|
Pladdicus posted:Post-apoclyptic was the genre I went with for my novel, I found I actually went in a different direction of talking about how society would rebuild after all the chaos and everything calmed down. I've been kicking around pieces of a book similar to this for a few years now, but with a deliberately more fantastical angle to it. Folks have gotten over most of the destruction, but their part of the world is still a strange, scary mess, and they have to deal with what new problems come out of it. How much world-building did you do? Since we generally agree that inferring is better than dumping, did you ever go into any of your new world or stuff from the past aspects in detail? I think characters referring to things or uncovering things or having conflicting stories about events is a good way to get that across.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:30 |
|
|
magnificent7 posted:Today I finally came to the conclusion my rewrite has been 5 months of discovering my story sucks bad enough to start over completely. Not just rewriting the story, but start at the core plot and just loving start all over completely. Then you have more issues than just the a rewrite can finish. Are you sure this isn't a project better saved till later in life when you have developed your craft a bit more?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
I agree with Mr.Drf. If you've reached that point, it may be better to sit on the story for a while and re-read it with fresh eyes after some time has passed. Another option would be to pick it apart and salvage the things you like about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
Thoren posted:I agree with Mr.Drf. If you've reached that point, it may be better to sit on the story for a while and re-read it with fresh eyes after some time has passed. Another option would be to pick it apart and salvage the things you like about it. I do this sometimes. I get a novel idea, get like halfway through, figure out it isn't working, and then try to either shelve it, OR boil it down to it's most basic idea and turn it into a short story. I don't know how much writing you have done magnificent7 but you can always expand upon something at a later date if you put the real soul of it all into a solid short work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
Mr.Drf posted:I do this sometimes. I get a novel idea, get like halfway through, figure out it isn't working, and then try to either shelve it, OR boil it down to it's most basic idea and turn it into a short story. I've been collecting books on writing, thought I'd share my latest good find: THE NIGHTTIME NOVELIST (site, http://www.nighttimenovelist.com/) Does it share anything different than other books I've read? No. Does it give me short chapters with lots of diagrams and examples from stories? Yes! The problem for me in writing is that, while reading a book on writing, (including Stephen King's "On Writing") I tend to get distracted with ways I can apply my newfound knowledge, instantly. So I'll read a chapter, or less, light bulbs will explode in my head and I'll go start scribbling ideas on my book. THIS book sort of assumes that's what you're going to be doing, and it assumes you've already got your story either written or started, so it kind of does a chapter then says "now go do this thing to your story." Also - and this is critical to me - books on writing tend to have a lot of writing in them.  Diagrams help me a lot in getting the big picture. Charts. And references to books or movies I know inside-out so I can understand what they're talking about. (honest, internal/external conflict and motivation - it's a no-brainer but I kept confusing them because I'm the slow).What I'm saying is, I'm an idiot and don't know much about writing. Swear to God, on Saturday, I was holding THIS book in one hand, and "The Idiot's Guide To Writing Fiction" in the other hand. I'm glad I picked this one. It's less embarrassing, for one. PLUS - here's some great articles I found this week that address common mistakes: What NOT to Do When Beginning Your Novel: Advice from Literary Agents http://writerunboxed.com/2013/04/22/april/#more-20630 And a FANTASTIC article about over-used themes: Stories We've Seen Too Often http://www.strangehorizons.com/guidelines/fiction-common.shtml magnificent7 fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
Alright, I made a big high-effort post in Mind Loving Owl's thread, but I figure we can all use it, so here it is: The Set Up: Mind Loving Owl posted:So Thoras is doing a really good job, but I need some advice. When is a good time to slip in physical descriptions? Dr. Kloctopussy posted:Only when it's necessary. Mind Loving Owl posted:What I figured was that main characters should get a description at some point since the reader could use a face to attach to the central focuses of the story, My advice: There's definitely room for disagreement on this point, but I find a lot of physical description to be distracting and unnecessary. I don't need a portrait to connect with a character. Honestly, I don't have strong physical images in my head for many of my favorite characters, because it really isn't necessary. Do you? Think of a few of your favorite characters and write down what they look like. Do