|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Aug 23, 2018 23:43:33 GMT -5
GOING FORWARD: What does Thomas The Tank Engine mean to our Forum?
It's no secret that as part of the reboot, Thomas will no longer be a part of the main game... or a central focus of this forum. So what does that mean going forward? Well, Thomas will always be special to our admin team, as a show we grew up with, but we recognize that we cannot call ourselves Thomas-Centric. Therefore, "TTTE" as abbreviated, will no longer be considered an important part of the forum. While we will allow TTTE stories as part of our library of creative writing, that does not mean it will be the only show's fan stories allowed here. It also means that they will not get special treatment or be singled out as special among the stories. From now on we are a creative writing forum, and while we are happy with what we accomplished in the past, the time has come to embrace what we have become and make the necessary changes.
Will we see Thomas stories post-forum reboot? Who knows; it's hard to say what the future has in store, but know this: just because our primary projects will have no TTTE connections... does not mean we may revisit our old stomping ground from time to time. A little story may pop up here and there, but otherwise we will have many doors opened now that we are creative writing-centric.
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Aug 24, 2018 12:53:40 GMT -5
Ok, took longer than expected but I FINALLY finished the great villain post. Should be ready for posting once Eyes returns from vacation
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Aug 25, 2018 1:50:52 GMT -5
So now that it's finished, does the importance of the LM villains post make sense now?
And eyes- I'm not sure if you decided yet, but do you want to write a perspective on this?
|
|
|
Post by Biblically Accurate Angel on Aug 25, 2018 2:32:52 GMT -5
I haven’t decided yet.
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Aug 25, 2018 22:43:50 GMT -5
THE WRITER'S PERSPECTIVE PART SIX: Power of the Retcon: When writers play God Don't you ever wish that you could go back and change something? Maybe it was a choice you made or a words you said, but has there ever been a situation where you just wish you could go back and change something? I think all of us have had moments like that- but in the real world what happened has happened and there is no changing it... no matter how stupid the decision or how reckless an action. The world of the written, however, is not governed by such rules. Writers have a powerful tool at their disposal that allows them to go back and change things, regardless of what already happened. Retroactive Continuity, or Retcon for short, is the act of putting forward new facts or information which can either give new interpretation to previously established facts... or contradict them all together. Why do this? A variety of reasons can be behind a retcon... so much so that they cannot be covered in a single post. But lets look at a couple common ones. According to wikipedia, common reasons involve: .To accommodate desired aspects of sequels or derivative works which would otherwise be ruled out; .To correct and overcome errors or problems identified in the prior work since its publication; .To change how the prior work should be interpreted; .To match reality, when assumptions or projections of the future are later proven wrong Indeed, it is the retcon which enables the writer to have the power to go back and change events for whatever reason... in effect, he becomes the God over the world he created. In the main game, we homage this by having The Writer himself intervene from time to time... a being so powerful even Mister Marvelous fears him. But as Uncle Ben from Marvel Comics said best- with great power comes great responsibility. While the retcon is indeed a powerful tool, it must be used responsibly. For you see, overuse of the retcon can lead to confusion over what is canon and what is not... and indeed, our main game has had so many retcons that it can be hard to figure out what is and isn't canon anymore. Guess this brings up two important questions: should a writer retcon? Well, that depends- a retcon is not something that should happen for the sake of happening. If a retcon is going to take place, it must have reason and purpose. Was a prior entry weak and in need of strengthening? Did earlier ideas become irrelevant by new continuity? A retcon can fix these issues, but remember this: don't just "hand wave" the old continuity away. Unless said "old" continuity was so weak, problematic or just plain dumb that it isn't even worth mentioning, a retcon works best when it "bridges the gaps" between old and new. A retcon, unless for the prior stated reasons, should not just outright contradict the established... it needs to build off it or give it another level that alters the meaning or significance for it to be effective. For example- more than a year ago, I wrote the tale of Sir Adrian from Colormen lore... a cautionary tale warning of what happens when the unworthy try to steal The Prism's magic (spoliers ahead) Deemed unworthy by the spirit, an enraged Sir Adrian drew his sword and struck at it... only to be petrified and turned to solid stone for his act. Subsequently during the first era Sir Adrian was made a "guard" of the Prism... his presence a grim warning to those who dare steal the power they are not worthy of. Toz built off that not too long ago... suggesting there was more to Sir Adrian's motives. A ritual, even, to steal the power for himself. While there are various reasons why stealing The Prism's power is a terrible idea (refer to the fate of the former Woman in NWR Blue), Toz brilliantly showed how a proper retcon works- don't contradict, build off. But in the future, an even bigger, more massive retcon will be taking place. That's right, the upcoming forum reboot can be interpret as the mother of all retcons... stripping away the TTTE origins and history in favor of a new, original canon not shackled by it's niche origins. In conclusion, beware the power of the retcon. It can save a canon when used properly... but if used incorrectly, it leads to confusion, contradictions, and worst of all... terrible sequels
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Aug 26, 2018 16:45:41 GMT -5
Well, my vacation wraps up tomorrow- but the good news is I was able to get my blog posts I wanted to get done completed, and once we get the blog up and running again we should be set for a while
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Sept 3, 2018 0:46:53 GMT -5
