guts instead of what PG Wodehouse would call Scripture Knowledge.]
We interrupt this program (this being whatever it was you were doing hitherto) for a brief harangue on what Lemony Snicket might call "The Anxious Clown."
The Anxious Clown, as you may know, is the name of a restaurant in A Series of Unfortunate Events: Book the Third: The Wide Window, but it's also a good way to describe the juxtaposing characteristics that I'm trying to portray in the absurd bits of writing I call My Book. I outline these characteristics now in an effort to align the synapses in my alleged brain and to try to discover more about the people I'm trying to bring to life.
My three protagonists whom I'm going to refer to as G, M, and C are different, but they share two underlying characteristics: each possesses his own brands of (1) stupidity and (2) scrupulosity, traits that humans generally do not want to have, but I'm a writer, and my object is to make the little people in my brain as miserable as possible until the story comes to a satisfying conclusion.
Since G is the primary protagonist whose point of view overlooks the majority of the story in my head, I'll start with her. G is not stupid in the classical sense as an airhead or a bumbling idiot, but in the sense that she tends to over-analyze the circumstances in front of her, which clouds her vision. This kind of stupidity goes hand-in-hand with her particular form of scrupulosity, which I'm going to call Social Scrupulosity. This kind of anxiety causes the sufferer (G) to worry constantly that everything she says or does has a negative effect on the rest of mankind. I say it goes hand-in-hand with Over-Analysis because I believe Over-Analysis is caused (at least partly) by Social Scrupulosity. G's brains imagine every possible outcome (all bad) of The Way She Acts because she's afraid that one of these outcomes could have struck her compatriots on the face, and now it is her moral duty to make up for it.
M has a more obvious kind of stupidity in the sense that he's Legitimately Stupid. The Gilligan kind of stupid. His brand of scrupulosity is meant to save him from his stupidity. I don't know what you would call it (whoever you are), but for the purposes of this post I'm going to call it Religious Scrupulosity. M knows very very deep down that he's an idiot, and so he compensates for his stupidity by basing his morals on The Rules. If he follows The Rules, there's no need for him to do any subjective analysis or to use his personal (bad) judgment on What To Do In A Situation. If the authorities forbid or endorse certain actions or behaviors, then so does M. Unlike G, M doesn't suffer from his brand of scrupulosity until the outline in my head I call Book 3.
[Note: I'd like to clarify that I'm not opposed to religion in the slightest and that in this specific and complicated instance then it would have been better for M to rely on his guts instead of what PG Wodehouse would call Scripture Knowledge.]
C, I think, has the best kind of stupidity and the worst kind of scrupulosity. His stupidity, unlike M's, is not real stupidity, but mere Absent-Mindedness. In fact, Absent-Mindedness, as a species, can be mistaken for either stupidity or wisdom, but in C's case it's invariably mistaken for the former. Unlike G and M, C doesn't suffer from his stupidity in the least, but it is for that reason that his stupidity is used to give him relief from his scrupulosity. C's brand of scrupulosity is difficult to sum-up in just a word or two, but I think it can be done by calling it Existential Scrupulosity. Put simply, C feels unworthy of being listed under the heading "Human Being." He hasn't done anything particularly wrong, but due to some glitch in his brain, his mere existence in of itself is wrong, which makes him wrong, which makes everything he does wrong, no matter what it is. If he ends up in Hell, then the flaw in the universe is corrected, and if he ends up in Heaven, it must be by some clerical error. C therefore uses his Absent-Mindedness as an escape and is subsequently perceived by his fellows as one of Nature's idiots.
I don't know why I'm explaining this.
Actually, I do; I just momentarily forgot.
To resume: I've found that my purpose in writing down the story I've accidentally thought up is to watch my imaginary friends and kindred spirits give their scrupulosities the middle finger and learn to embrace their little stupidities. My hope is that G will stop apologizing and M will begin to trust his own conscience and C will live and not feel guilty for it. I find stories of success against self-remonstration inspiring, but they're sometimes hard to come by and I needed one more.
I say that like the story's a good thing, but in reality it's kind of a load of bull****. It's really bad. I've been re-reading bits of it trying to make it better and I've had to stop and reel about eight times per minute.
Actually, it's not that bad. It's only sort of bad, but then it's sort of good occasionally, so I think I'll finish it.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Quotes for Scrupulous Humans
"And now that you don't have to be perfect, you can be good." ------John Steinbeck
"No man knows how bad he is until he tries very hard to be good." --------C.S. Lewis
"It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people don't want apologies, and the wrong sort take advantage of them." ---------P.G. Wodehouse
"Dear Sirs: Regarding your article, 'What's Wrong With the World?' I am. Yours truly, G.K. Chesterton." ---------G.K. Chesterton
"I am an evil man-cub, and my stomach is sad in me." ---------Rudyard Kipling
"There is no hurry. We shall get there one day." -------A.A. Milne
"There was already a deep black wordless conviction in him that the way to avoid Jesus was to avoid sin." ----------Flannery O'Connor
"My daddy used to tell me not to chew on something that was eating you." ------Cormac McCarthy
"What I say is, if a man really likes potatoes, he must be a pretty decent sort of fellow." ------P.G. Wodehouse
"No man knows how bad he is until he tries very hard to be good." --------C.S. Lewis
"It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people don't want apologies, and the wrong sort take advantage of them." ---------P.G. Wodehouse
"Dear Sirs: Regarding your article, 'What's Wrong With the World?' I am. Yours truly, G.K. Chesterton." ---------G.K. Chesterton
"I am an evil man-cub, and my stomach is sad in me." ---------Rudyard Kipling
"There is no hurry. We shall get there one day." -------A.A. Milne
"There was already a deep black wordless conviction in him that the way to avoid Jesus was to avoid sin." ----------Flannery O'Connor
"My daddy used to tell me not to chew on something that was eating you." ------Cormac McCarthy
"What I say is, if a man really likes potatoes, he must be a pretty decent sort of fellow." ------P.G. Wodehouse
Monday, October 17, 2016
The Properties of Plastics
The following post is my way of memorizing the properties of different types of plastics I'm supposed to have memorized by Thursday. This post was made for the sole benefit of me, and was not meant to amuse or instruct anyone else, unless you're in FST 319 with me and need a way to memorize said plastics as well. The bolded words are the properties of the corresponding plastics in the above heading.
I. Polyethylene.
Once upon a time, there was a princess called Polyethylene who lived in a magical kingdom. She was sad because her mother was dead and stiff. But luckily, Polyethylene was strong and tough, so she was able to make her mother a coffin, and the coffin was easy to make and to process, besides which it cost less than the average coffin (used or new). It was also resistant to chemicals and gas permeable.
The End.
II. Polypropylene.
Now, Polyethylene had a sister named Polypropylene, who was very much like Polyethylene's daughter, High-Density Polyethylene, in many respects. However, High-Density Polyethylene was not very good at using the castle's injection mold to make plastic containers, so she asked Polypropylene for help and Polypropylene was better at it because she, like Polyethylene, was strong and tough. However, High-Density Polyethylene soon became jealous of her aunt's skill at injection molding, so she threw her chemistry set at Polypropylene. Fortunately, however, Polypropylene was chemical resistant. For revenge, High-Density Polyethylene accused Polypropylene of being a witch and had her burned at the stake, but unbeknownst to her, Polypropylene was also heat resistant and would not burn. Then High-Density Polyethylene tried to drown Polypropylene, but Polypropylene was not only heat resistant, but moisture resistant as well, a feature she had purchased for a very low price. Then High-Density Polyethylene thought that she could kiss-ass her way into learning how to be good at the injection mold as well, so she went back to Polypropylene and tried to butter her up, but Polypropylene, as it happens, was also grease-resistant. In the end, High-Density Polyethylene managed to cultivate a great respect for her aunt because of how versatile she was, and they all lived happily ever after.
The End.
III. Polystyrene
Now, Polyethylene and Polypropylene belonged to the family of the Polyolefins, but there was another family called the Substituted Olefins who ruled another province of the land, and in this family, as in the Polyolefin family, there were two daughters. The eldest of these was Polystyrene, who was something of a pain in everyone's bum unless she had her doll whose name was Polybutadiene with her. She was also fond of peanut brittle, which was easy to process, and she always made it clear when she wanted some by insulating the walls of the freezer so that everyone's ice cream melted ahead of schedule. She was also versatile. That's all I got to say about that.
The End
IV. Poly Vinylchloride
Polystyrene, as you know, had a younger sister, and her name was Poly Vinylchloride, but everyone called her PVC. PVC was something of a liar, but fortunately her lies were transparent and everyone could see right through her. When she made off one day with the peanut brittle, her family punished her by pouring chemicals onto her, but she was resistant to chemicals and developed a long-term stability, which made punishment very difficult. They tried burning her at the stake like Polypropylene, but she, too, was flame-resistant and would not burn, and they tried leaving her out in a storm, but she had great weatherability and refused to die from exposure. Finally, however, they put PVC in a blender and found that she was easy to blend, and after she was blended completely, they thought what wonderful potato-pancakes she would make and they shaped her into patties and tried to fry her in butter, but unfortunately, she was also grease resistant. So instead, they sold her remains at a low price and lived happily ever after.
The End
V. Poly Ethylene Terephthalate
Now, there was a third ruling family in this kingdom, and they lived under the name Polyesters. In this family were two brothers, the eldest of whom was called PET. His proper name was Poly Ethylene Terephthalate, but few remembered it, even though he pronounced it for them clearly. It hurt his feelings a little when his subjects could not remember his full name, but he was a tough prince and minded it as little as he could. Once he wasn't feeling well, and his mother tried to give him some gas-X with a glass of water, but PET turned both away, for he had an effective moisture barrier as well as a gas barrier, and could not be troubled by gas, nor could he combat his stomach ache with a glass of water. Everyone else lived happily ever after.
