Ditto the title!
Should auld acquaintance be forgot!
We're sure to remember something!
Should aul acquaintance be forgot!
Something something something something!
Should auld acquaintance be forgot!
And eggnog something something!
Should ault acquaintance be forgot!
That line is really annoying now! Assume you've gone crazy!
Happy old year!
Monday, December 31, 2007
Trusting the Past
I have been evaluating myself as a historian, and juxtaposing my approach to "conveying the facts" to the past, to history recorded up till now.
When I tell a story, I almost never leave anything out. Listening to my tales of the truth and the past you will always get the whole story. In general, however, you'll get some other stuff as well.
For instance, me and some of my sibs were driving home the other night, when an add comes on the radio. "Order our radar jammer now! Save hundreds of dollars! Never get another speeding ticket!" These are almost direct quotes, word for word, I shitteth thee and thine not in the slightest. The honest to goodness truth.
But the last couple of times before now that I've told this story, I've added on thustly: Blaze on past the cops in their cruise cars at eighty--VROOM!--they'll never know you were there! Call now and save hundreds!
The add didn't say that. I believe the use of this device would be specifically to jam the radar guns in those non-descript white vans that automatically check your speed, take your picture, then e-mail you the ticket.
Additionally, I like to phrase things in more interesting ways than the bad radio commercial writers like to phrase things. So forced excitement and banality, that is to say the original voice, is covered up with my own sort of whatever.
I was telling someone just now about this habit I've got of taking the facts, deciding they're dull as they are, and then sort of floofing them up to be more memorable. I was speaking of this in the context of wondering what historians of the far future would think of things in a general sort of way with my accounts of truth as their only guide to the past. Then this person I was speaking with mentioned that I want to study history. I do. I'm interested in what was. But it occurs to me now that there is more than a tiny little possibility that age old historians had a reasonably moiesque--that is to say, similar to mine--view on recorded data.
This taken to be true, just for the sake of argument at this moment, all history books should on average be assumed to be exactly half lies. And the other half should be assumed more or less dull.
I choose however not to see history as if it were all written by the moiesque. I assume it was all written by liars, and I will therefore keep an open mind.
The end.
When I tell a story, I almost never leave anything out. Listening to my tales of the truth and the past you will always get the whole story. In general, however, you'll get some other stuff as well.
For instance, me and some of my sibs were driving home the other night, when an add comes on the radio. "Order our radar jammer now! Save hundreds of dollars! Never get another speeding ticket!" These are almost direct quotes, word for word, I shitteth thee and thine not in the slightest. The honest to goodness truth.
But the last couple of times before now that I've told this story, I've added on thustly: Blaze on past the cops in their cruise cars at eighty--VROOM!--they'll never know you were there! Call now and save hundreds!
The add didn't say that. I believe the use of this device would be specifically to jam the radar guns in those non-descript white vans that automatically check your speed, take your picture, then e-mail you the ticket.
Additionally, I like to phrase things in more interesting ways than the bad radio commercial writers like to phrase things. So forced excitement and banality, that is to say the original voice, is covered up with my own sort of whatever.
I was telling someone just now about this habit I've got of taking the facts, deciding they're dull as they are, and then sort of floofing them up to be more memorable. I was speaking of this in the context of wondering what historians of the far future would think of things in a general sort of way with my accounts of truth as their only guide to the past. Then this person I was speaking with mentioned that I want to study history. I do. I'm interested in what was. But it occurs to me now that there is more than a tiny little possibility that age old historians had a reasonably moiesque--that is to say, similar to mine--view on recorded data.
This taken to be true, just for the sake of argument at this moment, all history books should on average be assumed to be exactly half lies. And the other half should be assumed more or less dull.
I choose however not to see history as if it were all written by the moiesque. I assume it was all written by liars, and I will therefore keep an open mind.
The end.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Plotting, Fringe King pt. 2
So I'm having a terribly novel experience: success at pre-plotting and outlining. Yes.
I wrote a first page, it was all well and good, and from it I had a character a premise and a locale. I wrote the second page and added characterization, and subplot. Then I got off the computer and spent some several days with a notebook, all over the world practically, free-associatively (that's a word...now) putting down ideas of events leading to a conclusive conclusion including climax!
How you like that? Conclusive inclusive climax. Hee. Moving on.
Furthermore, I know what this story is about. Ahead of time. How's that for organized?
Hoo nelly, I'm all totally psyched about this whole taking seriously of writing thing, with these, like, disciplines and processes and whatever.
Special thanks goes out to the good writers of my acquaint who helped me remember doing stuff the way it seems like everyone else is doing stuff is a dumb way to try and always do stuff. To do so is stuffy.
Tah-dah!