you end up with more than a few sentences? Plenty of description is actually relevant (muscularity, deformities, identifying features, costume, species/race/ethnicity, to name just a few), and should be easy to include in the context of the story. When you find yourself trying to "slip in" additional details, you're probably adding unnecessary fluff. Aquiline noses? generally irrelevant and forgettable. Ditto eye-color, unless eye-color denotes certain ancestry or abilities. A sketch of the important facts is more effective than a paragraph describing cleft chins or creamy skin. Always strive to add physical details as they would naturally be observed by the characters in your story. A soldier would take in the build, stance, and attitude of a challenger. An elf would notice the rare human visitor. A man might be captivated by the creamy skin and vibrant violet eyes of a particularly captivating woman (or man, depending). Take lessons from the masters: pull out your favorite books and look for physical descriptions. Consider how they handled it and how well it worked. You might be surprised at how clumsily it's handled, even by experienced writers (looking in a mirror, oh lord). And My Examples: Okay, I've pulled some off my shelf, because this a good exercise for everyone! Only looking at the first chapter: William Gibson, All Tomorrow's Parties Apparent Main Character: no physical description, but.... ...Shinya Yamazaki, his notebook clasped beneath his arm like the egg case of some modest but moderately successful marine species...Yamazaki blinks, making his new contact lenses swim uncomfortably. and An old man: "Come in," says the old man, in Japanese. "Don't leave your rear end hanging out that way." He is naked except for a sort of breech clout twisted from what may once have been a red T-shirt. He is seated, cross-legged, on a ragged, paint-flecked tatami mat. He holds a brightly colored toy figure in one hand, a slender brush in the other. Yamazaki sees that the thing is a model of some kind, a robot or military exoskeleton. It glitters in the sun-bright light, blue and red and silver. Small tools are spread on the tatmi: a razor knife, a sprue cutter, curls of emery paper. The old man is very thin, clean-shaven but in need of a haircut. Wisps of gray hair hang on either side of his face, and his mouth is set in what looks to be a permanent scowl of disapproval. He wears glasses with heavy black plastic frames and archaically thick lenses. The lenses catch the light. A sick friend: What seems to be a crumpled sleeping bag....The American groans. Seems to turn, or sit up. Yamazaki can't see. Something covers Laney's eyes. Red wink of a diode. Cables. Faint gleam of the interface, reflected in a thin line against Laney's sweat-slick cheekbone....Laney draws a ragged breath...."No." Laney says and coughs into his pale and upraised hand....Laney reaches up and removes the bulky, old-fashioned eyephones. Yamazaki cannot see what outputs to them, but the shifting light from the display reveals Laney's hollowed eyes....Laney shakes his head. The cables on the eyephones move in the dark like snakes....Laney nods thoughtfully, the eyephones bobbing mantis-like in the dark. So here, we get the most detailed physical description of what is likely to be the least-important character. Why? Because his description doubles as a description for the new world that Yamazaki is entering when he visits his friend Laney in a slum. Notice the emphasis on vision and eyewear. The first chapter also discusses social invisibility and whether or not someone is looking for Laney. It all ties together. No physical description is given of Yamazaki or Laney, but you don't need it to feel them as characters. Stephen King, The Gunsligner The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed. ....He passed the miles stolidly, not hurrying, not loafing. A hide waterbag was slung around his middle like a bloated sausage. It was almost full.... Below the waterbag were were his guns, carefully weighted to his hands; a plate had been added to each when they had come to him from his father, who had been lighter and not so tall. The two belts crisscrossed above his crotch. The holsters were oiled too deeply for even this Philistine sun to crack. The stocks of the guns were sandalwood, yellow and finely grained. Rawhide tie-downs held the holsters loosely to his thighs , and they swung a bit with his step; they had rubbed away the bluing of his jeans (and thinned the cloth) in a pair of arcs that looked almost like smiles. the brass casings of the cartridges looped into the gunbelts heliographed in the sun. There were fewer now. The leather made subtle creaking noises. His shirt, the no-color of rain or dust, was open at the throat with a rawhide thong dangling losely in hand-punched eyelets. His hat was gone. So was the horn he had once carried; gone for years, that horn, spilled from the hand of a dying friend, and he missed them both. The man in black is nothing but that. The main character is also described primarily by what he wears and carries. That is who he is. His physical features matter far less than his guns: inherited, well-made, well-maintained. This information tells you far more about the character than the color of his hair or the shape of his nose. James