THE WRITER'S PERSPECTIVE PART SEVEN: Damsel In Distress- Can it Still Work? It's a trope we've seen one too many times- the damsel (almost always female; usually a princess or some other kind of "high priority target" of sorts) has been captured by the big bad of the story due to an underlying motive (usually holding for ransom, revenge against a family member of hers, or because of a twisted "love" for the damsel and he wants to be with her). This means its time for the hero to step in and rescue her (a knight, a soldier, close friend with special skills... you get the idea). The hero goes on a quest to rescue the damsel; which usually means going through a variety of dangerous locations and fighting wave after wave of the big bad's underlings (or traps, if he works alone). Then, the big climax- the hero confronts the villain directly as the damsel watches in anticipation of what will happen. The big bag has the upper hand for a while, and then, just when it looks like its all over... the hero deals the killing blow and the big bad is defeated... which usually means falling dead or severely incapacitated. He frees the damsel, they fall in love and go off into the sunset, happily ever after... a trope that has been around for as long as entertainment itself. And yet, there are those who will argue that this trope has now become overdone and... quite frankly, arguably sexist. Let's look at why: When it comes to the trope, the focus is usually on the hero, and his quest to find and rescue the damsel. This is true in all forms of media, from video games: To movies: Heck, even comic books use it to the point where it's pretty much expected: So what's the deal with it anyway? Why is it so frequently used? While it is pretty hard to give that a definitive answer, i have a few ideas. (to be continued tomorrow; too tired)
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Oct 1, 2018 14:50:35 GMT -5
(Will edit posts together once on laptop; editing from phone is a pain in the neck)
First and foremost- its a time tested tripe that has been around for centuries. Granted, some authors get creative and shake things up, but even today the key elements still make their way into stories.
Second- the kidnapped damsel is the action that drives the plot forward in the first place; it is the kidnapping that sends the hero on his quest to confront the villain, and there is something important about said damsel that is linked to the motive for the villain acting in the first place.
And third- it appeals to the reader in some way. There are those who admire the hero for daring to take such a dangerous quest, and in some cases, there are those who dream about being rescued by a “knight in shining armor” and reading about this story appeals to that desire.
But that begs the question... by 21st century standards, is the Trope sexist?
Today, people think of “damsel in distress” that way because of how it comes off: the damsel, usually a dimensionless, flat character who exists solely as a plot device, end up being rescued by the big, strong hero and they live happily ever after.
And everything is guilty of this; take movies for example. Disney’s Sleeping Beauty is a treasured classic, yet Aurora is, as a character... not that remarkable. She’s only in about 1/3 of the film, has less than 20 lines of dialog and only one song. In fact, the climax of the film is Prince Phillip killing Maleficent and rescuing her from her... sleep. And of course they fall in love and live happily ever after.
Or video games- The iconic Dragon’s Lair is one of the most acclaimed video games of all time, and one of only three video games on display in the Smithsonian Institution. The driving force behind Dirk is to save princess Daphne, the damsel in distress who not only sees little character development, but is remembered primarily for being the archetypal “sultry blonde bimbo” and being, more or less, Dirk’s “trophy” for slaying the dragon and saving her.
But let’s backtrack for a moment- why make the female so... helpless... in the first place? Simple- if she was able to fight for herself and free herself, then there is no point for the hero to take action in the first place; the quest never takes place and there’s no story to tell. Can you imagine a Super Mario Bros where Peach defeated Bowser on her own; that game would have been over in 30 seconds. Therefore, it seems that she’s helpless because it is out of necessity to the plot.
That being said, in an era where people want to see female leads akin to Lara Croft, Samus Aran, (insert more when I’m not drawing a blank), can the Trope still work?
The answer- yes, if played off correctly.
Instead of a Princess Aurora or Princess Daphne, how about a Lara Croft or Samus Aran, who is an equal to our hero, but in a position where unable to fight back. Maybe she’s wounded, maybe the villain is more skilled, maybe blackmail is involved; I don’t know, but it certainly beats just having a characterless “blonde bimbo.”
Heck, maybe when the hero comes to save her, upon rescue she’s able to fight with the hero and takes down the villain with said hero.
That being said- having the damsel defeat the villain before the hero comes should be discouraged... but not for the reason you think. Having the villain already defeated upon the hero’s arrival makes the story feel anti-climactic, and should be avoided in favor of other alternatives
(Note: I acknowledge that it is my opinion; but it truly does feel anti-climactic when you think about)
Now, let’s hear from you, fellow readers and writers- can damsel in distress still work, or do we need to retire the Trope? Share your thoughts and let’s oprn this to Discussion
|
|
|
Post by Biblically Accurate Angel on Oct 1, 2018 17:28:09 GMT -5
THE DANGER OF STICKING TO THE RULES
Literature is expansive. Millions upon millions of books, stories, poems, plays, etc have been written over the years, and all from a wide variety of authors from all different walks of life. You have your Leo Tolstoys, your Ayn Rands, your Agatha Christies, your Edgar Allan Poes, your Kurt Vonneguts, the list goes on. All these authors are different, and all of them wrote different things. Mysteries, historical fiction, romance novels, novels about future times, novels about the past, novels about the present, yadda yadda yadda. If everyone had written the same story the same way without writing any differently than anyone else, books would have fallen out of favor a long time ago. But because each author uses their own passions and ideas in different ways than others do, they each bring something to the table and each has a different set of fans.