The End
VI. Polycarbonate
Now, PET had a younger brother named Polycarbonate whom everyone called PC, because he was always on his Personal Computer. PET once grew tired of his inattentiveness to Real Life and tried to break PC's PC, but the PC was very durable and would not break. He tried to burn it and scratch it, but the PC was heat and scratch resistant, and soon PET found himself aimlessly throwing sparks and bricks at it like the dad with the killer doll in The Twilight Zone. He then discovered that the PC was covered in a transparent force field which made it resistant to chemicals as well as virtually indestructible.
The End
I. Polyethylene.
Once upon a time, there was a princess called Polyethylene who lived in a magical kingdom. She was sad because her mother was dead and stiff. But luckily, Polyethylene was strong and tough, so she was able to make her mother a coffin, and the coffin was easy to make and to process, besides which it cost less than the average coffin (used or new). It was also resistant to chemicals and gas permeable.
The End.
II. Polypropylene.
Now, Polyethylene had a sister named Polypropylene, who was very much like Polyethylene's daughter, High-Density Polyethylene, in many respects. However, High-Density Polyethylene was not very good at using the castle's injection mold to make plastic containers, so she asked Polypropylene for help and Polypropylene was better at it because she, like Polyethylene, was strong and tough. However, High-Density Polyethylene soon became jealous of her aunt's skill at injection molding, so she threw her chemistry set at Polypropylene. Fortunately, however, Polypropylene was chemical resistant. For revenge, High-Density Polyethylene accused Polypropylene of being a witch and had her burned at the stake, but unbeknownst to her, Polypropylene was also heat resistant and would not burn. Then High-Density Polyethylene tried to drown Polypropylene, but Polypropylene was not only heat resistant, but moisture resistant as well, a feature she had purchased for a very low price. Then High-Density Polyethylene thought that she could kiss-ass her way into learning how to be good at the injection mold as well, so she went back to Polypropylene and tried to butter her up, but Polypropylene, as it happens, was also grease-resistant. In the end, High-Density Polyethylene managed to cultivate a great respect for her aunt because of how versatile she was, and they all lived happily ever after.
The End.
III. Polystyrene
Now, Polyethylene and Polypropylene belonged to the family of the Polyolefins, but there was another family called the Substituted Olefins who ruled another province of the land, and in this family, as in the Polyolefin family, there were two daughters. The eldest of these was Polystyrene, who was something of a pain in everyone's bum unless she had her doll whose name was Polybutadiene with her. She was also fond of peanut brittle, which was easy to process, and she always made it clear when she wanted some by insulating the walls of the freezer so that everyone's ice cream melted ahead of schedule. She was also versatile. That's all I got to say about that.
The End
IV. Poly Vinylchloride
Polystyrene, as you know, had a younger sister, and her name was Poly Vinylchloride, but everyone called her PVC. PVC was something of a liar, but fortunately her lies were transparent and everyone could see right through her. When she made off one day with the peanut brittle, her family punished her by pouring chemicals onto her, but she was resistant to chemicals and developed a long-term stability, which made punishment very difficult. They tried burning her at the stake like Polypropylene, but she, too, was flame-resistant and would not burn, and they tried leaving her out in a storm, but she had great weatherability and refused to die from exposure. Finally, however, they put PVC in a blender and found that she was easy to blend, and after she was blended completely, they thought what wonderful potato-pancakes she would make and they shaped her into patties and tried to fry her in butter, but unfortunately, she was also grease resistant. So instead, they sold her remains at a low price and lived happily ever after.
The End
V. Poly Ethylene Terephthalate
Now, there was a third ruling family in this kingdom, and they lived under the name Polyesters. In this family were two brothers, the eldest of whom was called PET. His proper name was Poly Ethylene Terephthalate, but few remembered it, even though he pronounced it for them clearly. It hurt his feelings a little when his subjects could not remember his full name, but he was a tough prince and minded it as little as he could. Once he wasn't feeling well, and his mother tried to give him some gas-X with a glass of water, but PET turned both away, for he had an effective moisture barrier as well as a gas barrier, and could not be troubled by gas, nor could he combat his stomach ache with a glass of water. Everyone else lived happily ever after.
The End
VI. Polycarbonate
Now, PET had a younger brother named Polycarbonate whom everyone called PC, because he was always on his Personal Computer. PET once grew tired of his inattentiveness to Real Life and tried to break PC's PC, but the PC was very durable and would not break. He tried to burn it and scratch it, but the PC was heat and scratch resistant, and soon PET found himself aimlessly throwing sparks and bricks at it like the dad with the killer doll in The Twilight Zone. He then discovered that the PC was covered in a transparent force field which made it resistant to chemicals as well as virtually indestructible.
The End
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
A Thought On Attempting To Shock People
Because I'm very bad at talking about my writing, and because one must do that at which one is bad, this will be another post about the unfortunate document on my computer that I call 'my book.'
As of now, I'm only halfway done with Draft 3 of Book 1, I've barely started Draft 1 of Book 2, and I've got just an outline in my head of Book 3, but I know what I want the overall effect of the ending of each one to be. In a word (or four), I want to shock people.
Maybe 'shock' is a strong word. I don't know if I actually want to shock said people per se, but I have an idea of what I want Reader X to say when he's done reading said unfortunate documents:
Book 1: "Gadzooks and goody gumdrops, but that actually makes sense!"
Book 2: "Hellfire and damnation, where the $@*& did that come from?!"
Book 3: "No, dammit, I told Character X not to do that and by George he did it!"
Plotting-wise, I think I've done all right with each one. Execution-wise, I'm not sure. I'm attempting to get the above reactions by
Book 1: Hinting at the conventional romantic-comedy "twist" and then swerving at the end to my own "twist," while keeping the philosophy behind the romantic-comedy "twist" hints intact.
Book 2: Focusing on the external conflict of Character A and then jumping in at the climax with the internal conflict of Character B which explains the reason why Character B caused said external conflict with Character A. Also by complicating the mess with melodramatic guns and tomatoes.
Book 3: Continuously enforcing how hunky-dory everything is throughout the narrative so that Reader X will try to make himself believe that it couldn't possibly be all ruined at the end, and especially not by Character C.
These are the methods behind my attempts to twist my endings. If any of them conflict with the usual (or unusual) methods of Good Writing, please let me know so I can punch a wall and throw away my laptop before I fix whatever-it-is that would cause a reader unnecessary grief.
Thank you!
Beth out.
Thank you!
Beth out.
Saturday, October 1, 2016
Don't Ask.
The following is an imaginary conversation I have with nonexistent people on a weekly basis. I don't know why. Maybe I'm not the only person who does this. But I probably am.
However
here it is.
Imaginary Person Whom I Have Just Devastatingly Insulted Through My Brilliance: Why are you acting like such a weird-person? Are you on your period?
Me: First of all, No. Second of all, it's not MY period. I didn't ask for it. I didn't invent it. I didn't endorse it. I didn't want it. It comes inconveniently at random intervals to annoy the hell out of me, and I try to ignore it as best as I can until it goes away. But apart from that, I neither have nor want any affiliation with it. It isn't MINE. It's not an entity for which I am responsible, in fact, I take no responsibility--repeat--NO responsibility--for its behavior. I am responsible for my own behavior, but not for anything it does which is beyond my control. It isn't MY period, just like this drought in California isn't OUR drought. Stop calling it MINE. Rant over.
Why, Beth, you say, is it that time of the month?
No, believe me, it's not. I seriously have this conversation with the IPWIHJDITMB (see above) at least once a week. I don't know why. Maybe that's something I should bring up in therapy. But maybe not.
Have a good weekend!
However
here it is.
Imaginary Person Whom I Have Just Devastatingly Insulted Through My Brilliance: Why are you acting like such a weird-person? Are you on your period?
Me: First of all, No. Second of all, it's not MY period. I didn't ask for it. I didn't invent it. I didn't endorse it. I didn't want it. It comes inconveniently at random intervals to annoy the hell out of me, and I try to ignore it as best as I can until it goes away. But apart from that, I neither have nor want any affiliation with it. It isn't MINE. It's not an entity for which I am responsible, in fact, I take no responsibility--repeat--NO responsibility--for its behavior. I am responsible for my own behavior, but not for anything it does which is beyond my control. It isn't MY period, just like this drought in California isn't OUR drought. Stop calling it MINE. Rant over.
Why, Beth, you say, is it that time of the month?
No, believe me, it's not. I seriously have this conversation with the IPWIHJDITMB (see above) at least once a week. I don't know why. Maybe that's something I should bring up in therapy. But maybe not.
Have a good weekend!
Monday, September 26, 2016
A Thought on the Third Commandment
Hello!
Welcome to this week's Post For Writing Practice in which I post something for the purpose of honing my writing skills.
I have a question this time for my Catholic compatriots, and it's a little more serious than is the modus operandi of this blog, but I'm going to ask because it's something that's been on my mind.
Here's the question:
What exactly does it mean to "take Our Lord's Name in vain?"
In the absurd little microcosm I've been trying to create for this book of mine, I have characters that occasionally say things like, "Jesus!" or "Oh, my God." One of them does because that's her style and she doesn't care if it offends the people around her (she's a little bit rude) but the others do it only (emphasis on 'only') when they are genuinely distressed, disturbed, disconcerted, or discombobulated. They do not (emphasis on 'not') use such expressions simply to express irritability or annoyance or even surprise.