M. Cain, Mildred Pierce Yet, although it was a hot afternoon, he took his time about it, and was conscientiously thorough, and whistled. He was a smallish man, in his middle thirties, but in spite of the stains on his trousers, he wore them with an air. His name was Herbert Pierce.... After combing his hair, he dressed. Slacks hadn't made their appearance then, but grey flannels had: he put on a fresh pair, with polo shirt and blue lounge coat.Then he strolled back to the kitchen, a counterpart of the bathroom, where his wife was icing a cake. She was a small woman, considerably younger than himself; but as there was a smear of chocolate on her face, and she wore a loose green smock, it was hard to tell what she looked like, except for a pair of rather voluptuous legs that showed between smock and shoes.... ....there was a rap on the screen door, and Mrs. Gessler, who lived next door, came in. She was a thin, dark woman of forty or so, with lines on her face that might have come from care, and might have come from liquor. Again, not much in the way of physical descriptions. But look at how much each description tells us about the character. Do you really need to know more about Herbert Pierce than him combing his hair and putting on fresh pants and a blue lounge coat before leaving to see another woman? Would knowing that Mrs. Gessler had a few grey hairs add to those lines, that might be from care and might be from liquor? Then he gives you this: The child who now entered the kitchen didn't scamper in, as little Ray had a short time before. She stepped in primly, sniffed contemptuously at the scent left by Mrs. Gessler, and put her schoolbooks on the table before she kissed her mother. Though she was only eleven she was something to look at twice. In the jaunty way she wore her clothes, as well as the handsome look around the upper part of her face, she resembled her father more than her mother: it was commonly said that "Veda's a Pierce." But around her mouth the resemblance vanished, for Bert's mouth had a slanting weakness that hers didn't have. Her hair, which was a coppery red, and her eyes, which were light blue like her mother's, were all the more vivd by contrast with the scramble of freckles and sunburn which formed her complexion. But the most arresting thing about her was her walk. Possibly because of her high, arching chest, possibly because of the slim hips and legs below it, she moved with an erect, arrogant haughtiness that seemed comic in one so young. Hooooly poo poo. This passage is the most physical description we've seen since the old japanese dude. But see how nearly everything does double duty? Now we know about her dad's weak mouth and her mom's blue eyes. And all of these things are relevant to her character. We don't need a laundry list of hair/eye/skin color for every character. But for Veda it matters, so we get it, and Cain makes the most of it. The more subtle details are still the most important: the sniff is more important than the freckles, the erect, arrogant walk more important than her hair. Editing to add: think about Shakespeare, and how amazingly memorable and vivid his stories and characters are. Not a drop of physical description. Also, I know we throw out the "read a lot" advice all the time, but reading for a purpose like this is totally different. I read a lot and mostly hope to learn by vague osmosis. That works alright, but this is the first time I've really followed my own advice about specifically examining how multiple authors handle a given writing challenge, and lord, my mind is reeling. Dr. Kloctopussy fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Apr 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 10:29
|
|
|
SaviourX posted:I've been kicking around pieces of a book similar to this for a few years now, but with a deliberately more fantastical angle to it. Folks have gotten over most of the destruction, but their part of the world is still a strange, scary mess, and they have to deal with what new problems come out of it. Little to none, I started with the character and what he was doing that was all I had in my mind when I started writing. I then expanded on it as I went. At certain points I'd have to make up my mind ("so what's the deal with the abandoned unbombed cities?" "well society broke down early on and eventually those who did stay" and whether or not I'd go mutants (I didn't)) and from that I developed the world around what my plot needed. The only concept I walked in is, a war happened dozen years ago and the story is about this man who uses his technical skills to help settlements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Dr. Kloctopussy posted:Take lessons from the masters: pull out your favorite books and look for physical descriptions. Consider how they handled it and how well it worked. You might be surprised at how clumsily it's handled, even by experienced writers (looking in a mirror, oh lord). From Wolf Hall (awesome book btw), she'll often do characterization blurbs like the following: Hilary Mantel posted:The duke is now approaching sixty years old, but concedes nothing to the calendar. Flint-faced and keen-eyed, he is lean as a gnawed bone and as cold as an ax head; his joints seem knitted together of supple chain links, and indeed he rattles a