That's how things should be in pretty much everything - music, paintings, government, society, etc. At 3WSR, we've managed to find our differences and use them to meld into a common point. We each have characters and aspects of our stories that we like to focus on over other ones, and by using this array, we manage to create some works which wouldn't have happened otherwise. They're true 'literary mosaics', if you will.
Everyone writes differently, and that's a good thing. Each person has something they think could work and they decide to pick up a pen and put it to paper. No one thinks about structure or "would it be wrong to do this" - they just see how it goes and if it sounds good at the end or not.
Which brings me to my point - it's not a good idea to stick to any "rules" other people come up with when you're writing your story.
Tropes and stereotypes and hero's quest and whatever else - someone says something is done a certain way and everything else is done that way, or someone says this plot idea has been used too often and should never be used again - whatever. Don't listen to these people, because they don't know diddley-squat about you and your story.
Sure, sometimes it may feel like a thing has been used to death, but that shouldn't matter, because you never know when the next person comes along and uses it and actually succeeds with it. People don't want stale, by-the-book writing, they want imaginative writing, writing that goes beyond the original idea, and sometimes that includes using a certain trope. That shouldn't be a mark against the author, it should be viewed simply on how well it works within the story.
Criticism is good, it helps you to work on becoming better as a writer, but honestly, when you write something, it should be for your own satisfaction. Having others like it is merely a bonus. Listening to criticism is a good thing, and you should certainly try to incorporate some of their advice into your writing, but the most important thing is - are you satisfied with what you wrote? Did you enjoy writing it? If you don't like writing something, then why write it at all? If you did like writing it, then other opinions should be an afterthought.
Let me give you some examples. Herman Melville's Moby Dick and John Carpenter's The Thing were both panned when they were published / released, and yet today are considered classics among American novels / horror films. Other times, something that most people dislike will be viewed as great by just a few people, and they count. Iron Maiden's The X Factor was viewed as shit when it was released, but it's easily one of my favorite albums of all time.
So don't worry about the rules and about the tropes and this and that. Just write, and have fun. Nothing else matters much. Conforming to guidelines other people place upon your writing will only disgruntle you, and that'll show in your work. It's not a win/win situation. If you legitimately loved writing your story, then someone out there will see that too and love it for that.
But that's just me, and you all know how terrible I am at writing, so go ahead and disregard this along with that.
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Oct 1, 2018 19:54:02 GMT -5
A very interesting point Eyes; to be fair I wasn’t advocating “sticking to rules” or anything like that
With writer’s Perspective, remember: these posts are meant to open up discussion on different aspects of the written word. In this case, we look back on one of the most common tropes in media, make commentary on it, and address a very real problem the Trope does face in the 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by Biblically Accurate Angel on Oct 1, 2018 21:39:00 GMT -5
And there’s nothing wrong with that. My post is more of a statement to all those who may be put off from writing by analyses and whatnot.
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Oct 6, 2018 23:02:38 GMT -5
THE WRITER'S PERSPECTIVE
PART EIGHT: Writing as a group- How we create long form stories
Just HOW do we pull off what we do around here? Four guys from across the vast stretches of the internet somehow come together on one website, and write stories that sound coherent. On the surface, it does sound like a tricky task, but once you get the hang of it, it's actually pretty straightforward. Now I know what some of you may be thinking: Frank, you and your buddies are an established group, how can outsiders get in on the fun? Good question, and the answer is simple. The trick to participating in any long form game with multiple writers is to remember four key principles. Sure, things can vary from story to story, but keep these four principles in mind and you'll be able to tackle any long form game, with any amount of writers.
1) The first thing to remember is PORK- Perception, Or Reading Keenly. Take note of what the story is about; get a sense of the direction it's going in. Writing a story isn't a simple manner of putting words to a post- you need to understand the story, know what is going on. The best stories are able to appeal to readers not just because they entertain, but because they have depth and the ability to do more than simply be a string of dialogue and actions. Take in everything you read, and once you know and understand what the story is- take it to the next level.
2) Next you need to keep CLEVER in mind- Consistency LEaVes Everything Robust. Every writer brings something unique to the table, and can add to the story in his or her own way. However, it is important to remember that when writing a story, you need to have some degree of consistency from writer to writer. For example, if one writer portrays a character as calm and collected person, don't suddenly portray him as erratic and emotional without greater context. If the heroes of the story are currently on a quest in a desert town, don't suddenly portray them as being on a desolate mountaintop. Granted, there are times, mainly for comedic purposes, where there can be little to no consistency from post to post for certain aspects... and that's ok if it's the kind of story you have decided to pursue. Remember though- great stories have strong canons, and keeping things consistent can really help build the story's world down the line.