I wrote a first page, it was all well and good, and from it I had a character a premise and a locale. I wrote the second page and added characterization, and subplot. Then I got off the computer and spent some several days with a notebook, all over the world practically, free-associatively (that's a word...now) putting down ideas of events leading to a conclusive conclusion including climax!
How you like that? Conclusive inclusive climax. Hee. Moving on.
Furthermore, I know what this story is about. Ahead of time. How's that for organized?
Hoo nelly, I'm all totally psyched about this whole taking seriously of writing thing, with these, like, disciplines and processes and whatever.
Special thanks goes out to the good writers of my acquaint who helped me remember doing stuff the way it seems like everyone else is doing stuff is a dumb way to try and always do stuff. To do so is stuffy.
Tah-dah!
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Fall of the World
"As long as the Colosseum stands, Rome will stand;
When the Colosseum falls, Rome will fall.
And when Rome falls, then falls the world."--Famous (apparently) old saying.
When the Colosseum falls, Rome will fall.
And when Rome falls, then falls the world."--Famous (apparently) old saying.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Process, Fringe King pt. 1
Feeling all cool and stuff with my successful finishing and subsequent snail-mailing of a short story to a paying market for possible publication, I have rewarded myself by deciding to concentrate on short stories for a while.
And so I have been asking a bunch of random people the question, "What should I write stories about?" Because I've found myself uninspired...
I remember hearing people who made up stories saying in interviews that for them "the story came first," and then they wrote their books, or movies, or whatever. And I would always think when I heard that, "No freaking duh, the story came first."
Judging though from the few things that I've finished...for me, story is one of the last things I discover. Not one of the last things I put in, mind; one of the last things I discover in the things I write. I figure out what story I was trying to tell, and go "ah-HAH!" then rearrange, add, or remove stuff from the piece so that it more clearly says what I found out.
Usually that seems the way it goes.
Therefore, this idea of "the story comes first" doesn't seem to be working for me, and I need to discover, or create, a different approach. For now anyway.
I lay great stresses on the content and structure of first sentences, paragraphs, and pages. It's important what goes into them to springboard into the story. The essential voice and barebone beginnings of threads and all the "enough to be getting along with" facts should be there in a story pretty early on. I know how I think these things should, in a general way, be arranged and paced. How much exposition there should be, how much exposition, what amount of juxtaposition between the two. So, conceivably, I should be able to write a first page and have what I need to get to the end of the tale--I'm talking short story here--without actually deciding ahead of time where I mean to go. Then I can go back later and fix the problems that will undoubtedly arise from this method of story construction.
So as an expiriment I shall go and I shall do this.
Title: Anansi the Fringe King.
And so I have been asking a bunch of random people the question, "What should I write stories about?" Because I've found myself uninspired...
I remember hearing people who made up stories saying in interviews that for them "the story came first," and then they wrote their books, or movies, or whatever. And I would always think when I heard that, "No freaking duh, the story came first."
Judging though from the few things that I've finished...for me, story is one of the last things I discover. Not one of the last things I put in, mind; one of the last things I discover in the things I write. I figure out what story I was trying to tell, and go "ah-HAH!" then rearrange, add, or remove stuff from the piece so that it more clearly says what I found out.
Usually that seems the way it goes.
Therefore, this idea of "the story comes first" doesn't seem to be working for me, and I need to discover, or create, a different approach. For now anyway.
I lay great stresses on the content and structure of first sentences, paragraphs, and pages. It's important what goes into them to springboard into the story. The essential voice and barebone beginnings of threads and all the "enough to be getting along with" facts should be there in a story pretty early on. I know how I think these things should, in a general way, be arranged and paced. How much exposition there should be, how much exposition, what amount of juxtaposition between the two. So, conceivably, I should be able to write a first page and have what I need to get to the end of the tale--I'm talking short story here--without actually deciding ahead of time where I mean to go. Then I can go back later and fix the problems that will undoubtedly arise from this method of story construction.
So as an expiriment I shall go and I shall do this.
Title: Anansi the Fringe King.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Kirk
"No, this is not a blog about Star Trek."--Me
"Refine Doomsday Device ideas."--Iron John, and, oddly enough, this guy Doctor Metropolis who wrote a book called "How to be a Superhero."
"The thermos is a great invention. You put something hot in it, it stays hot. You put something cold in it, it stays cold."
"Well?"
"Well, how does it know the difference?"--Porig and KAthleen, on Ballykissangel.
"Me I'm dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest ones you got to watch out for. 'Cause you can never tell when an honest man is going to do something incredibly...stupid."--Jack Sparrow, in POTC: COTBP.
"Boding style of fing." Gaspode the Wonder Dog, in Moving Pictures, by Terry Pratchett.
The longer I live, the more I discover there are, like, other people in the world. And they're, like, doing stuff when I can't see them.