little as he moves, for his clothes conceal relics:in tiny jeweled cases he has shavings of skin and snippets of hair, and set into medallions he wears splinters of martyrs' bones. "Marry!" he says, for an oath, and "By the Mass!," and sometimes takes out one of his medals or charms from wherever it is hung about his person, and kisses it in a fervor, calling on some saint or martyr to stop his current rage getting the better of him. "Saint Jude give me patience!" he will shout; probably he has mixed him up with Job, whom he heard about in a story when he was a little boy at the knee of his first priest. It is hard to imagine the duke as a little boy, or in any way younger or different from the self he presents now. He thinks the Bible a book unnecessary for laypeople, though he understands priests make some use of it. He thinks book-reading an affectation altogether, and wishes there was less of it at court. His niece is always reading, Anne Boleyn, which is perhaps why she is unmarried at the age of twenty-eight. He does not see why it's a gentleman's business to write letters; there are clerks for that. So the physical description of the Duke, which does not get down to minutia like eye and hair color totally sets up the personality-quirk half of the paragraph. In any case, you get a very full, visual picture of the Duke without requiring much physical detail. The next paragraph has him fixing an eye "red and fiery" at the protagonist of the novel, which again feeds off the physical look he had described right before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
This is more just an idle thought based on an idea I had a while ago but...If one were self-publishing, say on Kindle, then wouldn't it be REALLY easy to use a Pseudonym? I had been playing around with this idea of doing some YA for a while (Nothing serious or romantic, just fun Goosebumps type stuff) in addition to what I normally write and kind of wanted to keep the two separate. But say I wanted to publish them under the name of Rufus T Firefly for example then who's really to know? Note: This is all accounting for the fact that I go on to be a well regarded novelist. For character chat. Personally I teeter between whether I think someone needs a description or not. I generally keep it to a minimum because I don't think it's all that necessary but again it depends on the situation. At the moment I'm writing a sort of comic crime novel and the main character (A detective of course) does go in to some description of the people he meets. But that's 'his' choice instead of mine, if that makes sense. Otherwise, like if it's in third person, I would add minor detail just to sketch them out a little bit. So something like: "Portnoy wheezed as he slumped into his chair, the sturdy frame creaking beneath his weight." Ignore the general awfulness of the line but to me at least it says "This man is overweight" without needing to tell you exactly what his measurements are. On the other hand maybe it's just an old chair. The point is you can sketch an idea of someone without going say, the GRRM route of describing every little detail (Which I feel is a major issue among fantasy writers. I like that they have the imagination to have thought all this stuff through, but I don't need to read it all.) Find ways to inform the reader without 'telling' the reader. After a while it just feels like padding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
On the topic of over describing, a quote talking abut when they let R. R. Martin write a script for the HBO show:quote:For “Game of Thrones,” Martin will do one script per season, he said it does create a strange conflict for the writer. Martin described several additional scenes he’d written that were cut (as he expected), including one of ravens calling the banners—the ravens were received at Dreadfort, Last Hearth, Bear Island, etc. and all the secondary lords responded. Martin called it a “magnificent sequence,"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
He is a bloat, but when writing for things already in production you write planning on getting a lot cut, so why not go for it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Sounds like a simple montage, so it probably would have taken up a minute and a half at most. Problem is getting footage for all those different locations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
I was just thinking of his actual writing when I read that: When he describes every banner present during a battle for two pages. It's a strong example of how over describing can slow your plot and make things difficult for the reader.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
systran posted:I was just thinking of his actual writing when I read that: When he describes every banner present during a battle for two pages. It's a strong example of how over describing can slow your plot and make things difficult for the reader. Full disclosure: read 2 chapters of first book, got bored, didn't pick it up again for months, eventually gave it to a charity shop, so I'm in no position to comment on Martin's writing or why people like it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
It's nothing new that blabby writers often enjoy great popularity. They never last in anyone's mind, though.