3) Remember the COMPASS- COMmunication Prepares All for Strong Stories. Being spontaneous can be fun, but eventually as stories grow and canon develops, a point is eventually reached where ideas need to be discussed beforehand. Holding back some information is fine and all if you want to surprise others with a twist, but be careful: holding back too much information can make it hard for others to contribute effectively since they essentially have to "work blind" and make guesses based on what you have in mind for the twist. In some cases, ideas you had in your head have to be thrown out because of how others developed a story. But take the time to talk to your fellow authors- maybe there are ideas that can be salvaged and reworked in ways you didn't think of initially. Either way- communication among writers is a sure way to ensure that plots that would otherwise go off in various directions with little regard for others' ideas maintain at least some degree of grounding. In fact- the best writing groups are the ones that actively communicate and share ideas to build off one another, so if you're not sure where to go with a plot... talk to your fellow authors; the next great idea is just a conversation away.
4) Finally, remember that you must have a TARIFF- Treat All Responses in Forum Fairly. Everyone who takes part in a story has just as much of a right to take part in the story as you do. Unless agreed upon before hand, there really shouldn't be any single person taking charge of the story (again, unless the situation calls for it). Furthermore, unless someone is making posts that take away more from a story than adding to it (determined on a situational level), or is just outright spamming or making non-constructive posts, there really is no reason to discourage anyone from posting to a story. It is always better to help and encourage someone to do better than to just outright "kick them out" if you will. When one replies to a story and it is your turn to post, don't just ignore or contradict what was said... build off it if you can, or transition and go into something else in a context that makes sense.
In short, anyone can participate in a writing group by keeping PORK, CLEVER, COMPASS and TARIFF in mind. Or, if acronyms aren't your thing:
1) Understand the story you are reading; then write for it and take it to the next level
2) Keep key elements consistent from writer to writer, while embracing the unique flavors each writer brings to the table
3) Communicate your ideas to fellow writers so you can understand each other and get important feedback
4) Don't ignore posts simply because you don't like them; if it's something you're not sure how to reply to, let someone else take over, or perhaps communicate to ask where they are going. In addition, don't simply cut to somewhere else; build off what your fellow writer just described, or allow for a transition that makes sense.
Getting into writing as a group can be tricky at first- but once you iron out the flaws, it actually is all fun and games.
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Oct 14, 2018 12:36:45 GMT -5
So for my next post- my plan is actually the next Writer’s Perspective will be a “mini-series” of sorts- a series of posts that are interconnected to each other, United by a central theme. Stay tuned.
On another note- the way this thread is working out sincectheres also discussion, we may need a separate thread for completed articles alone; thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Biblically Accurate Angel on Oct 14, 2018 14:24:41 GMT -5
I don't think so. I'm trying to figure out how the future of the blog will work and if just making it a piece of 3WSR Forum itself would be an option, so an extra thread would only be good if we wanted the thread itself to be our blog. Which is also an option...
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Oct 14, 2018 14:26:31 GMT -5
A fair point. Toz did also have that Idea of a weekly put out that included Writer's perspective and other things; next time we're all on we should ask him to elaborate on that idea.
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Oct 26, 2018 13:12:56 GMT -5
THE WRITER’S PERSPECTIVE
PART NINE: Acknowledging Your Flaws- Nobody is a perfect writer, and that is ok
Everybody is different when it comes to writing. There’s different tastes, different styles and different genres. There’s also different levels of skill that must be acknowledged; people who have had the time to develop experience and perfect their craft do tend to be better writers than those new to it. Even so, the most experienced writers still have their weaknesses; even the greats weren’t perfect.
Take Dr. Seuss, one is the most celebrated children’s authors of all time. In 1939 he wrote a book called The Seven Lady Godivas; his first book targeted to an adult audience. As the story goes he only sold 2,500 of the initial run of 10,000 books; it is said that after that he lost all interest in writing for adults and focused on children’s literature. Indeed, he once quoted as saying he would rather “write for kids” and that “adults are obsolete children, and the hell with them.” He only wrote one more book targeted to adults... in 1986.
But that is not the point of this entry. We’re not here to discuss the flaws of other writers, nor am I here to discuss the flaws of my fellow writers on the forum. This is about acknowledging “your” flaws. Although this applies to everyone, as an example I with be focusing on my flaws.
Before we talk about me though, something important needs clarification: why do we need to acknowledge our flaws in the first place? The reason is two fold: one, it prevents you from falling victim to the Dunning-Kruger Effect; people tend to subconsciously overestimate how good they are at something, and this gives them a false confidence in their abilities. In the worst cases, people can become arrogant to the point of refusing to acknowledge their lack of skill. And the other reason is that it sets you up for success: by acknowledging that you are not a perfect writer, you open yourself up to constructive criticism (more on that later) from others so that you can improve your craft.
With that in mind, let’s take a look at my flaws as a writer, starting with...