Terry Pratchett, for example. He watches the same TV I watched. Entirely, I might add, without telling me about it. It's the craziest thing.
And Iron John as well. A while back, I got this book called How to be a Superhero. It has a picture of a Superman style of guy, with the face blotted out and "your face here" written there. It's a handy tips and tools of the trade manual for any aspiring superhero, and a thoroughly useful book for anyone who thinks he may someday be a masked crime fighter. What to expect, stories of the legends of the trade--none of which, I feel inclined to point out, I have heard of; I imagine I don't hang out with the right people, I have the same problem with video games. And on his list of things to do on his blog, Iron John has quoted, almost verbatum, a manifesto/to-do list of a nefarious villain used as an example for nefarious villains in the last chapter of How to be a Superhero.
It's a weird sort of circle thing.
Here's another: I heard on JAG, back when it was still on TV, that kirk is some Welch or something word for circle.
See. Circles.
Okay, now that your I.Q. has dropped ten points, I'm that much closer to my own world domination.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*caff caff*
Back to your pitiful lives, insects. I have moody brooding in the shadows to do.
"Refine Doomsday Device ideas."--Iron John, and, oddly enough, this guy Doctor Metropolis who wrote a book called "How to be a Superhero."
"The thermos is a great invention. You put something hot in it, it stays hot. You put something cold in it, it stays cold."
"Well?"
"Well, how does it know the difference?"--Porig and KAthleen, on Ballykissangel.
"Me I'm dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest ones you got to watch out for. 'Cause you can never tell when an honest man is going to do something incredibly...stupid."--Jack Sparrow, in POTC: COTBP.
"Boding style of fing." Gaspode the Wonder Dog, in Moving Pictures, by Terry Pratchett.
The longer I live, the more I discover there are, like, other people in the world. And they're, like, doing stuff when I can't see them.
Terry Pratchett, for example. He watches the same TV I watched. Entirely, I might add, without telling me about it. It's the craziest thing.
And Iron John as well. A while back, I got this book called How to be a Superhero. It has a picture of a Superman style of guy, with the face blotted out and "your face here" written there. It's a handy tips and tools of the trade manual for any aspiring superhero, and a thoroughly useful book for anyone who thinks he may someday be a masked crime fighter. What to expect, stories of the legends of the trade--none of which, I feel inclined to point out, I have heard of; I imagine I don't hang out with the right people, I have the same problem with video games. And on his list of things to do on his blog, Iron John has quoted, almost verbatum, a manifesto/to-do list of a nefarious villain used as an example for nefarious villains in the last chapter of How to be a Superhero.
It's a weird sort of circle thing.
Here's another: I heard on JAG, back when it was still on TV, that kirk is some Welch or something word for circle.
See. Circles.
Okay, now that your I.Q. has dropped ten points, I'm that much closer to my own world domination.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*caff caff*
Back to your pitiful lives, insects. I have moody brooding in the shadows to do.
Cat Personallity
Sometimes I wish writers had personallities more like sheep. Unfortunately, they have cat personalities.
A cat stands aloof, and knows that their own thoughts are far more interesting, inspired, and useful, than all other people's thoughts. As a result, no matter how much an organized activity is inside their best interest, some other schmoe must do all the organizing, because naturally the writer knows that, while they could probably do it better, it--the organizational process--isn't an important part of the whole activity, because it effects the other guys more obviously.
Scientists have sheep personallities. While scientists are disgustingly intelligent, and think they're thoughts are the best, they are entirely in favor of going everywhere and only where they are told. They follow instructions to the letter, and if they find inaccuracies in these instructions they postulate possible improvements to he who organizes them, and thusly the event comes about with utter hitchless dullness.
I respect Henry. He got writer's to do stuff. It's enormously freaking hard.
It's somewhat promising, though, that my writers are clearly the thoughtful, cat personallities. It implies to a degree that they're gifted.
I have a phone call to make...
A cat stands aloof, and knows that their own thoughts are far more interesting, inspired, and useful, than all other people's thoughts. As a result, no matter how much an organized activity is inside their best interest, some other schmoe must do all the organizing, because naturally the writer knows that, while they could probably do it better, it--the organizational process--isn't an important part of the whole activity, because it effects the other guys more obviously.
Scientists have sheep personallities. While scientists are disgustingly intelligent, and think they're thoughts are the best, they are entirely in favor of going everywhere and only where they are told. They follow instructions to the letter, and if they find inaccuracies in these instructions they postulate possible improvements to he who organizes them, and thusly the event comes about with utter hitchless dullness.
I respect Henry. He got writer's to do stuff. It's enormously freaking hard.
It's somewhat promising, though, that my writers are clearly the thoughtful, cat personallities. It implies to a degree that they're gifted.
I have a phone call to make...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)