Overwined fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Apr 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
Overwined posted:It's nothing new that blabby writers often enjoy great popularity. They never last in anyone's mind, though. Same thing happens in Music. Prince - his albums were amazing until he declared, "gently caress you label, I can do it all on my own!". While he enjoys complete unrestricted creative freedom, his albums have become more and more self-indulgent volumes of half-completed ideas. And I keep buying them, hating him for it. SO - just remember kids - learn the rules, follow the rules, become wildly successful, then forget the rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
On a completely unrelated note, I am finding an amazing source for opening lines of stories: Facebook posts.quote:Thought it was going to be a boring grocery trip...until I came around the corner and the hot firemen were in the cheese area. quote:She ain't moved in over an hour...thinking she used to be a mermaid...staring at The Gulf like she misses her calling!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
One of these days, magnificent7, I'm gonna challenge you to a throwdown.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
It should be said that there's nothing wrong with 'overwriting', provided the writer is good at it. We've cited GRRM as an example of the form but he's just an example of someone doing it poorly. Likewise not everyone can write like Dashell Hammet. For me it all depends on how that detail is weaved in. The problem I find with someone like GRRM and generally fantasy authors is that it brings things to a standstill. It interrupts flow and it feels like they're setting the scene before they actually start the scene. So there's a couple of thousand words on how a banquet hall looks and then the next paragraph starts "Tyrion entered the room....". I think David Mitchell and David Foster Wallace are great examples of people who are more verbose but who actually make it work. Though I gather that mileage may vary on Wallace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Overwined posted:It's nothing new that blabby writers often enjoy great popularity. They never last in anyone's mind, though. Plus ahahaha. I take it you've never read Tristram Shandy, for starters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
Does Tolkien count as blabby? I'd say he's stuck around pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Runcible Cat posted:Not all of us are hoping to write for the ages, you know - the bestseller lists and a TV series sound pretty sweet to me. I don't remember qualifying the set beyond they aren't remembered. Yes, many popular writers end up dying fat and happy. If that's what they wanted, then good for them. On the other side many of the "Greats" die penniless and miserable. Which one sounds better to you likely depends on your sensibilities, that's all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
CantDecideOnAName posted:One of these days, magnificent7, I'm gonna challenge you to a throwdown. Just do it. Here, I'll make it easy: BRAWL: magnificent7 vs Can'tDecideOnAName Length: 1000 words Due: Thursday midnight PST. Prompt: A secret that should never be told.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
edit: drat YOU ^^^^^^CantDecideOnAName posted:One of these days, magnificent7, I'm gonna challenge you to a throwdown. I demand that I preside over this. Random question I already posed to some people, to a mixed response: When writing about ancient/prehistoric people, do you prefer "made up" sounding names, or more literal ones? Like I might call a cave man Grud or something. But since in his language "Grud" means "that greenish moss stuff that grows on rocks," maybe to his people the literal name is actually something like GreenRock or whatever. I have seen both approaches done to carying degrees of success, but I was wondering what your guys' feelings were.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
