And here I am, wasting time looking at blogs. -_-U
For those of you who don't know, Nanowrimo (National Novel Writing Month) is a world-wide novel writing event. The goal is to write 50,000 words in one month, which totals to around 1,667 words per day. Each person signs up on the website, joins their local chapter, and sets to begin with feverish writing at midnight November 1st.
Now, some people outline, draw up character profiles, the works. Last year I began with the beginnings of a story I had scrawled when I should have been paying attention to Chemistry (sorry Mr. Sealey), and a handful of characters. That's it. No treasure map of a plotline, no characters waiting in the wings, not even a real setting. I didn't even really know where I was going with it.In fact, it wasn't until about halfway through that I actually knew why all of these kids were being gathered together in the back of a hippie van, only that they were, and it was important. I didn't have a means to reach that ultimate goal until I turned the 40-something woman into a hyper-intelligent 14-year-old.
The funny thing about writing, though: it doesn't really matter if you don't know where you're going, because your characters do. Peshmerga wouldn't have nearly reached the 50,000 mark without Garret and a crafty use of a reverse deus ex machina (Psh, mythical beings solving problems. Much more interesting when they cause said problems).
I guess what I'm saying is that I encourage everyone with even a fleeting interest in writing to go for the gold, the prizes (last year was a free copy of your book through CreateSpace!), the NanoGlory.
So get those plot bunnies running, we have a novel to write!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Bookmash!
A few bookmashes (thanks for the link, Mr. Center!)
Forever Odd
My name is Asher Lev.
I am the messenger,
the guardian,
the good guy
forever odd.
First Test:
Cannery Row
left behind
brightly burning.
Deadline:
High noon.
Napalm and silly putty.
Fade to black.
Forever Odd
My name is Asher Lev.
I am the messenger,
the guardian,
the good guy
forever odd.
First Test:
Cannery Row
left behind
brightly burning.
Deadline:
High noon.
Napalm and silly putty.
Fade to black.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Compartmentalization
When looking for a title for this post, as for most titles, this term popped into my head: compartmentalization. Now, I only have the fleeting knowledge that a year of Psychology 1 in high school can give, so what did I do? Googled it, of course! As soon as I pressed enter I was inundated with Wikipedia links, all for compartmentalization, all with different meanings tied from the kite tail: biology, computer science, engineering, fire protection, intelligence, psychology, and, inexplicably, the decay of trees.
I won't bore with unnecessary details (that would be rambling. why do I always feel like I'm rambling? And why am I talking to myself?), but suffice to say that they were generally diversified. It struck me as interesting, though, that three hovered around the same basic definition.
Computer science brought me to a page about information hiding. It basically stated that compartmentalization, or encapsulation, allowed information to be substituted freely as long as it performed the same function, and that none of it really mattered anyway because it's all fronted by the query screen, the desktop, and very few people ever really see the 'thought process' behind it.
Intelligence (not Smarts, Espionage): This is actually the strategy more commonly known as 'need-to-know information'. This theory is that the few people who know the details, the smaller the chance is that the information will fall into the wrong hands.
Last, and what I was actually looking for, Psychology: This definition deals with an obsessive, reaching, almost arbitrary act of grouping things together that are inconsistent with other groups. Think of it as organization for the psychologically unstable. Imagine that you had two boxes. In one, venomous rattlesnakes. In the other, tiny, month-old kittens. Each of these boxes contain a side of you, two polar opposites that CANNOT MIX. The rattlesnake box is everything bad about you, everything you don't like. The kitten box is all things good and right about you. The boxes put everything into black-and-white, oversimplified terms.
It's interesting to me that these three seemingly different meanings use the same word, and, at the core, cover the same thing.
Let's mix them together, shall we? Combining these three definitions, we are left with a complex inner landscape. From the outside, this character is calm and collected, the 'desktop screen'. All information is stored securely behind the screen, held tight to the chest, and only given with the correct passwords and queries, lest information be taken and used against them. Inside, things are tidy, orderly, but only superficially. At the first glance, all things work together, but are separate. If one piece of information no longer serves its purpose, it is seamlessly replaced with a new nugget, one that fits better into the system, into the boxes.
We take a step forward. The boxes and compartments, so meticulously built and filled, are flawed. Each piece is oversimplified; yellow pieces are in the light box because they are lighter. Purple pieces are in the dark box because they are lighter. Blue pieces are in both, but only when it is convenient, because they want to feel like they are in the right when they commit a certain act, but the other person is in the wrong when the act is committed against them.
And to think that I had no idea what I was writing about when I began this post.
All I know is that I have plenty of time, and words are amusing.
I won't bore with unnecessary details (that would be rambling. why do I always feel like I'm rambling? And why am I talking to myself?), but suffice to say that they were generally diversified. It struck me as interesting, though, that three hovered around the same basic definition.
Computer science brought me to a page about information hiding. It basically stated that compartmentalization, or encapsulation, allowed information to be substituted freely as long as it performed the same function, and that none of it really mattered anyway because it's all fronted by the query screen, the desktop, and very few people ever really see the 'thought process' behind it.