I might be wrong, but I don't think referring to God when someone is genuinely distressed, disturbed, disconcerted, or discombobulated, is the same thing as 'using His Name in vain.' There are times in this universe when life is a little distressing, disturbing, disconcerting, or discombobulating, and at such times I often feel that I'd like to say His Name, if only to remind myself that He's there. And I do, and I enjoy it.
I might be wrong. But, on the other hand, I could be right. That's all I got to say about that.
Welcome to this week's Post For Writing Practice in which I post something for the purpose of honing my writing skills.
I have a question this time for my Catholic compatriots, and it's a little more serious than is the modus operandi of this blog, but I'm going to ask because it's something that's been on my mind.
Here's the question:
What exactly does it mean to "take Our Lord's Name in vain?"
In the absurd little microcosm I've been trying to create for this book of mine, I have characters that occasionally say things like, "Jesus!" or "Oh, my God." One of them does because that's her style and she doesn't care if it offends the people around her (she's a little bit rude) but the others do it only (emphasis on 'only') when they are genuinely distressed, disturbed, disconcerted, or discombobulated. They do not (emphasis on 'not') use such expressions simply to express irritability or annoyance or even surprise.
I might be wrong, but I don't think referring to God when someone is genuinely distressed, disturbed, disconcerted, or discombobulated, is the same thing as 'using His Name in vain.' There are times in this universe when life is a little distressing, disturbing, disconcerting, or discombobulating, and at such times I often feel that I'd like to say His Name, if only to remind myself that He's there. And I do, and I enjoy it.
I might be wrong. But, on the other hand, I could be right. That's all I got to say about that.
Friday, September 16, 2016
A Thought On Comic-Relief Spin-Offs
Hello!
Welcome to This Week's Writing Practice Thing. The place where I write about things about which I know nothing and pretend that I do. But it's all for a good cause. Actually, no, it isn't; I'm just doing it because I want to.
However,
as per usual, my purpose today is to complain about Things The Movie Industry Does To Annoy Me. That's not to say I don't like movies and think you're inferior if you're a movie buff, because I do not in fact dislike movies and think you're inferior if you're a movie buff. I am making this complaint simply because I like some movies better than others, and I think I've discovered why.
Here's a factoid about me: I like the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie better than its descendants. Why, you ask, do I like the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie better than its descendants? I'll tell you why: after the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie came out, the Movie Makers allegedly [i.e. I'm making this up] asked the Public who their favorite character was. Most people voted for Captain Jack Sparrow. 'We want more of Captain Jack Sparrow!' they said. 'Give us more Captain Jack Sparrow!' they said. 'Captain Jack Sparrow Rules!' they said. So, then they made another movie about Captain Jack Sparrow. And then another. And then another. And still the Public cried, 'More! More! Long live Captain Jack Sparrow!' And thus, Pirates of the Caribbean 5 is coming to a theater near you [and probably another one further away from you, but that doesn't matter because you won't be going to that one because it's inconvenient] in 2017!
Here's my beef: as much as I love Captain Jack Sparrow, I'd like to suggest that it's a bad idea to build stories around the comic relief character--and I know that Captain Jack is the main character, but one can't deny that he provides about 75 or 76% of the comic relief in what I've seen of the movies [which includes the first three]. In other words, when you construct drama and action and intrigue just for the sake of comic relief, your drama and action and intrigue lose the keen sting that is the reason we delve into stories in the first place. And because your drama and action and intrigue have become weak, your comic relief becomes weak as well because the Public now doesn't want to be relieved, they want Something from which they need to be relieved in the first place. The drama unfolds, and the Public waits for more, better drama to unfold, but when they're struck with the comic relief they realize, 'Oh, crap, comic relief means that the drama's over. Was that it? Boo!' And thus the comic relief is tainted by whining and rotten cabbages.
This probably isn't always the case. But I don't feel like thinking of an instance in which it's not, because it's dinner time and I'm lazy. But I have noticed that spin-off movies featuring the comic relief character as the main character tend to be less successful than the original feature.
Here are some examples to exemplify my point so you can see how smart I am:
*note: this is an OPINION-BASED POST. If you think the spin-off/sequel movies listed below are better than I think they are, let me say you're probably right, and I don't look down on you for enjoying them, and it's just my nit-picky brain being an ass and I apologize [but not really because it's a free country and I'm allowed to slightly dislike things if I want to]*
1. Kronk's New Groove [Spin-off of The Emperor's New Groove]
2. Timmy Time [Spin-off of Shaun the Sheep]
3. Finding Dory [Sequel to Finding Nemo]
4. The Tigger Movie [Spin-off of Winnie-the-Pooh]
5. The Lion King 1 1/2 [Spin-off of The Lion King]
6. Minions [Spin-off of Despicable Me]
I don't think the Lego Batman movie's out yet, but when I heard it was coming out, I guessed it would probably end up on a list like the one above for the reasons listed above. I might be wrong. I don't know.
However,
that's why I wouldn't be excited if somebody decided to make a story called, "The Adventures of Fred and George Weasley," or "Merry and Pippin 2: The Reckoning," or "Dr. DeBryn Does it Again," or "Jud and Prudy's Big Holiday."
Even comedies have comic-relief characters [but that's another discussion]. But I think that even if the story's a comedy, I think a spin-off comedy starring the comic-relief character is a bad idea. That's all I got to say about that.
Beth out.
Welcome to This Week's Writing Practice Thing. The place where I write about things about which I know nothing and pretend that I do. But it's all for a good cause. Actually, no, it isn't; I'm just doing it because I want to.
However,
as per usual, my purpose today is to complain about Things The Movie Industry Does To Annoy Me. That's not to say I don't like movies and think you're inferior if you're a movie buff, because I do not in fact dislike movies and think you're inferior if you're a movie buff. I am making this complaint simply because I like some movies better than others, and I think I've discovered why.
Here's a factoid about me: I like the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie better than its descendants. Why, you ask, do I like the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie better than its descendants? I'll tell you why: after the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie came out, the Movie Makers allegedly [i.e. I'm making this up] asked the Public who their favorite character was. Most people voted for Captain Jack Sparrow. 'We want more of Captain Jack Sparrow!' they said. 'Give us more Captain Jack Sparrow!' they said. 'Captain Jack Sparrow Rules!' they said. So, then they made another movie about Captain Jack Sparrow. And then another. And then another. And still the Public cried, 'More! More! Long live Captain Jack Sparrow!' And thus, Pirates of the Caribbean 5 is coming to a theater near you [and probably another one further away from you, but that doesn't matter because you won't be going to that one because it's inconvenient] in 2017!
Here's my beef: as much as I love Captain Jack Sparrow, I'd like to suggest that it's a bad idea to build stories around the comic relief character--and I know that Captain Jack is the main character, but one can't deny that he provides about 75 or 76% of the comic relief in what I've seen of the movies [which includes the first three]. In other words, when you construct drama and action and intrigue just for the sake of comic relief, your drama and action and intrigue lose the keen sting that is the reason we delve into stories in the first place. And because your drama and action and intrigue have become weak, your comic relief becomes weak as well because the Public now doesn't want to be relieved, they want Something from which they need to be relieved in the first place. The drama unfolds, and the Public waits for more, better drama to unfold, but when they're struck with the comic relief they realize, 'Oh, crap, comic relief means that the drama's over. Was that it? Boo!' And thus the comic relief is tainted by whining and rotten cabbages.
This probably isn't always the case. But I don't feel like thinking of an instance in which it's not, because it's dinner time and I'm lazy. But I have noticed that spin-off movies featuring the comic relief character as the main character tend to be less successful than the original feature.
Here are some examples to exemplify my point so you can see how smart I am:
*note: this is an OPINION-BASED POST. If you think the spin-off/sequel movies listed below are better than I think they are, let me say you're probably right, and I don't look down on you for enjoying them, and it's just my nit-picky brain being an ass and I apologize [but not really because it's a free country and I'm allowed to slightly dislike things if I want to]*
1. Kronk's New Groove [Spin-off of The Emperor's New Groove]
2. Timmy Time [Spin-off of Shaun the Sheep]
3. Finding Dory [Sequel to Finding Nemo]
4. The Tigger Movie [Spin-off of Winnie-the-Pooh]
5. The Lion King 1 1/2 [Spin-off of The Lion King]
6. Minions [Spin-off of Despicable Me]
I don't think the Lego Batman movie's out yet, but when I heard it was coming out, I guessed it would probably end up on a list like the one above for the reasons listed above. I might be wrong. I don't know.
However,
that's why I wouldn't be excited if somebody decided to make a story called, "The Adventures of Fred and George Weasley," or "Merry and Pippin 2: The Reckoning," or "Dr. DeBryn Does it Again," or "Jud and Prudy's Big Holiday."
Even comedies have comic-relief characters [but that's another discussion]. But I think that even if the story's a comedy, I think a spin-off comedy starring the comic-relief character is a bad idea. That's all I got to say about that.
Beth out.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
A Word on Genre Apportionment
Hello!
As of now, it has been thirteen (13) days since I last wrote something and posted it for people to observe critically, like a critic observing a piece of writing. This, as you know, is against the Post One Thing Every Week Rule and as such is to be frowned upon.
One reason why I haven't posted anything since August 16, 2016 in the year of Our Lord is because I cannot think of anything to post in re my book-thing. Those things which I have thought to post in re my book-thing I have not posted for the simple reason that I feel like a Poop and a Ham whenever I talk about this bit of bad literature I'm trying to write which, as one may infer from my sub-par metaphor found in the above paragraph, is rubbish.
But this is all immaterial. I began this post with the intent of telling you (whoever you are) about my thoughts on genre apportionment.
