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
Monday, October 17, 2016
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)