Intelligence (not Smarts, Espionage): This is actually the strategy more commonly known as 'need-to-know information'. This theory is that the few people who know the details, the smaller the chance is that the information will fall into the wrong hands.
Last, and what I was actually looking for, Psychology: This definition deals with an obsessive, reaching, almost arbitrary act of grouping things together that are inconsistent with other groups. Think of it as organization for the psychologically unstable. Imagine that you had two boxes. In one, venomous rattlesnakes. In the other, tiny, month-old kittens. Each of these boxes contain a side of you, two polar opposites that CANNOT MIX. The rattlesnake box is everything bad about you, everything you don't like. The kitten box is all things good and right about you. The boxes put everything into black-and-white, oversimplified terms.
It's interesting to me that these three seemingly different meanings use the same word, and, at the core, cover the same thing.
Let's mix them together, shall we? Combining these three definitions, we are left with a complex inner landscape. From the outside, this character is calm and collected, the 'desktop screen'. All information is stored securely behind the screen, held tight to the chest, and only given with the correct passwords and queries, lest information be taken and used against them. Inside, things are tidy, orderly, but only superficially. At the first glance, all things work together, but are separate. If one piece of information no longer serves its purpose, it is seamlessly replaced with a new nugget, one that fits better into the system, into the boxes.
We take a step forward. The boxes and compartments, so meticulously built and filled, are flawed. Each piece is oversimplified; yellow pieces are in the light box because they are lighter. Purple pieces are in the dark box because they are lighter. Blue pieces are in both, but only when it is convenient, because they want to feel like they are in the right when they commit a certain act, but the other person is in the wrong when the act is committed against them.
And to think that I had no idea what I was writing about when I began this post.
All I know is that I have plenty of time, and words are amusing.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Once Upon a Time: The Modern Destruction of Visual Representations
Since time began, people have created stories. We all remember hearing the generic tale of the evil villains, courageous heroes, and the fair maidens who win their hearts. These cookie-cutter characters have been used, in some variation, over and over throughout time in stories, most recently in video media. In fact, if put on the spot, most of us would tell a story using the same generic characters. Why is that, you may ask? Why does a culture so focused on originality fall back to Dark-Ages stereotypes? It is because we have been taught since birth to use them, that each mean, respectively, Good, Evil, and Love. These character stereotypes were, and still are, used to give a physical, visual representation of abstract concepts. Without these models from which to draw, most wouldn't know where to begin to explain good, evil, or love.
We begin with the Hero, the stalwart champion, the physical embodiment of all that is good and right in the world. If one asked a few hundred years ago what a hero looked like, most would answer that he would be tall, covered in scars, and be clothed in armor and chain-mail, perhaps sitting atop his valiant steed. The hero is handsome, kind, noble. He is the epitome of Good. The visual representation, at that time, described a knight, the protector of the small. Nowadays, in our modern world of comic books and movies, a hero would be clad in less rather than more, choosing to sport spandex unitards, masks, and capes instead of metal armor, and, more often than not, choose keen intellect over brute force. Quite the change in just a few hundred years, more obtainable in some ways, less in others. Spandex may be easier to find, but, unfortunately, super strength is not.
The second character introduced is the Villain, the vile heathen, the epitome of evil. There is a more balanced ratio of men-to-women cast as villains as opposed to heroic females or men in distress. The men are usually visualized as wearing a lot of black, having an evil cackle, perhaps stroking a cat. The women are generally witches of some sort, whether it be the Wicked Witch of the West or Maleficent, and are forever casting horrible, evil spells of one sort or another. The villain spends all of his time plotting, scheming, trying to find ways to thwart the hero, take over the world, or create a doomsday machine. The villain does evil deeds just for fun, out of boredom, or, more often than not, simply because he is evil. End of story. In fairytales, that is as deep as the villain representation goes. The villain is evil, and evil is wrong, and that's the way it is.
Finally we come to the Damsel in Distress the helpless princess. This is the frail woman who is captured by the evil Villain and needs the Hero to rescue her. The damsel is beautiful, with long, flowing hair, radiant skin, and eyes like diamonds. She is the purest, most perfect, most helpless thing femininity has to offer. Unlike the Hero or Villain personae, the Damsel is always female, no matter the story. Men are simply not helpless, and do not need rescuing. The damsel also inevitably rewards her rescuer with her undying love. She is love, in those stories. It doesn't matter how little the Hero knows about her, the Damsel is Love, pure and simple, happily ever after. Their love is the thing all strive to obtain. It is the representation, as close to visual as such a thing can be.
Hollywood, however, seems to be changing these cookie-cutter representations of Good, Evil, and Love. The Hero, for example could be any number of people. More often than not, the modern hero is just a regular person, man or woman, who is thrown into the fray and given the responsibility of the safety of the world, and grudgingly does as he or she needs to do. The Hero is no longer the gung-ho beacon of chivalry and righteousness that he used to be. Though we still regard him as a hero, he is now just another man. Someone we can strive to be, of course, but more like us. More real, and less abstract.