1) I am terrible at character development
There has been some... debate, behind the scenes, that I made the Colormen Mary Sues at one point. If I did, it was far from intentional. I am good at writing action and narrative, and writing about events, but fleshing out characters has been a weakness of mine for a long time. So no, I never made the Colormen Mary Sues (which doesn't make sense anyway since the term refers to female characters) on purpose; I was so focused on writing events, backstory and narrative that I paid no attention to the impact this was having on the story. So much so, this was actually one of various factors that actually turned me away from them for a time. Going forward though, hopefully I can figure out how to make this work.
2) I tend to get really, REALLY caught up in world building
I love world building. I love setting the stage, fleshing out a canon, I love making a world feel alive and not like it is just focused around four guys on a quest. But sometimes, I get caught up in world building to a point that I lose focus on the narrative and the post comes off as more of a Wikipedia entry than a story. I love developing canons; I just wish I was better at expressing said development.
3) I can get really nervous about writing about things that are unfamiliar
Recently in the sitcom, I was hesitant to write about an LGBT couple because I felt myself unqualified since, to my embarrassment, I don't understand the LGBT community that well. (I can count on one hand the number of LGBT people I have met). So my mind starts racing on how I portray them... do I portray them as "normal" people; but then what is normal? And would it be more offensive to portray them normally, but I just said that they are LGBT so that has to play into their character somehow; it would be more offensive to "just say" they are LGBT without acknowledging it beyond that after all. But then what is an LGBT character? There's various ideas I have thanks to the media, but are they accurate or stereotypes?
Did any of that make sense? If it didn't... that's the point; my mind just couldn't handle a concept that I should understand better, and I started overthinking it. This is one reason why I tend to stick with things I know about when writing.
4) I have a tendency to kill stories with awkward posts
Long form stories can be tough even for someone used to them; sometimes when I post I end up writing and ending in such a way that no one knows what to do and the story stalls. It's happened more than once, much to my embarrassment. Ideas that I think are cool ways to end on... end up doing more harm than good.
5) There are times where my thinking is "too rigid"
Given that this is a fantasy story, there are fantastical elements that are to be expected in a story like this. When it comes to monsters and other things involved, I believe in remaining "faithful to the original sources" as I like to call it. Portraying dragons, orcs, orges, elves, etc. as they are "meant" to be portrayed. Why? To me, the idea of monsters isn't just that you can call a creature "X" and move on. There's a certain look, a feel, a characterization even that I feel needs to be respected, because anything less would be "bastardization" of the creatures involved, and, for me, it would actually be more offensive to not portray them that way.
For example- vampires. I interpret vampires based on the descriptions and standards set by the book that more or less set the standard for vampire lore: Dracula by Bram Stoker. A vampire needs to be faithful to what was established there in order to be a vampire.
So to me- vampires do NOT sparkle in the sunlight, (ugh; that was so dumb), for example. And, while I do enjoy anime, I'm sorry to say this- but a cute high school girl with unusually large canines who can walk in the sunlight and drinks tomato juice is not a vampire either (I will give credit to shows like Interviews with Monster Girls though, who do acknowledge the original ideas and make the attempt to explain why vampires don't do those things in their universe).
I will give credit to 30 Days of Night though- the creator openly admitted that he was reinventing the vampire in that one to be more like an "apex predator" than anything else, so that is something I can handle.
This brings me back to my original point: because my thinking can be too rigid at times and I can sometimes insist on myself on remaining faithful to the original materials; the idea of "reinventing" can sometimes be nerve-racking to me- because I am concerned that if I overdo a "reinventing," I end up "bastardizing" said thing and make it worse.
......
I never thought of myself as a perfect writer. And acknowledging that I am flawed reminds me that there is always room for improvement in my craft.
In the next segment, now that we have learned how to be critical of ourselves, now we need to think about how we give criticism to others.
|
|
|
Post by Toz76 on Oct 29, 2018 0:25:24 GMT -5
Fantasy Creatures in 3WSR: Subversion vs. Playing It Straight
When you want to use a traditional fantasy element in your story, you have two options: Go the traditional route, or change it in some way. Both have their merits, but I prefer subversions, as they make for more interesting, original, creative stories. For am example of both, see The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Skyrim features both Dragons and Orcs. Dragons are played straight- they fly, breathe fire (or sometimes ice), and attack mercilessly. Orcs, however, are a subversion. They still have recognizable orc traits: they're green, have a toothy underbite, and are quite physically strong. However, Orcs are portrayed as good, virtuous even, and are actually playable. They're very similar to Star Trek Klingons, with a warlike culture based on honor.
A lot of 3WSR is inspired by such medieval fantasy, so we have dragons, orcs, and a host of other things. Let's see how they stack up.
(NOTE: This pulls heavily on pre-reboot canon. This can change in the current continuity)
ORCS: Orcs caused so many gosh-dang fights over their portrayal. Should they be a subversion? Physically strong and toothy, but nice? Or hordes of irredeemable barbarians? For a long time, I favored the idea that orcs had assimilated into "civilized" society, abandoning their "primitive" tribal ways. But there's a problem with that. It's kinda racist. While the alternate proposal, a straight portrayal of violent, inherently evil hordes, was definitely worse (at one point a biologically-based "orcs are inferior because their brains are different" idea was proposed, which was way too close to eugenics for my taste), the problem with fictional orcs isn't that they're portrayed as nomadic hunters with a tribal culture, it's that that's portrayed as bad. They don't need to be savage and excessively violent, but they can be, that's fine. But they should never, NEVER, be portrayed as inherently evil or inferior. And don't go "it's just fiction". All fiction is racially coded in some way, and orcs in particular have a history of this.