My thoughts on genre apportionment are as follows:
There are three genres of popular fiction which I can think of at the moment. These three may overlap over one another or they may stand alone, but regardless of what they do to each other they remain Mystery, Comedy and Romance. I was going to say that there are four and include Sci-Fi/Fantasy, but then I thought that Sci-Fi/Fantasy is more of a setting than a genre. Then I was going to say that there are four again and include Drama, but if one is honest with oneself, one will realize that nobody actually knows what the hell Drama is. It's what people call a book or movie when there isn't a large enough fraction of Mystery, Comedy, or Romance to make it a Mystery, Comedy, or Romance. I believe Forrest Gump is a drama. So is To Kill a Mockingbird. Also The Border Trilogy. One might argue that The Border Trilogy is a Western, but like Sci-Fi/Fantasy, I would classify "Western" as a setting rather than a genre.
I've been having some thought on what [if any] genre my book-thing will be if it ever emerges out of the primordial slime from whence it came, and I think I've largely settled on Comedy. Of course, this implies that it's funny, which it may or may not be depending on how stupid it turns out I am. But all-in-all, I think I've settled on Comedy. Some of my close compatriots have suggested that it's a Romantic Comedy, but I would like to argue in the paragraph below that it's not [and not just because I'm unreasonably prejudiced].
My book-thing, which I'm going to call Title X because I'm tired of calling it "my book-thing," is not a Romantic Comedy for the following reasons:
1. At the beginning, Girl A and Boy A have already fallen in love, so the falling-in-love process is not anywhere to be found in the least.
2. Girl A and Boy A [supposedly] do not interact at all until Chapter 29. Or 30, depending on whether or not I decide to leave in Scene XVICLJ.
3. Boy B is neither Girl A's Gay Best Friend, nor is he Girl A's Dark Person For Whom She Ditches Boy A.
I thought Title X might turn out to be a Mystery, but it likewise didn't. Title X, I think, is not a mystery because
1. There are no detectives, except for one or two scenes in which Girl A and Boy B try unsuccessfully to determine what the hell is going on
and
2. There are [supposedly] no dead bodies
However, it still might be a mystery because
1. Neither Girl A, nor Boy A, nor Boy B have any idea what's actually going on (and neither will Reader A, if I'm successful).
and
2. Old Woman A [supposedly] carries a weapon
and
3. Reader A (if I'm successful) will be unable to determine who exactly Man A is, what is his relationship to Old Woman A, and why Old Woman A is not happy to see him in Scene XIYTSF.
So maybe it is a mystery. But it's meant to be predominately a comedy. I could go further and say it's a dark comedy, but that's getting into sub-genres, about which I am not in the mood to chat because I don't have time.
So, for now I'm going to call Title X a Comedy- Mystery. Title X 2: The Sequel I think will be more of a Comedy-Drama, and Title X 3: The Threequel I think will revert back to Comedy-Mystery. With some Drama. I said before that nobody knows what the word "Drama" means, but now that I think about it, I think it just means "Misc." With at least a little Tragedy. I forgot the word "Tragedy" existed, so now I have to re-write the whole thing, dammit. But I don't have time.
Beth out.
As of now, it has been thirteen (13) days since I last wrote something and posted it for people to observe critically, like a critic observing a piece of writing. This, as you know, is against the Post One Thing Every Week Rule and as such is to be frowned upon.
One reason why I haven't posted anything since August 16, 2016 in the year of Our Lord is because I cannot think of anything to post in re my book-thing. Those things which I have thought to post in re my book-thing I have not posted for the simple reason that I feel like a Poop and a Ham whenever I talk about this bit of bad literature I'm trying to write which, as one may infer from my sub-par metaphor found in the above paragraph, is rubbish.
But this is all immaterial. I began this post with the intent of telling you (whoever you are) about my thoughts on genre apportionment.
My thoughts on genre apportionment are as follows:
There are three genres of popular fiction which I can think of at the moment. These three may overlap over one another or they may stand alone, but regardless of what they do to each other they remain Mystery, Comedy and Romance. I was going to say that there are four and include Sci-Fi/Fantasy, but then I thought that Sci-Fi/Fantasy is more of a setting than a genre. Then I was going to say that there are four again and include Drama, but if one is honest with oneself, one will realize that nobody actually knows what the hell Drama is. It's what people call a book or movie when there isn't a large enough fraction of Mystery, Comedy, or Romance to make it a Mystery, Comedy, or Romance. I believe Forrest Gump is a drama. So is To Kill a Mockingbird. Also The Border Trilogy. One might argue that The Border Trilogy is a Western, but like Sci-Fi/Fantasy, I would classify "Western" as a setting rather than a genre.
I've been having some thought on what [if any] genre my book-thing will be if it ever emerges out of the primordial slime from whence it came, and I think I've largely settled on Comedy. Of course, this implies that it's funny, which it may or may not be depending on how stupid it turns out I am. But all-in-all, I think I've settled on Comedy. Some of my close compatriots have suggested that it's a Romantic Comedy, but I would like to argue in the paragraph below that it's not [and not just because I'm unreasonably prejudiced].
My book-thing, which I'm going to call Title X because I'm tired of calling it "my book-thing," is not a Romantic Comedy for the following reasons:
1. At the beginning, Girl A and Boy A have already fallen in love, so the falling-in-love process is not anywhere to be found in the least.
2. Girl A and Boy A [supposedly] do not interact at all until Chapter 29. Or 30, depending on whether or not I decide to leave in Scene XVICLJ.
3. Boy B is neither Girl A's Gay Best Friend, nor is he Girl A's Dark Person For Whom She Ditches Boy A.
I thought Title X might turn out to be a Mystery, but it likewise didn't. Title X, I think, is not a mystery because
1. There are no detectives, except for one or two scenes in which Girl A and Boy B try unsuccessfully to determine what the hell is going on
and
2. There are [supposedly] no dead bodies
However, it still might be a mystery because
1. Neither Girl A, nor Boy A, nor Boy B have any idea what's actually going on (and neither will Reader A, if I'm successful).
and
2. Old Woman A [supposedly] carries a weapon
and
3. Reader A (if I'm successful) will be unable to determine who exactly Man A is, what is his relationship to Old Woman A, and why Old Woman A is not happy to see him in Scene XIYTSF.
So maybe it is a mystery. But it's meant to be predominately a comedy. I could go further and say it's a dark comedy, but that's getting into sub-genres, about which I am not in the mood to chat because I don't have time.
So, for now I'm going to call Title X a Comedy- Mystery. Title X 2: The Sequel I think will be more of a Comedy-Drama, and Title X 3: The Threequel I think will revert back to Comedy-Mystery. With some Drama. I said before that nobody knows what the word "Drama" means, but now that I think about it, I think it just means "Misc." With at least a little Tragedy. I forgot the word "Tragedy" existed, so now I have to re-write the whole thing, dammit. But I don't have time.
Beth out.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Character Goals Update
Hello!
This week's Mandatory Blog Post For Practicing Writing/Publishing is actually a post that I wrote some centuries ago, but which I am now updating for posterity and because I want to.
In the aforementioned post of some centuries ago, I believe I outlined my goals for What Kind Of A Person I Want Each Of My Major Characters To Be. Because I'm new at novel-writing and because it worked out that way, the above Major Characters total just four, which makes it easier for everybody concerned, except perhaps the actual characters who I think probably want more guidance through life than they're currently getting. But, as I explained to them last night, wringing intellectuals and street-smart personages out of my brain is not my forte, so I'm afraid they will have to make do with what they have.
As I also mentioned in the post from some centuries ago, I don't want to disclose my little people's names just yet. I don't know why. But I have a feeling that if I talk as if they're real live characters before my book is even rejected by a publisher, it'll spoil it for when they do come to life [if ever]. So, for the purpose of this post, I'm calling them G, M, C, and F.
Last time around, I said that G was my Piglet. I'm happy to inform you that, after several months of writing and revising, she's still my Piglet, and my overall goal is to gradually give her a touch of Pooh as a means of lessening her anxiety.
I thought that M was going to turn out to be a similar version of Piglet, but after struggling with him somewhat and hitting him on the face with a large stick several times, I've discovered that he's more Rabbit than Piglet, which suits me fine. Later in the story he's going to try to act as Christopher Robin which is going to go very badly for him, whereupon he will return to his previous station as Rabbit. Note: as much as I love Disney's interpretation of Winnie the Pooh, I have to clarify that I'm siphoning off of A.A. Milne's Rabbit, not Disney's. A.A.M.'s Rabbit is helpful and kind, but in a pompous sort of way, and he has far less of the Crochety Old Man than W.D.'s Rabbit.
C is a little puzzling. I said last time that he would tell you he's more Eeyore than Tigger, while in reality he behaves more like Tigger than Eeyore. But after some coffee and contemplation, I've discovered that C will tell you nothing about himself because talking about himself makes him uncomfortable, and that he perhaps is mostly Tigger after all with just a little Small [if you're familiar with A.A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh, you know about whom I'm talking]. Like M, C at a later point in the story is going to try to become Christopher Robin which likewise is going to go very badly for him, whereupon he will resume his place as Tigger [with even more Small than before].
I said before that F was my Owl, my Kanga, and my Rabbit, but after some extensive probing, I discovered that she's almost entirely Eeyore. I'm a little bit pleased about that.
If I'm still working on this thing by next year, I'll post another Update to see if they've changed more [or less]. But I think I'm happy with them at the moment.
Yours Truly
Beth
This week's Mandatory Blog Post For Practicing Writing/Publishing is actually a post that I wrote some centuries ago, but which I am now updating for posterity and because I want to.
