I never liked waiting, in fact, I'm pretty impulsive. Give me a bowl of M&Ms mixed with Skittles, blend the mush in my mouth, I'll say to myself: this is disgusting, and continue to chew it. If you play an episode of Community of Avatar the Last Airbender, I'll keep eating--small handfuls--to destracted to care.
So. Then you must ask me: How do you take curiosity? Well...it will all blend together soon. Bear with me.
Well. Its just like when a Pastor argues abstinence, "its best to wait." Nothings worse then just jumping into the action, people must have gradual reveal--like in those Movie Maker transitions--and it can have dangerous consquences.
" Now we see only an indistinct image in a mirror, but then we will be face to face."
When you write. You write letters and words that add up, and mean something to the individual reading it. Right?
But as a writer of story, Papa Twain tells us, "fiction must make sense" as opposed to life--which doesn't.
Curiosity is a great propellant of stories. Of course this is just to obvious--I just felt a bit impusive to write this. Yup.
But check this out.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Thursday, August 18, 2011
DRAFT Do Character need Mortal Flaws? (FT. Abby. Victoria. Natalie. And Luke.)
DO CHARACTERS NEED MORTAL FLAWS?
Four Writers tell us whether character's need mortal flaws.
(THIS IS A DRAft) |
| So you guys give me the link to the profile photo you want. BUT MAKE SURE THE PHOTO IS NOT OF YOU! |
Albsbuy McRion:
Character have to have mortal flaws. If the writer created a character that was perfect and sinless, then the readers would be bored of the story or book very fast. Readers don’t like to read about people that are inhuman but they like to read about people with problems. As an example, celebrity magazines is such a success because the readers like to look at popular celebrities and know that there are worse people out there then them. The writer have to write about characters that have flaws because readers find it entertaining to read about how other people go through their struggles.
Another reason why characters have to have mortal flaw is readers like to compare themselves to the characters. If readers can’t relate to the characters life or mistakes because they don’t have flaws then how can the reader feel good about themselves? At the end of the book, readers should be able to relate and learn something that might help them with their personal life. Examples of those lessons might be happily ever after endings and hope that everything will be okay. Without being able to relate to the characters, readers wouldn’t be able to learn anything from the story except that this character has it all made.
Lanai McDealthes:
Flawless Characters
When working to develop a successful plot for a story, one must consider first the practical question of how they are to properly construct supporting and pro/an-tagonistic characters. To do this, it is essential that the author realize the importance of developing character profiles from every possible angle. For instance, “What is this character’s main role in this story?” “How is this character an influence on the outcome and preceding events of the story’s plot, or is he/she influential at all?” (That is not to say that minor characters are redundant, as they usually are not).
A commonly disregarded question (or perhaps it is underestimated in worth, rather than disregarded) is simply this: “Is it necessary that every book character be morally or physically flawed?” Or as put in simpler terms, “Is it bad to have a perfect character?” From a standard viewpoint, I say yes: it is absolutely necessary when building a good story plot to give every character some sort of a flaw, whether it be physical or moral, minor or extreme. To elucidate upon my choice of the word “standard,” the viewpoint that I stand by is one that is quite simple, as I believe this to be a simple answer to a simple question with easy logic as a buffer. If even one remotely influential character was entirely flawless, then what chance would the antagonist stand against him or her? Or vice versa, considering the possibility of a flawlessly physical (obviously not flawlessly moral, given the name) antagonist, what chance would any protagonist stand against him or her? Even in fairytales, if the story is at all explicable, wit and reason cannot defeat ideal physicality, unless the character possessing the quality chooses to disregard it (in which case this entire defense would be pointless, but this is not the viewpoint upon which I stand, is it?). If John is entirely untouchable, then what chance does the physically defenseless Brody stand against him, no matter what moral awareness he possesses? Even if Brody bests his enemy and succeeds in containing him temporarily, could a physically unbound man be held for long if he decides to forcefully leave?
In the same sense, assuming that a character is morally flawless could be a theoretically harmless prospect of a successful storyline, however it does put the author in the awkward position of having to create what is realistically improbable. Unlike legendary creatures or love at first sight, a morally flawless human is even Biblically denied to be doable. Creating a morally flawless character sets an entirely new standard for human ethics of any story, while at the same time giving the character a translucent profile, because even an entranced reader will feel the man or woman’s detachment from reality.
Generally, the usage of either moral or physical faultlessness in any character is one or both of two influences upon a story, both of which are negative.
When working to develop a successful plot for a story, one must consider first the practical question of how they are to properly construct supporting and pro/an-tagonistic characters. To do this, it is essential that the author realize the importance of developing character profiles from every possible angle. For instance, “What is this character’s main role in this story?” “How is this character an influence on the outcome and preceding events of the story’s plot, or is he/she influential at all?” (That is not to say that minor characters are redundant, as they usually are not).