DRAGONS: We played them mostly straight. We didn't mention them hoarding treasures, and there's a "zebra dragon" apparently, but we mostly didn't deviate from the mythos.
TO BE CONTINUED BECAUSE I HAD ANOTHER IDEA WHILE WRITING THIS
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Oct 29, 2018 1:33:37 GMT -5
THE WRITER'S PERSPECTIVE PART TEN: Delivering Criticism, the writer's most important tool for improvement In my last post, we discussed the importance of acknowledging one's own flaws as a means for self-improvement. Now we're going to turn things around and focus on delivering criticism to others. On the surface, criticism does seem pretty straightforward: if there's something we don't like, we voice our opinion on it to share it with others. While this is technically true, the reality is criticism is more complex than a simple disagreement over something. Just saying "I don't like this" or "this is terrible" is not criticism... that is an insult. This brings an important question: is there such a thing as a "right" way to do criticism and a "wrong" way? As a matter of fact, when it comes to writing there is. Let's break it down: You you are delivering criticism you are essentially saying you disagree with something; so let's consult a rather useful tool for this: Graham's Hierarchy of disagreement: From top to bottom, we see the strongest to weakest kinds of arguments that can be made. So how does this apply to writing? Putting into a Writer's Perspective: Refute the central point: When voicing criticism, the criticism is directed at the substance of what is written, with the reasoning behind your criticism being derived more so from your personal opinion Refutation: When delivering criticism, the criticism is directed at the substance, but instead of using your own words, your criticism is based mostly on example and comparison to other works as an example of how to improve the substance of the story. Counterargument: When making criticism, you don't necessarily criticize the substance of the story; rather, the focus on what could have been another way to do something and you explain why this works better in the context of the story Contradiction: When delivering criticism, little effort is made to actually criticize what is weak about the story and the focus is on "you should have done this." The difference between this and counterargument being that in a counterargument, an attempt is made to at least make some focus on what is wrong with the story, rather than focusing on a "solution" Responding to tone: rather than criticizing the substance of what is written, you criticize how it is written. If your criticism is more focused on how something is expressed versus the idea being expressed- that is not helpful criticism. Ad Hominem: Criticism directed at the author rather than the material is not helpful in anyway Name calling: That's not criticism, that's you being a jerk Now let's clarify: The top three tiers of the pyramid can be classified as "constructive criticism" since that is criticism that can help the author get better. The bottom 4 are "non-constructive criticism" which basically means not helpful to the author. That is the key when it comes to criticism: you do not criticize for the sake of criticizing, you criticize to help your fellow writers get better. This is why it is important to understand the important differences between the types of criticism you can make; by avoiding non-constructive criticism and focusing on the best kind of arguments you can make with said criticism, you can really help others out to become better writers. That is why criticism is the most important tool a writer has; praise is fine and makes you feel good, certainly, but criticism is how one learns from mistakes and improves technique. There are those who fear or hate criticism though, and to that I say this: always remember that one learns more from mistakes than from successes.
|
|
|
Post by frankthetriviaman on Nov 10, 2018 23:05:50 GMT -5
A Closer Look at The Man
Is Literary Mosaic's "weakest villain" rightfully called so?In a prior entry, you may recall I referred to The Man as being the weakest villain in Literary Mosaic to date. This is a very bold statement and quite frankly, some of you may think that it comes across as very harsh. Let's take a step back for a moment though; why would I go so far as to give him a description like that? Let's break it down and see why The Man is the weakest villain to date. To start, let's focus on his first appearance, in Literary Mosaic 8. In this novel alone, we see: 1) Virtually no character development As a character, he is simply not that remarkable. He appears, monologues, has conversations, and does things that are of no real meaning to the story; none of which develops him as a character. There are tiny peaks into his personality, but nothing that gives us substantial insight into him as a character. For example, at one point he does remark: "Too many goddamn troublemakers. I swear, in this day and age you can't trust anyone. Society is a menace. If only our police systems could help prevent this kind of stuff from happening..." which does hint at a desire to stop those who do wrong; but it is neither built upon nor used in a capacity that gives meaningful contribution to LM 8. 2) Comes across as forced into the story In an already complicated narrative that had many set pieces, the Man came across as almost "shoehorned" into the story. Although I'm sure that he was created with the best of intentions, the execution is what failed. The segments that included him were transitioned to very awkwardly, sometimes with no transition whatsoever, and the scenes that included him, many had very little substance and contributed nothing to the overall plot of the narrative. While it is true that there are all sorts of novels and stories that have a main plot and sub-plots going on, the key difference here is that while in those situations they all tie into each other in some way, The Man's subplot was so loosely connected to the main plot, it was almost as if there was no connection at all. 3) no contributions to the plot In LM 8, we see The Man muse on killing Hartley (more than once) and stalk him, have a conversation with Cricket, buy a book, and finally be shot 4 times by Gunnarson and limp away. That's... pretty much it. He offered nothing to the overarching plot of the novel... and that is a problem. The great Russian writer Anton Chekhov is best known for his principle, Chekhov's Gun, which states: "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."In other words, if something in a narrative is going to not be of importance, it should not