In the aforementioned post of some centuries ago, I believe I outlined my goals for What Kind Of A Person I Want Each Of My Major Characters To Be. Because I'm new at novel-writing and because it worked out that way, the above Major Characters total just four, which makes it easier for everybody concerned, except perhaps the actual characters who I think probably want more guidance through life than they're currently getting. But, as I explained to them last night, wringing intellectuals and street-smart personages out of my brain is not my forte, so I'm afraid they will have to make do with what they have.
As I also mentioned in the post from some centuries ago, I don't want to disclose my little people's names just yet. I don't know why. But I have a feeling that if I talk as if they're real live characters before my book is even rejected by a publisher, it'll spoil it for when they do come to life [if ever]. So, for the purpose of this post, I'm calling them G, M, C, and F.
Last time around, I said that G was my Piglet. I'm happy to inform you that, after several months of writing and revising, she's still my Piglet, and my overall goal is to gradually give her a touch of Pooh as a means of lessening her anxiety.
I thought that M was going to turn out to be a similar version of Piglet, but after struggling with him somewhat and hitting him on the face with a large stick several times, I've discovered that he's more Rabbit than Piglet, which suits me fine. Later in the story he's going to try to act as Christopher Robin which is going to go very badly for him, whereupon he will return to his previous station as Rabbit. Note: as much as I love Disney's interpretation of Winnie the Pooh, I have to clarify that I'm siphoning off of A.A. Milne's Rabbit, not Disney's. A.A.M.'s Rabbit is helpful and kind, but in a pompous sort of way, and he has far less of the Crochety Old Man than W.D.'s Rabbit.
C is a little puzzling. I said last time that he would tell you he's more Eeyore than Tigger, while in reality he behaves more like Tigger than Eeyore. But after some coffee and contemplation, I've discovered that C will tell you nothing about himself because talking about himself makes him uncomfortable, and that he perhaps is mostly Tigger after all with just a little Small [if you're familiar with A.A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh, you know about whom I'm talking]. Like M, C at a later point in the story is going to try to become Christopher Robin which likewise is going to go very badly for him, whereupon he will resume his place as Tigger [with even more Small than before].
I said before that F was my Owl, my Kanga, and my Rabbit, but after some extensive probing, I discovered that she's almost entirely Eeyore. I'm a little bit pleased about that.
If I'm still working on this thing by next year, I'll post another Update to see if they've changed more [or less]. But I think I'm happy with them at the moment.
Yours Truly
Beth
Monday, August 8, 2016
Is My Climax Cornball?
Hello!
I think I've already said in a previous post that the reason I don't blog much anymore [thank God] is because I'm trying to write a book [oh, no]. I've got about thirty chapters so far, most of them written and re-written and edited and tweaked and applied with botox or lethal injection, and I think the best thing I can say about it at this point is that it isn't all bad. My primary concern is that I'm not very good at writing. So, I've decided to write more.
My new goal which I made about thirty seconds ago is to write one blog post every week and to share it so that anyone who feels so inclined may tell me what I'm doing wrong and why my writing is only palatable for the uncultured neanderthals of this world who only recently emerged from the primordial slime from whence they came. I said just now that my primary concern is that I'm not a good writer, but in truth I have also been fretting like an epileptic chicken over whether or not my story and characters are, as PG Wodehouse would say, fit for human consumption.
So, without giving away any details or major spoilers, I'd like to run by you [whoever you are] the climax of the sequel that's been bouncing around in my head for about nine months and that I've just recently put down on paper.
The story [hopefully a dark comedy] I'm currently working on consists of characters Girl A, Boy A, Boy B, and Old Woman B. The first book, if I'm successful, will deal primarily between the relationship between Girl A and Boy A. The second book, if I'm equally successful, will orbit around the relationship between Girl A and Boy B. In this sequel [an even darker comedy] I'm hoping, Boy B is going to pull a nasty prank on Girl A, but with the best intentions, resulting in Girl A changing her outlook on life and on herself all for the better. Just before the climax, however, Girl A is going to discover that this change she has recently underwent is the result of the aforementioned nasty prank pulled on her by Boy B, and will thereby become very angry with Boy B and storm off leaving Boy B to fester in self-pity.
Now, at the climax, enter Villain A, who was instrumental in the execution of the nasty prank, and who, for his own reasons, has no cause to love Boy B. Villain A then does something terrible to Boy B, and it's hilarious. Re-enter Girl A to discover Boy B in a state of minor decomposition.
We now come to the Important Part of the climax which consists of a flashback to when Boy B was a child, and we witness him doing Something Secret which
1. Explains one of the more prominent aspects of his character
2. Shows his relationship with Girl A in an entirely new light
3. Raises the stakes in the first part of the climax
and
4. Makes us feel very sorry for him.
In addition, the transition between the Catastrophe and the Flashback will [hopefully] be such that the reader, not knowing we are now in Flashbackville, will believe for a sentence or two that Boy B has completely expired and will gasp and say either, "Hooray, he's dead," or "Oh, no, not Boy B," depending on their liking for the character.
What I'm worried about is,
1. Are flashbacks considered cornball by the literary community?
2. Does any of it sound cornball?
3. Am I cornball for writing it?
4. If I am cornball, does that mean I'm a terrible person?
5. If it does make me a terrible person, can I do it anyway because I want to?
6. Does that mean I'm going to hell?
That's all I wanted to know. If you [whoever you are] have any strong opinions for or against it, I would be happy to hear them. Don't be nice to me, because I'm trying to develop a thick skin.
Thank you very much and have a fantastic day!
Yours Truly,
Beth
I think I've already said in a previous post that the reason I don't blog much anymore [thank God] is because I'm trying to write a book [oh, no]. I've got about thirty chapters so far, most of them written and re-written and edited and tweaked and applied with botox or lethal injection, and I think the best thing I can say about it at this point is that it isn't all bad. My primary concern is that I'm not very good at writing. So, I've decided to write more.
My new goal which I made about thirty seconds ago is to write one blog post every week and to share it so that anyone who feels so inclined may tell me what I'm doing wrong and why my writing is only palatable for the uncultured neanderthals of this world who only recently emerged from the primordial slime from whence they came. I said just now that my primary concern is that I'm not a good writer, but in truth I have also been fretting like an epileptic chicken over whether or not my story and characters are, as PG Wodehouse would say, fit for human consumption.
So, without giving away any details or major spoilers, I'd like to run by you [whoever you are] the climax of the sequel that's been bouncing around in my head for about nine months and that I've just recently put down on paper.
The story [hopefully a dark comedy] I'm currently working on consists of characters Girl A, Boy A, Boy B, and Old Woman B. The first book, if I'm successful, will deal primarily between the relationship between Girl A and Boy A. The second book, if I'm equally successful, will orbit around the relationship between Girl A and Boy B. In this sequel [an even darker comedy] I'm hoping, Boy B is going to pull a nasty prank on Girl A, but with the best intentions, resulting in Girl A changing her outlook on life and on herself all for the better. Just before the climax, however, Girl A is going to discover that this change she has recently underwent is the result of the aforementioned nasty prank pulled on her by Boy B, and will thereby become very angry with Boy B and storm off leaving Boy B to fester in self-pity.
Now, at the climax, enter Villain A, who was instrumental in the execution of the nasty prank, and who, for his own reasons, has no cause to love Boy B. Villain A then does something terrible to Boy B, and it's hilarious. Re-enter Girl A to discover Boy B in a state of minor decomposition.
We now come to the Important Part of the climax which consists of a flashback to when Boy B was a child, and we witness him doing Something Secret which
1. Explains one of the more prominent aspects of his character
2. Shows his relationship with Girl A in an entirely new light
3. Raises the stakes in the first part of the climax
and
4. Makes us feel very sorry for him.
In addition, the transition between the Catastrophe and the Flashback will [hopefully] be such that the reader, not knowing we are now in Flashbackville, will believe for a sentence or two that Boy B has completely expired and will gasp and say either, "Hooray, he's dead," or "Oh, no, not Boy B," depending on their liking for the character.
What I'm worried about is,
1. Are flashbacks considered cornball by the literary community?
2. Does any of it sound cornball?
3. Am I cornball for writing it?
4. If I am cornball, does that mean I'm a terrible person?
5. If it does make me a terrible person, can I do it anyway because I want to?
6. Does that mean I'm going to hell?
That's all I wanted to know. If you [whoever you are] have any strong opinions for or against it, I would be happy to hear them. Don't be nice to me, because I'm trying to develop a thick skin.
Thank you very much and have a fantastic day!
Yours Truly,
Beth
Thursday, March 17, 2016
A Word on The Rules of Humor
What ho!
I was talking to my good friend Mitchell the other day [Hi Mitchell!] and I was trying very badly to explain why Hot Fuzz is my favorite comedy/action movie thus far. But after some thought and coffee and alcohol and listening to an episode of "John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme," I think I know why.
Here's why:
Actually the "why" part will come after the following backstory which is necessary in order for the "why" to have its full intended impact.
So, here's the backstory on the "why:"
I was listening to "John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme" [season 2, episode 4, available on itunes and unofficially endorsed by yours truly] and this episode included one of my favorite sketches paraphrased below:
[preliminary bit of exposition dialogue]
John: ...The new boss? I'll tell you what I think of him. He's vain, he's witless, he's morbidly obese and he's standing right behind me, isn't he?
Woman: No.
Man: Of course he isn't. We would've said.
John: Oh. Well, then, I can go on to say, he's ignorant, pretentious, has appalling personal hygiene, and he really is standing right behind me, isn't he?
Woman: No, he's not.
John: Then why have you got weird, awkward, frozen looks on your faces?