A commonly disregarded question (or perhaps it is underestimated in worth, rather than disregarded) is simply this: “Is it necessary that every book character be morally or physically flawed?” Or as put in simpler terms, “Is it bad to have a perfect character?” From a standard viewpoint, I say yes: it is absolutely necessary when building a good story plot to give every character some sort of a flaw, whether it be physical or moral, minor or extreme. To elucidate upon my choice of the word “standard,” the viewpoint that I stand by is one that is quite simple, as I believe this to be a simple answer to a simple question with easy logic as a buffer. If even one remotely influential character was entirely flawless, then what chance would the antagonist stand against him or her? Or vice versa, considering the possibility of a flawlessly physical (obviously not flawlessly moral, given the name) antagonist, what chance would any protagonist stand against him or her? Even in fairytales, if the story is at all explicable, wit and reason cannot defeat ideal physicality, unless the character possessing the quality chooses to disregard it (in which case this entire defense would be pointless, but this is not the viewpoint upon which I stand, is it?). If John is entirely untouchable, then what chance does the physically defenseless Brody stand against him, no matter what moral awareness he possesses? Even if Brody bests his enemy and succeeds in containing him temporarily, could a physically unbound man be held for long if he decides to forcefully leave?
In the same sense, assuming that a character is morally flawless could be a theoretically harmless prospect of a successful storyline, however it does put the author in the awkward position of having to create what is realistically improbable. Unlike legendary creatures or love at first sight, a morally flawless human is even Biblically denied to be doable. Creating a morally flawless character sets an entirely new standard for human ethics of any story, while at the same time giving the character a translucent profile, because even an entranced reader will feel the man or woman’s detachment from reality.
Generally, the usage of either moral or physical faultlessness in any character is one or both of two influences upon a story, both of which are negative.
Maria McGritHavoc:A Captivating Mixture
Tess of the D’Urbervilles, the prominent character, Tess, has the mortal flaw of carelessness. While she tries to mend her ways by not encouraging the romantic intentions of mister Angel Clare because of her past afflictions, she still falters and caves into the only man that ever loved her and the only man she ever loved. In the end her carelessness brought about much woe and tragedy even though she fought to be otherwise. People should not shun her for possessing flaws that many young adults have because those flaws make her more human and less of a fictionally fantasized character.
If an author is aiming to create a story with worthwhile characters, it is imperative that he conjures up characters that have human flaws. Thomas Hardy, the gentleman who wrote Tess of the D’Urbervilles, did a wonderful job exhibiting those certain flaws through Tess. Throughout the novel the reader glimpses moments where Tess desperately desires to conquer and control her flaw of carelessness and at moments, she does conquer it. In those moments of victory, the reader witnesses that overcoming a flaw is possible. Now, one must keep in mind that this is just a story and perhaps not entirely true, but a writer an excellent writer will pursue to write a story that people can relate to. By inflicting a character with a flaw, such as carelessness, the audience is more inclined to sympathize with the character and her woes in trying to overcome her flaw. Flaws create conflict within a character, and this conflict with self produces a motive to resolve and overcome this inner conflict. There in lies the mixture for enduring and human characters and a captivating story.
If an author is aiming to create a story with worthwhile characters, it is imperative that he conjures up characters that have human flaws. Thomas Hardy, the gentleman who wrote Tess of the D’Urbervilles, did a wonderful job exhibiting those certain flaws through Tess. Throughout the novel the reader glimpses moments where Tess desperately desires to conquer and control her flaw of carelessness and at moments, she does conquer it. In those moments of victory, the reader witnesses that overcoming a flaw is possible. Now, one must keep in mind that this is just a story and perhaps not entirely true, but a writer an excellent writer will pursue to write a story that people can relate to. By inflicting a character with a flaw, such as carelessness, the audience is more inclined to sympathize with the character and her woes in trying to overcome her flaw. Flaws create conflict within a character, and this conflict with self produces a motive to resolve and overcome this inner conflict. There in lies the mixture for enduring and human characters and a captivating story.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Ryokan: MY POETRY IS NOT POETRY
Ryokan:
Who says my poems are poems?
My poems are not poems.
After you know my poems are not poems,
Then we can begin to discuss poetry!
If what you write is beyond a story. Now we can talk about the story.
Clanging Cymbols
Write what you know?
Write what you care about.
Don’t get me wroing. The first point is valid and used hugely for young adults and amateur writers. In fact it is one hundred percent logical--one online course encourages to write from your past--thousand authors agree. However do you want to write and enjoy it? To write fluidly? WRITE ABOUT WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT.
“HE WHO HATH NOT LOVE IS A CLANGING CYMBOL.”
You know alot of things you don’t care about, taxes, politics, hobos. Yeah. You don’t have to write about them. In The Idiot’s Guide to Writing a Novel says how he knows women who all they can write about is about the home life (however this is not 100% accurate. Katherine Paterson wrote while being a housewife. Pilgrims progress wrote in prison. Setting were you are does not decide 100% what you write about). The point is, why try to add stuff you hate?
Okay. A problem arises.
You like something, so you are afraid to copy.
You like something, but you don’t want to plagiarize!