CantDecideOnAName posted:Does Tolkien count as blabby? I'd say he's stuck around pretty well. Very long-winded and goes into poo poo that's just bad storytelling. But he was a linguist, so the language and technical aspects of the writing were great. Tolkien would dive into long, boring passages that are simply opportunities for him to play around with his languages and mythos. It provided a wealth of fixatable content for early spectrumites to read and memorize while stuffed in trashcans and lockers. GRRM isn't even trying to do the same thing, so it's comparing apples to carburetors. He's all like, "I wanna write a story about titties, murder, and wolves." So, with much drooling and asthmatic wheezing, he typed out a 14 year old boy's fantasy world without the dinosaurs and electric guitars. It's essentially a YA novel with adult content, so it has some good appeal, and he's rightfully getting rich of it. To bolster my point, Shakespeare wasn't really an innovator on stories. He just rewrote some poo poo he either read, saw, or heard. Why people even give a poo poo about him is because of the language he used in his plays. It made a story about two teenagers bitching that mommy and daddy don't want them to date then killing themselves interesting. S-Dawg wanted to write poems, which he did a lot, but plays made bling. So he took his poetry to plays and made some traditional, poetry-based storytelling into new poo poo. So son, [ESB puts his cowboy boot up on a stump and takes a match to his rugged tobacco pipe] that's why it's a silly conversation to even start. It's apples to carburetors. One you eat and makes you go. The other mixes fuel and oxygen so you can get from place to place. And each writer has something they're trying to do. Maybe they won't get there, or maybe they'll get rich writing something they didn't intend to. Apples and carburetors. [ESB puffs on his pipe and tips his stetson. He walks into the sunset. FADE TO BLACK. Blind Melon - No Rain plays as ROLL CREDITS]
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Sitting Here posted:I demand that I preside over this. ALL NEMESIS ALL THE TIME BABY we can co-judge, assuming one or both doesn't wuss out quote:Random question I already posed to some people, to a mixed response: When writing about ancient/prehistoric people, do you prefer "made up" sounding names, or more literal ones? Like I might call a cave man Grud or something. But since in his language "Grud" means "that greenish moss stuff that grows on rocks," maybe to his people the literal name is actually something like GreenRock or whatever. I like descriptive names, because it actually makes it more alien - gives a feeling of stories living in the names that people carry around with them. Gene Wolfe does this brilliantly in his Soldier of Arete/Mist books, the Spartans are called the Rope makers, Athens is called Thought, Thebes is called Hill (I think?). It can be twee if done badly of course. sebmojo fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Apr 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:Just do it. Here, I'll make it easy: this isn't my thunderdome But you know what, I sat out this last 'dome so I'm down. Is my opponent? Sitting Here: Names depend. So long as they're consistent and everyone has names like Grud OR Greenrock without alternating or doing both, I think it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
As far as long rambling novels go, few beat The Count of Montecristo as the longest page-turner I ever tried to devour whole (took me a whole week). He spent more than a few paragraphs on character description, and most either revealed essential character, or was described from another character's perception to reveal their character (love that done well). This is why the detective novel (noir in particular) works, because every first person monologue about the people he meets is revealing his character while he makes judgements about people or tries to suss them out. It's critical your descriptions have a purpose rather than checking off a laundry list of features: weight, height, eye color, who the gently caress cares. You rather want to build a silhouette. Focus on a handful of key characteristics and let the reader fill in the blanks. As for general rambling, I appreciate a great bullshitter over a wheezing windbag. The difference is the bullshitter knows how to pace the story, which is just like comic timing and just as tricky. The windbag doesn't know when to shut the gently caress up and get on with it. If you find yourself wondering which one you're doing, stop and ask yourself what effect you're after. If you can't think of one, cut it. Stuporstar fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Apr 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:Just do it. Here, I'll make it easy: You malfunctioning cattle prod. This ain't thunderdome! But sure. Fine. My book will have to wait. My other short story will have to wait. A secret that should never be told: Your Mom. I would prefer a prompt more related to the topic at hand, though. Like, "commit 90% of the word count to describing the phone being used in a conversation"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:I would prefer a prompt more related to the topic at hand, though. Like, "commit 90% of the word count to describing the phone being used in a conversation" That is actually an excellent idea. You'd be forced to somehow put narrative action in a expository setting, which is probably how it should be. Or the inverse at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