The character of Evil is becoming more complex; Hollywood has given reason behind the cruelty of the Villain. He is not simply all things that are wrong with the world. He has a story all his own, logic. He has more reason to be evil than simply because he's evil. In short, the Villain, too, has become more human, more reachable. He is no longer a visual representation, but a facet of a character.
Finally, Hollywood has robbed us of the Damsel, in all of her helpless glory, and in robbing us of her have robbed us of the pure, fairytale love. The damsel has been replaced by the strong, confident, self-assured woman whom the leading male needs to win over. There is no undying, boundless, instant love any more. Everything has restrictions, endings.
In the end, for adults, there are no more fairytales. The real world is fast encroaching, and we learn, earlier and earlier in life, that there are no happy endings, that the Hero doesn't always win, the Villain doesn't always lose, and the Damsel doesn't always fall for the Hero. In fact, sometimes she falls for the Villain. Sometimes the one we think is the Hero is the Villain in disguise. Sometimes the two are the same. In short, we have no more true visual representations of Good, Evil, and Love any more, at least not in Media, and what Media thinks will eventually become what mankind thinks. The absolutes we were taught and believed in as children are no longer absolutes. Instead, our Heroes, Villains, Damsels, have been humanized, and are no longer the abstract concepts they used to embody so simply. In short, our fairytales have grown up.
We begin with the Hero, the stalwart champion, the physical embodiment of all that is good and right in the world. If one asked a few hundred years ago what a hero looked like, most would answer that he would be tall, covered in scars, and be clothed in armor and chain-mail, perhaps sitting atop his valiant steed. The hero is handsome, kind, noble. He is the epitome of Good. The visual representation, at that time, described a knight, the protector of the small. Nowadays, in our modern world of comic books and movies, a hero would be clad in less rather than more, choosing to sport spandex unitards, masks, and capes instead of metal armor, and, more often than not, choose keen intellect over brute force. Quite the change in just a few hundred years, more obtainable in some ways, less in others. Spandex may be easier to find, but, unfortunately, super strength is not.
The second character introduced is the Villain, the vile heathen, the epitome of evil. There is a more balanced ratio of men-to-women cast as villains as opposed to heroic females or men in distress. The men are usually visualized as wearing a lot of black, having an evil cackle, perhaps stroking a cat. The women are generally witches of some sort, whether it be the Wicked Witch of the West or Maleficent, and are forever casting horrible, evil spells of one sort or another. The villain spends all of his time plotting, scheming, trying to find ways to thwart the hero, take over the world, or create a doomsday machine. The villain does evil deeds just for fun, out of boredom, or, more often than not, simply because he is evil. End of story. In fairytales, that is as deep as the villain representation goes. The villain is evil, and evil is wrong, and that's the way it is.
Finally we come to the Damsel in Distress the helpless princess. This is the frail woman who is captured by the evil Villain and needs the Hero to rescue her. The damsel is beautiful, with long, flowing hair, radiant skin, and eyes like diamonds. She is the purest, most perfect, most helpless thing femininity has to offer. Unlike the Hero or Villain personae, the Damsel is always female, no matter the story. Men are simply not helpless, and do not need rescuing. The damsel also inevitably rewards her rescuer with her undying love. She is love, in those stories. It doesn't matter how little the Hero knows about her, the Damsel is Love, pure and simple, happily ever after. Their love is the thing all strive to obtain. It is the representation, as close to visual as such a thing can be.
Hollywood, however, seems to be changing these cookie-cutter representations of Good, Evil, and Love. The Hero, for example could be any number of people. More often than not, the modern hero is just a regular person, man or woman, who is thrown into the fray and given the responsibility of the safety of the world, and grudgingly does as he or she needs to do. The Hero is no longer the gung-ho beacon of chivalry and righteousness that he used to be. Though we still regard him as a hero, he is now just another man. Someone we can strive to be, of course, but more like us. More real, and less abstract.
The character of Evil is becoming more complex; Hollywood has given reason behind the cruelty of the Villain. He is not simply all things that are wrong with the world. He has a story all his own, logic. He has more reason to be evil than simply because he's evil. In short, the Villain, too, has become more human, more reachable. He is no longer a visual representation, but a facet of a character.
Finally, Hollywood has robbed us of the Damsel, in all of her helpless glory, and in robbing us of her have robbed us of the pure, fairytale love. The damsel has been replaced by the strong, confident, self-assured woman whom the leading male needs to win over. There is no undying, boundless, instant love any more. Everything has restrictions, endings.
In the end, for adults, there are no more fairytales. The real world is fast encroaching, and we learn, earlier and earlier in life, that there are no happy endings, that the Hero doesn't always win, the Villain doesn't always lose, and the Damsel doesn't always fall for the Hero. In fact, sometimes she falls for the Villain. Sometimes the one we think is the Hero is the Villain in disguise. Sometimes the two are the same. In short, we have no more true visual representations of Good, Evil, and Love any more, at least not in Media, and what Media thinks will eventually become what mankind thinks. The absolutes we were taught and believed in as children are no longer absolutes. Instead, our Heroes, Villains, Damsels, have been humanized, and are no longer the abstract concepts they used to embody so simply. In short, our fairytales have grown up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)