Woman: Because you've just launched into a tirade of furious bile against a man we just met.
Man: Also, you seem to be suffering from quite a powerful delusion that he's following you.
John: Yeah, but...oh, God, has no-one told you? I'm a sitcom character.
Man and Woman: Ohhhh..
Woman: So sorry.
Man: We'll make allowances.
Woman: Yeah, and can I just say, I think it's great they're making jobs for you people.
[end clip of sketch]
The reason why I find this funny [and I think why JF thought it would be funny] is because of two reasons:
(1) it sets you up for one scenario and switches to a different scenario unexpectedly
and
(2) it challenges the traditional formula for funniness which, although classic, does get a little stale after a certain amount of time.
As much as tradition is king in many areas of study, a break from the traditional rules of humor is refreshing, and can make us laugh because it points out existing rules we never realized were there until they were broken.
One thing I found a refreshing break from tradition in Hot Fuzz was the way they handled Nicholas buying a birthday present for Danny. If you haven't seen Hot Fuzz, I'll give you a bit of its backstory. And if you have seen Hot Fuzz, I'll give you the backstory anyway because I'm the Queen of this blog and I want to. The part of the movie I have in mind is the bit when Nicholas finds out it's Danny's birthday, and he leaves the party to get Danny a present which puts him in a place where he witnesses a murder, and the present is impounded as evidence, leaving Nicholas and therefore Danny presentless.
The first time I saw the movie, I thought it would play out as follows:
Danny: Hey, where'd you go off to?
Nicholas: [too embarrassed to tell Danny he was getting him a present ] I--uh--nowhere.
Danny: You left my party and hurt my feelings!
Nicholas: I--uh--yeah!
Danny: Well, you can go find yourself a new adorable little friend! [storms off adorably]
Nicholas: Danny, wait! I--oh, dammit.
Followed by them having to work together even though they're angry at each other, saving each other's lives, Danny accidentally finding out about the birthday present, and the two of them sharing an apologetic handshake.
Here's how it actually played out:
Danny: Did you really get me that plant?
Nicholas: Yes, I did. But it's been impounded as evidence.
Danny: Well, maybe Dad'll still let me water it.
Nicholas: Yeah.
Danny: [pats Nicholas manlily on the shoulder].
which was funnier, sweeter, and in all other ways better, than the scenario I had expected. However, the imagined scenario is the one I've seen more often in movies/telly than an alternative to that scenario. When I made a mental note of that, I asked myself, "Self, if the alternate is better, why do people always use the traditional one?" "Why, self," I answered myself, "it's because the traditional one has worked in the past, and because we already know that it's funny, so there's no risk involved." This isn't an eye-opener, because a lot of people have already made this criticism of tradition. And while I strongly believe that tradition is an important component of family life, science, possibly government, religion, and all that crap, I believe that the world of aesthetics deserves a little bit more tradition-breaking than it typically gets.
Hot Fuzz also broke tradition in the way it dealt with relationships between the characters. If Danny and Nicholas were written into one of our typical comedy serials, I can guarantee you that some 50% of the comedy would come from everybody thinking they're gay. It's happened in Psych, Supernatural, The Office, The IT Crowd, and probably other shows that I'm not thinking of at the moment. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've wanted to shout at the TV, "IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A ROMANCE--REGULAR FRIENDSHIPS EXIST TOO, YA KNOW." I never shouted that at Hot Fuzz. To be fair, I never shouted it at anything else either, because I don't shout, but that's something I'm trying to work on.
There's an episode of The Dick van Dyke Show where Ritchie has a "take your father to school day" and Rob has to explain to a room full of six-year-olds how to be funny (season 1, episode 23. I think). I disremember the actual quote, and amazon prime won't let me watch the episode to find it out, but basically what Rob said was that people laugh at things that were unexpected. The opposite can be true, too. I think the best fun I had watching Supernatural (season 4, whichever episode is called "On the Head of a Pin") was when the demon of interest said "Go directly to hell," and I thought "do not pass 'Go,' do not collect $200,' and then just after I thought it, he said, "do not pass 'Go,' do not collect $200." I don't know if this was funny because of the coincidence or because I was just tickled that my thought was something considered funny by professional writers who were trying to be funny on purpose.
That's not to say there's a "right way" to be amused. You can have whatever sense of humor you happen to have. It's just that mine is a scrupulous, analytical, calculating brain which has to analyze everything that's not bolted to the floor, and when my gut likes something, my brain has to think up every conceivable argument for why I'm allowed to go with my gut. So, if I've shouted at you for not liking a thing as much as I do, it's because my brain has worked very, very hard to justify my gut and it is now overly sensitive on the subject, and I apologize.
That's all I've got to say about that.
I was talking to my good friend Mitchell the other day [Hi Mitchell!] and I was trying very badly to explain why Hot Fuzz is my favorite comedy/action movie thus far. But after some thought and coffee and alcohol and listening to an episode of "John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme," I think I know why.
Here's why:
Actually the "why" part will come after the following backstory which is necessary in order for the "why" to have its full intended impact.
So, here's the backstory on the "why:"
I was listening to "John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme" [season 2, episode 4, available on itunes and unofficially endorsed by yours truly] and this episode included one of my favorite sketches paraphrased below:
[preliminary bit of exposition dialogue]
John: ...The new boss? I'll tell you what I think of him. He's vain, he's witless, he's morbidly obese and he's standing right behind me, isn't he?
Woman: No.
Man: Of course he isn't. We would've said.
John: Oh. Well, then, I can go on to say, he's ignorant, pretentious, has appalling personal hygiene, and he really is standing right behind me, isn't he?
Woman: No, he's not.
John: Then why have you got weird, awkward, frozen looks on your faces?
Woman: Because you've just launched into a tirade of furious bile against a man we just met.
Man: Also, you seem to be suffering from quite a powerful delusion that he's following you.
John: Yeah, but...oh, God, has no-one told you? I'm a sitcom character.
Man and Woman: Ohhhh..
Woman: So sorry.
Man: We'll make allowances.
Woman: Yeah, and can I just say, I think it's great they're making jobs for you people.
[end clip of sketch]
The reason why I find this funny [and I think why JF thought it would be funny] is because of two reasons:
(1) it sets you up for one scenario and switches to a different scenario unexpectedly
and
(2) it challenges the traditional formula for funniness which, although classic, does get a little stale after a certain amount of time.
As much as tradition is king in many areas of study, a break from the traditional rules of humor is refreshing, and can make us laugh because it points out existing rules we never realized were there until they were broken.
One thing I found a refreshing break from tradition in Hot Fuzz was the way they handled Nicholas buying a birthday present for Danny. If you haven't seen Hot Fuzz, I'll give you a bit of its backstory. And if you have seen Hot Fuzz, I'll give you the backstory anyway because I'm the Queen of this blog and I want to. The part of the movie I have in mind is the bit when Nicholas finds out it's Danny's birthday, and he leaves the party to get Danny a present which puts him in a place where he witnesses a murder, and the present is impounded as evidence, leaving Nicholas and therefore Danny presentless.
The first time I saw the movie, I thought it would play out as follows:
Danny: Hey, where'd you go off to?
Nicholas: [too embarrassed to tell Danny he was getting him a present ] I--uh--nowhere.
Danny: You left my party and hurt my feelings!
Nicholas: I--uh--yeah!
Danny: Well, you can go find yourself a new adorable little friend! [storms off adorably]
Nicholas: Danny, wait! I--oh, dammit.
Followed by them having to work together even though they're angry at each other, saving each other's lives, Danny accidentally finding out about the birthday present, and the two of them sharing an apologetic handshake.
Here's how it actually played out:
Danny: Did you really get me that plant?
Nicholas: Yes, I did. But it's been impounded as evidence.
Danny: Well, maybe Dad'll still let me water it.
Nicholas: Yeah.
Danny: [pats Nicholas manlily on the shoulder].
which was funnier, sweeter, and in all other ways better, than the scenario I had expected. However, the imagined scenario is the one I've seen more often in movies/telly than an alternative to that scenario. When I made a mental note of that, I asked myself, "Self, if the alternate is better, why do people always use the traditional one?" "Why, self," I answered myself, "it's because the traditional one has worked in the past, and because we already know that it's funny, so there's no risk involved." This isn't an eye-opener, because a lot of people have already made this criticism of tradition. And while I strongly believe that tradition is an important component of family life, science, possibly government, religion, and all that crap, I believe that the world of aesthetics deserves a little bit more tradition-breaking than it typically gets.
Hot Fuzz also broke tradition in the way it dealt with relationships between the characters. If Danny and Nicholas were written into one of our typical comedy serials, I can guarantee you that some 50% of the comedy would come from everybody thinking they're gay. It's happened in Psych, Supernatural, The Office, The IT Crowd, and probably other shows that I'm not thinking of at the moment. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've wanted to shout at the TV, "IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A ROMANCE--REGULAR FRIENDSHIPS EXIST TOO, YA KNOW." I never shouted that at Hot Fuzz. To be fair, I never shouted it at anything else either, because I don't shout, but that's something I'm trying to work on.
There's an episode of The Dick van Dyke Show where Ritchie has a "take your father to school day" and Rob has to explain to a room full of six-year-olds how to be funny (season 1, episode 23. I think). I disremember the actual quote, and amazon prime won't let me watch the episode to find it out, but basically what Rob said was that people laugh at things that were unexpected. The opposite can be true, too. I think the best fun I had watching Supernatural (season 4, whichever episode is called "On the Head of a Pin") was when the demon of interest said "Go directly to hell," and I thought "do not pass 'Go,' do not collect $200,' and then just after I thought it, he said, "do not pass 'Go,' do not collect $200." I don't know if this was funny because of the coincidence or because I was just tickled that my thought was something considered funny by professional writers who were trying to be funny on purpose.