be there. The Man comes across exactly like that; if we were to remove The Man's subplot from the LM 8, the novel loses nothing and... to be honest, actually sounds more coherent. So what is the aforementioned problem? (Chekhov's gun ). My co-author Eyes, appeared to be trying to set up a "big reveal" of sorts for the Man... in LM 20. But The Man wasn't even a character in LM 8... he was a plot device, (almost a MacGuffin, in fact) and his contributions so small, he is not worthy of LM 20. If The Man is so important that he deserves LM 20, then he must prove himself to be important enough to warrant LM 20 to be focused on him. 4) For what LM 8 was trying to go for, The Man didn't quite "fit in" Perhaps the biggest thing that made The Man not work; his role was vastly and completely overshadowed by the usual rogues' gallery of The Irish Mob, Blade Syndicate, Elvira Revinev and Dr. Gunther Drugg. All four of them made meaningful plot contributions and helped drive the plot forward, while The Man... was at best, that one guy off in the background, not really doing anything that particularly helped the story. For The Man to shine properly, he needed the plot to involve him, and have some sort of focus on him (more on that in a bit) 5) Comes across as generic and does not "stand out" among the crowd One of the strengths of the Literary Mosaic series is that, although almost every villain commits basically the same kind of crime (murder), each criminal is able to stand out in a unique way based on character development, motivation and how they contribute to the plot (Toz being a master of this ). The Man though... does not offer any traits that make him stand out. He is a murderer... but so is almost every other villain to date in LM. Later on we find out he only kills those who do wrong... but the thing is, this has already been done and explored in LM, and it was done brilliantly. In Literary Mosaic 13, Toz developed Blade into the unique type of criminal that made him the best villain to date in LM. Disillusioned by killing after losing four of his friends, Blade swears off killing and reworks his organization into something the likes of which we haven't seen before. Now instead of outright killing his enemies, he cripples them and forces them to work for him in his mines; by capturing criminals to do work to further his own goals, he secures his place as a villain not only against London, but as a villain's villain; one who preyed on those who did bad, so he could use them to build an empire, quite literally, on the labors of his enemies. The Man is following this idea almost exactly... almost. He just outright kills those who do wrong. This leads me to be concerned that come LM 20, the important plot points will almost be a rehash of what Toz already did so brilliantly in LM 13. This brings me to the important question: Can The Man be saved or redeemed? (As a character). I think there is potential for him, but he needs the right kind and amount of development to become the villain that Eyes probably has in mind. What kind of development, you ask? Let's also consider what happened in his second appearance, Literary Mosaic 16, in addition to figuring out how he can be improved: 1) He received some character development We observe more about his motives and why he does what he does; and we see that he isn't just a one note character. He gets angry and frustrated when things don't go according to plan... in fact he rarely acts without planning ahead first (refer to the Simon Colver segment of the story). However, he still has a way to go before he can be considered a complex, developed character that poses a substantial threat to our protagonist (He's no Blade ) 2) If the Man is to be a part of Literary Mosaic, he must not feel forced into the plot Granted, LM 16 was focused on him so that is fine. However, if the Man is to be a part of LM 8, then when the time comes there must be a reworking of the plot so that he doesn't feel forced into it... or he must be dropped all together and have a separate introductory story written. It is pretty much agreed that one of the reasons that he is a weak character is that his introduction in LM 8 was messed up. 3) He must make meaningful plot contributions In LM 16, he killed minor, one-off characters that illustrated the kind of people he hunts down; but these had no impact on the plot as a whole. Going forward, we need to see "more to him" than just the killing of "Scum;" there must be plot contributions that make him stand out and make him worthy of being considered a member of the rogue's gallery of LM. 4) He needs to come into his own What is wants to do was already seen with Blade in LM 13 (as mentioned previously); to make him stand out he must do his mission in a way that makes him stand on his own and be remembered as who he is, rather than as "doing what Blade already did" (Which, in fact, was lampshaded in LM 16). 5) He must feel less generic "The Man" or some variation thereof, has been used in countless media to refer to various characters already. Thankfully in LM 16, we see him develop a unique moniker that helps him stand out more: J.J.E. (short for Judge, Jury and Executioner). Though just a start, at least having a name that doesn't come across as generic helps him stand out more and hopefully sets up more development to come. All this considered, is J.J.E. the weakest villain to date? The final verdict is: Probably, but it wasn't intentionally so There is one more book J.J.E. is scheduled to appear in; will it help him be redeemed as an LM villain? Only time will tell. ......... Tying into the previously written post on criticism, notice what I did and didn't do here: At no point did I resort to direct criticism of my fellow author Eyes; nor did I call him names (he has been the primary driving force behind J.J.E.). I also did not direct criticism towards the tone of the story or passages J.J.E. was written in; my criticism was directed at the substance of the material J.J.E. was written in; I stayed focused on my criticism of the Man, and explained where I was coming from; even using examples here and there for clarification. Because the point of criticism of J.J.E. is not "criticism for the sake of criticism." The criticism I have made here is constructive criticism; criticism that's intended to highlight and explain what is weak about J.J.E. so that he can be improved upon going forward and not just become a better character, but help my co-author be a better writer. .......... With all that said, I turn this over to you, the reader. What do you feel about J.J.E.? Is he the weakest villain to date, or does he have potential yet to be used?