Overwined posted:That is actually an excellent idea. You'd be forced to somehow put narrative action in a expository setting, which is probably how it should be. Or the inverse at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:No. It's a horrible idea. Don't make me. Dooooo iiiitt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
I hate going in right up against the deadline so here we go. Sinner 569 words My dearest Joseph, I write to you with the blood still fresh upon my hands, in the hopes that you will understand why I did what I did. I have already prayed to Almighty God Himself, but this shall be my confession to you. From the day we first met, I have loved you with a fierce passion. I loved you and love you now but there is evil in your blood from your father, that foul murderer of women and children. There is that evil in you, and I feared it would carry on through your lineage. And then came the day when I carried that blood in myself. For those long nine months I felt it grow and stir, and did not recognize the wickedness I carried. This was to be an innocent babe, I thought, and I would have to protect it if the evil in you suddenly turned upon us in echoes of your own father. I prayed every night that we would be safe from you. After the birth I found my heart growing heavy and fearful. I did not sleep at night, kept awake by fear, and one night when I did fall into slumber I was awoken by a horrific revelation, a warning from God. I dreamt that I saw you and your father at a crossroads, and you held little sleeping Isaac in your arms. Your father pointed down one path, one that I could sense was full of malevolence and lead to death and destruction. It was a road to Hell that he tried to pull you down, but you stood your ground. Your father grew mad, shouting and gesturing wildly. I saw you hand Isaac to your father. This appeased him and he strode down his Damned road with our babe in his arms, and I knew this was a message from Him. Somehow the evil in your father had skipped you and was now twice as strong in our child, and if he had been evil then surely Isaac was the Devil. I prayed that it was not true for months, but I knew in my soul that it was. This weariness at life was his doing, this Devil-child sapping at my strength and my joy. I knew that when it was done with me it would turn to you, and was afraid. I prayed to God for strength this night, strength for what had to be done, and was granted it. I left our bed that night as a viper slides from its hole, and crept to the babe’s bassinet. He looked like an angel, sleeping there, but beneath that beat a heart of evil. I took a pillow from our bed and laid it over him, pressing down gently and repeating the Lord’s Prayer until he was dead. I still cannot sleep. The ache in my soul has not abated, and I fear that killing the Devil-child somehow passed the evil on to me. In saving you and countless others that would have suffered at his hand I have damned myself. I go now to turn myself in, and I pray that through the justice of the courts I will be absolved and not be Damned by Him for what I have done. Never forget that I loved you, and love you now, and shall love you always. May God have mercy on me. Yours, Emma
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Oh. This was for rill? I didn't do it! I have failed.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:Oh. This was for rill? I didn't do it! I have failed. You have plenty of time. Get off the forums and write a thing, UGH.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
 You didn't think it was serious? What could you lose by doing it?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:Oh. This was for rill? I didn't do it! I have failed. WRITE A STORY.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
It wasn't in the THUNDERDOME. Your petty attempts at luring me into a battle out here on the streets are futile. That, and blahblah excuses excuses. You single kids living in your basements and dorms, you've got all the time in the world! I got nothing! NOTHING.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
This wasn't even a throwdown. It's a cheap win, but I'll take it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:30 |
|
|
Holy hell, you're the worst. OK, victory goes to CantDecideOnAName by default.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 04:21
|
|