That's not to say there's a "right way" to be amused. You can have whatever sense of humor you happen to have. It's just that mine is a scrupulous, analytical, calculating brain which has to analyze everything that's not bolted to the floor, and when my gut likes something, my brain has to think up every conceivable argument for why I'm allowed to go with my gut. So, if I've shouted at you for not liking a thing as much as I do, it's because my brain has worked very, very hard to justify my gut and it is now overly sensitive on the subject, and I apologize.
That's all I've got to say about that.
Monday, March 14, 2016
A Word on The Strong Female Character
I have to take a break from studying because if I don't, I'll go insane and then I will die.
And because I'm taking a break anyway and I have writing on the brain and I have nothing else to do, allow me to say a few words on
The Strong Female Character
1. A true SFC does not have to adhere to any sort of rules about how to be a true SFC except those which you write into her DNA.
2. An SFC does not have to be eternally pissed-off.
3. Nor does she have to be vivacious and outgoing.
4. Nor does she have to be sultry and introverted, yet outspoken when she does speak to people.
5. An SFC is allowed to be saved by an SMC. This will not piss off the audience unless they have trouble distinguishing between 'human' and 'disgusting weakling.' Which, to be fair, they should, because humans are weak. And females are humans. Therefore females, like males, are--or at least are allowed to be--weak.
But wait! you say. What about Planet of the Apes and The Lord of the Rings where the SFC's aren't even human, but Elvish or apish? Then go back to CS Lewis's rule that even if it's not human, it's still 'hnau' [i.e. flawed being with a soul]. Treat it like it's human.
6. Don't force your SFC to indulge in mind-boggling mental/physical prowess or heroism just for the sake of making her an SFC. That's stupid.
Good night!
And don't complain when people's SFC's aren't good enough or are too good, because writers aren't God, and their characters aren't as realistic as His.
Actually, you can complain if you want to. I'm just tired of people hating on every FC out there for being the wrong level of S. Here's an idea: delete the S altogether and let it whatever kind of FC grows organically in your brain, be she S or BS or WTF or OMGSTFU. If you think Hermione is too OMGSTFU, then that's okay, because that's how Hermione happened in JKR's brain. Unless it wasn't, and JKR's just terrible at portraying her visions. But I don't think she is.
Good night!
And because I'm taking a break anyway and I have writing on the brain and I have nothing else to do, allow me to say a few words on
The Strong Female Character
1. A true SFC does not have to adhere to any sort of rules about how to be a true SFC except those which you write into her DNA.
2. An SFC does not have to be eternally pissed-off.
3. Nor does she have to be vivacious and outgoing.
4. Nor does she have to be sultry and introverted, yet outspoken when she does speak to people.
5. An SFC is allowed to be saved by an SMC. This will not piss off the audience unless they have trouble distinguishing between 'human' and 'disgusting weakling.' Which, to be fair, they should, because humans are weak. And females are humans. Therefore females, like males, are--or at least are allowed to be--weak.
But wait! you say. What about Planet of the Apes and The Lord of the Rings where the SFC's aren't even human, but Elvish or apish? Then go back to CS Lewis's rule that even if it's not human, it's still 'hnau' [i.e. flawed being with a soul]. Treat it like it's human.
6. Don't force your SFC to indulge in mind-boggling mental/physical prowess or heroism just for the sake of making her an SFC. That's stupid.
Good night!
And don't complain when people's SFC's aren't good enough or are too good, because writers aren't God, and their characters aren't as realistic as His.
Actually, you can complain if you want to. I'm just tired of people hating on every FC out there for being the wrong level of S. Here's an idea: delete the S altogether and let it whatever kind of FC grows organically in your brain, be she S or BS or WTF or OMGSTFU. If you think Hermione is too OMGSTFU, then that's okay, because that's how Hermione happened in JKR's brain. Unless it wasn't, and JKR's just terrible at portraying her visions. But I don't think she is.
Good night!
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Some Stuff I Would Like to Say on the Subject of Trying to Write Good
Hello!
I had caffeine tonight on my drive home from school today because I was bad. Now I am staying up late not doing homework because I am bad. However, I'm too tired to apologize for being bad, so I'm not going to.
If you by chance happen to be one of the unfortunate people who have been exposed to the contents of my brain, you might know that for the last nine months I have been laboring under the delusion that I'm writing a book. This will probably turn out to be a waste of time [which it won't, because it's made me happy]. However, I have learned in the course of this delusion a couple of things about writing which, for the purpose of organizing my own thoughts, I would like to inflict upon you this evening without further ado.
So, without further ado, here's
SOME STUFF I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT OF TRYING TO WRITE GOOD
note: "herm" = "him" + "her." "Heesh" = "he" + "she." "Hirs" = "his" + "her."
I hate saying "him or her" and "he or she" all the time because it's cumbersome.
1. "Said" is enough. Don't use a lot of weird synonyms for "said." Jane Austen says "said." Agatha Christie says "said." JRR Tolkien says "said." C.S. Lewis says "said." A lot of strange syllables other than "said" is distracting. Less is more.
2. Also, if the speech of the character describes the way heesh's talking, you don't have to describe how heesh's talking.
For example, if your character is stammering, don't say
"But--but--" she stammered
or
"But," she said
say
"But--but--" she said
or
"But," she stammered.
3. Your character should not be the sum of the adverbs that describe herm. If heesh is anxious, patient, and motherly, heesh should not always be saying things "anxiously" or "patiently" or "motherlyly." And when I say "adverbs," I'm including adjectives. "Atticus said that if you delete the adjectives, you have the facts." Write with adjectives and adverbs if you want to, then read over and exterminate 90% of them. Less is more.
4. You don't have to describe your characters in detail. To this day, we do not know the color of Elizabeth Bennet's eyes [only that they're "bright" and "fine"]. Nor do we know the shape of Vera Claythorne's nose. And it's only by the end of Part 1 of The Two Towers that we discover the color of Merry Brandybuck's hair. But we do know what they're thinking and feeling. You can describe the anatomy of their brains and souls, but you're not required to explain the exact contours of their kneecaps. Less is more.
5. You also don't have to describe every itty bitty action. When Lizzie and Mr. Darcy dance, the actual dance is never described in one syllable [or in more than one syllable]. Only the conversation during the dance matters, unless your purpose is to study dances in the Jane Austen era, in which case you should put down Pride and Prejudice and pick up Dances in the Jane Austen Era for Dummies. Less is more.
6. It's all right [I think] to repeat the same description of a character instead of looking for a lot of synonyms for "ugly" or "unpretentious." JK Rowling almost invariably describes Crookshanks as Hermione's "bandy-legged, ginger cat," and Filch as having his "jowls a-quiver." Georgette Heyer in These Old Shades describes Rupert as having "a look of comical dismay" twice. And in the last chapter of Lord of the Flies, W. Golding uses the word "ululation" approximately 538 times to describe what Ralph is hearing without explaining what the hell "ululation" means. Don't feel the need to fill your volume of forgotten lore with synonyms. Less is more.
7. As much as it bothers me in dialogue, direct characterization within your prose, I've gathered, is permissible. Here's something Jane Austen wrote, PARAPHRASED [emphasis on PARAPHRASED] by yours truly:
"Mr. Bennet was a nice man even though sometimes he was sarcastic. Mrs. Bennet was a nut with air for brains."
The following dialogue never happened:
"You're nice," Mrs. Bennet said, "only sometimes you're sarcastic."
"Oh, yeah?" Mr. Bennet said. "Well, you're a nut with air for brains."
8. "Show, don't tell," my butt. Agatha Christie "tells." Jane-Bloody-Austen "tells." PG-f***********ing Wodehouse "tells." They "show" too, but they don't dodge "telling" like one of those guys in movies who has to get over and under all the red light-beams in museums. They don't overcomplicate the prose. A challenge I like is trying to "tell" in an amusing way like Douglas Adams when he says, "The ships hung in the sky the same way bricks don't." Or maybe that's showing. Is that showing? I don't know. But I've managed to cultivate an inner Dwight Schrute who tells me, "Keep It Simple, Stupid," when I think I'm getting too cute. Less is more.
9. This I've seen happen more on TV than in books, but I'm going to say it anyway because I want to. If your character is a funny character, don't make herm funny by having herm constantly talking and thinking about food and sex.
That's all I have to say about that, Beth out.
I had caffeine tonight on my drive home from school today because I was bad. Now I am staying up late not doing homework because I am bad. However, I'm too tired to apologize for being bad, so I'm not going to.
If you by chance happen to be one of the unfortunate people who have been exposed to the contents of my brain, you might know that for the last nine months I have been laboring under the delusion that I'm writing a book. This will probably turn out to be a waste of time [which it won't, because it's made me happy]. However, I have learned in the course of this delusion a couple of things about writing which, for the purpose of organizing my own thoughts, I would like to inflict upon you this evening without further ado.
So, without further ado, here's
SOME STUFF I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT OF TRYING TO WRITE GOOD
note: "herm" = "him" + "her." "Heesh" = "he" + "she." "Hirs" = "his" + "her."
I hate saying "him or her" and "he or she" all the time because it's cumbersome.
1. "Said" is enough. Don't use a lot of weird synonyms for "said." Jane Austen says "said." Agatha Christie says "said." JRR Tolkien says "said." C.S. Lewis says "said." A lot of strange syllables other than "said" is distracting. Less is more.
2. Also, if the speech of the character describes the way heesh's talking, you don't have to describe how heesh's talking.