Ursula Le Guin considered the HP books a blend, of the common Fantasy-Magic and the England Genre the Boarding House. Diana Wynne Jones believed that Rowling was influenced by he books, just do to similarities. Ask a kid or teen they will tell you it is original. But ask a person who grew up and read EE Nesbit, Inklings, Diana Wynne Jones and Ursula Le Guin (and latin) would tell you that its originality was birthed from multiple sources--or multiple influences. Really originality is blending. (Cowboys Vs. Aliens?) Originality is by many--look at Pixar’s Toy Story it was created by a group, a duzy of ideas and backrounds.( John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, Joe Ranft)
If you get caught up, which happens a lot, worried about plagiarizing you are not trying to. Makes sense right? Worrying about ideas and rules will ultimately lead to you either not finishing or ruining your train of thought.
Write what you care about.
Don’t get me wroing. The first point is valid and used hugely for young adults and amateur writers. In fact it is one hundred percent logical--one online course encourages to write from your past--thousand authors agree. However do you want to write and enjoy it? To write fluidly? WRITE ABOUT WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT.
“HE WHO HATH NOT LOVE IS A CLANGING CYMBOL.”
You know alot of things you don’t care about, taxes, politics, hobos. Yeah. You don’t have to write about them. In The Idiot’s Guide to Writing a Novel says how he knows women who all they can write about is about the home life (however this is not 100% accurate. Katherine Paterson wrote while being a housewife. Pilgrims progress wrote in prison. Setting were you are does not decide 100% what you write about). The point is, why try to add stuff you hate?
Okay. A problem arises.
You like something, so you are afraid to copy.
You like something, but you don’t want to plagiarize!
Ursula Le Guin considered the HP books a blend, of the common Fantasy-Magic and the England Genre the Boarding House. Diana Wynne Jones believed that Rowling was influenced by he books, just do to similarities. Ask a kid or teen they will tell you it is original. But ask a person who grew up and read EE Nesbit, Inklings, Diana Wynne Jones and Ursula Le Guin (and latin) would tell you that its originality was birthed from multiple sources--or multiple influences. Really originality is blending. (Cowboys Vs. Aliens?) Originality is by many--look at Pixar’s Toy Story it was created by a group, a duzy of ideas and backrounds.( John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, Joe Ranft)
If you get caught up, which happens a lot, worried about plagiarizing you are not trying to. Makes sense right? Worrying about ideas and rules will ultimately lead to you either not finishing or ruining your train of thought.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
A More Likeable Story
 |
| Emotional outbreak from Story |
Orson Welles, a great American orator renowned for his rants and Bill O'reilly tantrums and creative prowless, recorded his version of H.G's Well's War of the Worlds. His stories would be very realistic and tell of impending attacks from foreign invaders. By tossing in "real" people, places, things and scientific proof the audience was scared to death. Some even committed suicide and killed themselves from such convincing. (Kudos to my teacher for showing this, and I wish I could say I found this myself.)
As a story teller, if you want a believable story, you want believable things: theories, people, facts, places. In many apocolypse like books and movies, you want to scare them with mutated cells or viruses or HN1 flue. In historic fiction this is more evident. Take National Treasure, they pop in historic figures and ideas to compel the plot!
Q: However, one might prose is, what about Fantasy? Science fiction I can see why you would put "theories and facts" but Fantasy? Isn't their more leeway in Fantasy?
Like most fantasy novels a step away from all other novels, we must take a slight step away. But keep in close proximity to the subject.
But, you have to have a story with realistic charactars. (Rarely)Are there any characters in stories that you cannot relate too some way! And, if they were alive, that their charactar can realistically stay alive. I can totally imagine a Jack Sparrow walking around currently in the bar, conning his way in Trump Tower, I can imagine a (humanoid) Gimli walking around with a glass of scotch in one hand in our world.
You give these guys realistic charactars. It doesn't necessarily have to be in items or props.
Plus. Disease everyone can relate to. Family feuds. Trying to protect people you love. People can relate to that. Though it doesn't connect 100% with science fiction's ways of making a good plot, it does help provide a stronger plot. And people can relate to things like that.
Q: However, one might prose is, what about Fantasy? Science fiction I can see why you would put "theories and facts" but Fantasy? Isn't their more leeway in Fantasy?
Like most fantasy novels a step away from all other novels, we must take a slight step away. But keep in close proximity to the subject.
 |
You give these guys realistic charactars. It doesn't necessarily have to be in items or props.
Plus. Disease everyone can relate to. Family feuds. Trying to protect people you love. People can relate to that. Though it doesn't connect 100% with science fiction's ways of making a good plot, it does help provide a stronger plot. And people can relate to things like that.
(REALISTIC CHARACTERISTICS=BELIEVABLE)
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Lost Characters hit or miss? Jack Shephard
 |
| Dr. Shephard |
Jack Shephard:
Brief Bio: Jack instantly became the leader in the beginning of the series--the "de facto leader". He remains calm and collected in dire situation, this is also due to him being a doctor. He get depressed and conflicted when unable to help anyone or was unable to help anyone. He hates to fail and has an OCD to help anyone he can. He is quick to analysis and very confident in facts versus John Locke's faith based view.
Naomi Dorrit: Jack, can I ask you a question?
Jack Shephard: Sure.
Naomi Dorrit: What did you do for a living before you became Moses?
Jack Shephard: Sure.
Naomi Dorrit: What did you do for a living before you became Moses?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)