|
|
|
Post by Toz76 on Nov 13, 2018 0:10:24 GMT -5
Today marks an arbitrary amount of time since the release of the first post of the first literary mosaic. As someone who had no hand in its creation, I decided to take a look back to see if it holds up. Welcome, to LM Retrospective.
*Epic intro sequence*
Just a quick disclaimer here, I am reading from the original, unaltered text in the original thread, not the "compiled" version released later.
Our story begins with our hero, James Hartley, returning home from fighting in WWII after a serious injury only to discover his home bombed. Now, this is a decent start. There's a bit of unnecessary spice for the history nerds, but otherwise, good intro. This intro is also why I'm opposed to a proposed future LM that feature's Hartley's wife and daughter, who he forgot about due to trauma. That doesn't happen. How would he forget the two most important people in his life but not his address? Or name? LM is our most realistic series (please, don't laugh), and amnesia does not work that way.
After talking to a complete stranger about his vaguely defined anxiety (see also: Reboot Man In Blue), he is informed that there is a Swedish man looking for a roommate. And here's where the biggest problem in the entire series shows up.
Gunnarson is a good character. Many LM authors have soured on him of late, and I'll admit the only reason I haven't done the same is that Walton is so much worse. Gunnarson is intriguing, enigmatic, likeable, and a good, quirky deuteragonist. There's just one problem.
His first name is Adolf.
Yes, as in THAT Adolf. It's even lampshaded.
Now, there are plenty of defenses for this. "Well, before World War Two, that name didn't have a negative connotation." And that's true. But we don't live before World War II, do we? We live well after it. So the decision to call a protagonist- THE protagonist- "Adolf" is utterly terrible. In a world where people like to deny that the Holocaust even happened, a heroic character with that name is just... no. Awful. It just sends the wrong message. It's a black mark on the entire series.
It is fun to note that Gunnarson had a much thicker accent in the early days. We should bring back his using "Ja" at the start of every sentence. It'll be as if Walton was writing these things. (For the uninitiated, Walton is a character from later in LM's history who I don't like for many reasons, one of which is he's kind of a racist, or at least as racist as one can be in an all-white cast).
Despite the inherent problems in Gunnarson (again, I like what he becomes in later volumes, I just wish he was named Albert or something), the next bit is actually really sweet and domestic. Gunnarson and Hartley bond over cuisine and talk of the war, although Gunnarson is evasive about his change of occupation. It's very calm and there's a clear "Holmes/Watson" dynamic developing. While I like the more action-oriented direction this series took, I do like this look at a more traditional mystery setting. Also, given that Gunnarson later goes to a restaurant to work, the scene where he cooks for Hartley serves as a nice thing to call back to later (and is also VERY GAY).
This more Holmes-ish approach to Gunnarson continues when recurring character Davis Gent, chief of police at Scotland Yard and (probably?) not based on a real person, arrives with news that "Doctor Manning" has been killed, and it's revealed that Gunnarson is essentially a private detective (although it's never explained if Gent pays him...) Gunnarson get's some excellent Holmes-esque bits where he examines the crime scene. Later volumes heavily imply that Gunnarson has incredible intuition but isn't all that extraordinary of a detective, but again, this particular novel pulls specifically from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and not mysteries in general, so he is able to actually explain to the audience how he draws his conclusions. This continues for much of the next act, with Gunnarson introducing his "trifecta" (means, motive, and opportunity, something that gets paid lip service to in most LMs but rarely is used to solve the case in an era of villain POVs). Gunnarson introduces a few suspects, but interestingly, seeing as this is first-person, Hartley never actually meets them, we only hear about them secondhand.
And then things go off tHE FUCKING RAILS
Gunnarson accuses Hartley, uses as his proof Hartley knowing something Gunnarson had told him less than a minute prior, pulls a GUN, and then Hartley flees the country. There's a postscript by Gunnarson, where he claims that Hartley distorted the truth... even though Hartley admitted to the crime at the end of the manuscript, and an even worse postscript where Hartley is innocent, but flees the country anyway at Gunnarson's insistence, but Gunnarson shoots at him anyway because he briefly channels Walton... what the hell?
Overall, I don't hate this one. It's a solid outing. The ending is easily our worst and the canonicity of this novel is up for debate, but it has some nice domestic moments and sluething unrivaled in later LM. But why is his name Adolf? What dumbass thought that was smart?
Which LM should I review next? Leave a comment and let me know! Don't forget to smash that dislike button, unsubscribe, and don't you dare ring that little bell!
|
|