For example, if your character is stammering, don't say
"But--but--" she stammered
or
"But," she said
say
"But--but--" she said
or
"But," she stammered.
3. Your character should not be the sum of the adverbs that describe herm. If heesh is anxious, patient, and motherly, heesh should not always be saying things "anxiously" or "patiently" or "motherlyly." And when I say "adverbs," I'm including adjectives. "Atticus said that if you delete the adjectives, you have the facts." Write with adjectives and adverbs if you want to, then read over and exterminate 90% of them. Less is more.
4. You don't have to describe your characters in detail. To this day, we do not know the color of Elizabeth Bennet's eyes [only that they're "bright" and "fine"]. Nor do we know the shape of Vera Claythorne's nose. And it's only by the end of Part 1 of The Two Towers that we discover the color of Merry Brandybuck's hair. But we do know what they're thinking and feeling. You can describe the anatomy of their brains and souls, but you're not required to explain the exact contours of their kneecaps. Less is more.
5. You also don't have to describe every itty bitty action. When Lizzie and Mr. Darcy dance, the actual dance is never described in one syllable [or in more than one syllable]. Only the conversation during the dance matters, unless your purpose is to study dances in the Jane Austen era, in which case you should put down Pride and Prejudice and pick up Dances in the Jane Austen Era for Dummies. Less is more.
6. It's all right [I think] to repeat the same description of a character instead of looking for a lot of synonyms for "ugly" or "unpretentious." JK Rowling almost invariably describes Crookshanks as Hermione's "bandy-legged, ginger cat," and Filch as having his "jowls a-quiver." Georgette Heyer in These Old Shades describes Rupert as having "a look of comical dismay" twice. And in the last chapter of Lord of the Flies, W. Golding uses the word "ululation" approximately 538 times to describe what Ralph is hearing without explaining what the hell "ululation" means. Don't feel the need to fill your volume of forgotten lore with synonyms. Less is more.
7. As much as it bothers me in dialogue, direct characterization within your prose, I've gathered, is permissible. Here's something Jane Austen wrote, PARAPHRASED [emphasis on PARAPHRASED] by yours truly:
"Mr. Bennet was a nice man even though sometimes he was sarcastic. Mrs. Bennet was a nut with air for brains."
The following dialogue never happened:
"You're nice," Mrs. Bennet said, "only sometimes you're sarcastic."
"Oh, yeah?" Mr. Bennet said. "Well, you're a nut with air for brains."
8. "Show, don't tell," my butt. Agatha Christie "tells." Jane-Bloody-Austen "tells." PG-f***********ing Wodehouse "tells." They "show" too, but they don't dodge "telling" like one of those guys in movies who has to get over and under all the red light-beams in museums. They don't overcomplicate the prose. A challenge I like is trying to "tell" in an amusing way like Douglas Adams when he says, "The ships hung in the sky the same way bricks don't." Or maybe that's showing. Is that showing? I don't know. But I've managed to cultivate an inner Dwight Schrute who tells me, "Keep It Simple, Stupid," when I think I'm getting too cute. Less is more.
9. This I've seen happen more on TV than in books, but I'm going to say it anyway because I want to. If your character is a funny character, don't make herm funny by having herm constantly talking and thinking about food and sex.
That's all I have to say about that, Beth out.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
A Bit of Writing Part 8
Another bit I'm pleased with. Don't ask.
St. Stephen, the poets tell us, was the first of the great martyrs, the people who underwent all forms of violence and physical trauma in defense of the Truth. This was all very well and noble of them; however, according to History, once the people voted for executions to be made public in lieu of reality programs, the number of martyrs decreased by 47.3% almost overnight. A person can withstand physical torment if he must simply because there is nothing else to be done, but if he is made to do it in front of a gathering crowd, his ears turn red, his knees shake, and he stutters horribly over his Last Requests. There is nothing more embarrassing than public humiliation. Private humiliation, on the other hand, is bearable, especially if one is not constantly being watched by the Eye of Sauron which tends to sprout in the more scrupulous of minds like an obsessive Jiminy Cricket who hovers over the bed with a chainsaw and whispers, “Be good.”
Thursday, January 21, 2016
A Word of Encouragement to Second-Class Nerds
If I have noticed correctly, this world (i.e. The Internet) is an unofficially established hierarchy of nerds. The more "nerdy" you are, the "cooler" you are, and the "higher" you are on the aforementioned "hierarchy." Only a True Nerd knows these nineteen facts about Star Wars, only a Real Harry Potter Fan will recognize who said This Quote, and only a Confirmed Tolkien Addict can list the seven sons of Feanor in alphabetical order.
In other words, if you are not well-versed enough in your preferred literature, you are a second-class nerd. You are not a True Nerd. You're not Enough.
But hark, nerd police, I say unto you, go fudge yourselves.
Here's why:
If you're Catholic like yours truly, you've probably heard of a person named Saint Bernadette who, as you have probably gathered, was a Saint named Bernadette. If my sources are correct (which they are), St. Bernadette was not well-versed in theology. She didn't know, for example, Who the Three Persons of the Trinity were. When she died and went to heaven, the above nerd police will tell you that St. Peter stopped her and said, "St. Bernadette, when you took the online quiz about whether or not you're a true God Fan, you failed. You are, therefore, not allowed in our inner circle of saints and have been demoted to janitor duties." However, I am pleased to inform you that the nerd police are morons. The amount you know about your world, fictional or not, does not dictate your love for it.
Actually, if you pay attention to pop shows and the media, unless I'm wrong, the general consensus seems to be that a nerd is just a person whose top-priority/interest does not involve sex. At least, that's what I've gathered.
With that said, go read The Lord of the Rings, don't remember every single name or province, and enjoy it regardless. Don't let the muggles get you down. Live long and prosper, and may the Force be with you.
In other words, if you are not well-versed enough in your preferred literature, you are a second-class nerd. You are not a True Nerd. You're not Enough.
But hark, nerd police, I say unto you, go fudge yourselves.
Here's why:
If you're Catholic like yours truly, you've probably heard of a person named Saint Bernadette who, as you have probably gathered, was a Saint named Bernadette. If my sources are correct (which they are), St. Bernadette was not well-versed in theology. She didn't know, for example, Who the Three Persons of the Trinity were. When she died and went to heaven, the above nerd police will tell you that St. Peter stopped her and said, "St. Bernadette, when you took the online quiz about whether or not you're a true God Fan, you failed. You are, therefore, not allowed in our inner circle of saints and have been demoted to janitor duties." However, I am pleased to inform you that the nerd police are morons. The amount you know about your world, fictional or not, does not dictate your love for it.
Actually, if you pay attention to pop shows and the media, unless I'm wrong, the general consensus seems to be that a nerd is just a person whose top-priority/interest does not involve sex. At least, that's what I've gathered.
With that said, go read The Lord of the Rings, don't remember every single name or province, and enjoy it regardless. Don't let the muggles get you down. Live long and prosper, and may the Force be with you.
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
A Bit of Writing Part 7
If I am successful with book #1, this will be at the begining-ish of book #2 which I realize is pushing my luck, but I don't care.
The word "thixophobia" is an unusual one which refers to the fear of touching a fellow human being. The first person in history to suffer from thixophobia was a woman we know today as Typhoid Mary who, in order to avoid physical contact with other people, invented the disease typhoid and appointed herself as its primary vessel, successfully discouraging her friends and acquaintances from touching her ever again. She did not, in fact, carry the disease as many have been led to believe, and thus, we understand, any subsequent outbreak of typhoid was purely psychological.
However, to return to the point at hand, Typhoid Mary's thixophobia was not brought on, as one may guess, by a fear of germs, but rather from an uncomfortable stirring in her soul whenever she happened to brush a hand or foot past the body--living or dead--of a fellow human person. Each time this happened, her soul seemed to flinch and say to itself, "Self, that Thing you just touched is a Person. Tread carefully. If it is in any way damaged, we shall reserve this week's ration of bread and water for the rats."
The word "thixophobia" is an unusual one which refers to the fear of touching a fellow human being. The first person in history to suffer from thixophobia was a woman we know today as Typhoid Mary who, in order to avoid physical contact with other people, invented the disease typhoid and appointed herself as its primary vessel, successfully discouraging her friends and acquaintances from touching her ever again. She did not, in fact, carry the disease as many have been led to believe, and thus, we understand, any subsequent outbreak of typhoid was purely psychological.
However, to return to the point at hand, Typhoid Mary's thixophobia was not brought on, as one may guess, by a fear of germs, but rather from an uncomfortable stirring in her soul whenever she happened to brush a hand or foot past the body--living or dead--of a fellow human person. Each time this happened, her soul seemed to flinch and say to itself, "Self, that Thing you just touched is a Person. Tread carefully. If it is in any way damaged, we shall reserve this week's ration of bread and water for the rats."
Sunday, January 3, 2016
A Bit of Writing Part 6
You will not be surprised to learn that the first man to experience Deja Vu was Adam. When Adam encountered his first moment of Deja Vu, he did not recognize it for what it was, having never experienced it before, and when he asked Eve what it was, she shrugged her shoulders and said in the primordial language Our Lord had concocted for them, “If you don’t know, then I’m certainly not going to tell you.” The reason for Eve’s chagrin was that she had just offered him a piece of fruit, and he took it without question, thereby implying that he had forgotten what had occurred the first time she had offered him a piece of fruit. As it happened, Adam had not forgotten, but had assumed that Eve had learned not to accept comestibles from super-intelligent reptiles. He told her so, and she apologized for snapping with a kiss on his nose before instructing him to bring in the dog and take out the garbage. However, this was several thousands of years even before the birth of Christ. In the present day….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)