%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |  This is a continuation of my blogging here at WdC |
|
This will be a blog for my writing, maybe with (too much) personal thrown in. I am hoping it will be a little more interactive, with me answering questions, helping out and whatnot. If it falls this year (2024), then I may stop the whole blogging thing, but that's all a "wait and see" scenario. An index of topics can be found here: "Writing Blog No.2 Index"  Feel free to comment and interact. |
| 'Misogyny' Peeves I am on Discord in a couple of writing groups, and in one we were talking about misogyny in writing. Not in characters – they can be as misogynistic as the story needs – but in situations and language used by writers. I thought I’d use this blog post to point some of them out. This was inspired, in part, also by my "20241216 Poor Characterisation" post. While not poor characterisation, per se, it does lend itself to that.First, I should say this is not about pronouns. I am not going to enter the discussion about that; it is way beyond my pay grade. So, first is the situation. The female character needs to be rescued, and the male character is the only one who can. In certain types of stories, this is accepted, but not giving the female character any agency in the situation, and just having her easily replaceable by a bag of gold without the story effectively changing is demeaning. If two (or more) female characters are talking, they talk about the male characters, and yet the male characters do not do the same. This is called the Bechdel Test, by the way. Not naming female characters at the same rate as male characters. If the book only has main characters named and no secondary characters, then that’s fine. If even the third-string male characters have names, but the female is called ‘bar-wench’, then it’s an issue. A corollary to this is not giving females surnames when the males have them. So, even if the characters all have names, the naming conventions in-world need to be equal. Even if the female is included in events, she and/or her actions are described in relation to the males. He finds her body curvy. He misses her and wants to touch her body. She has no agency in a relationship. And this last is the worst one – when, to show a bad guy is really bad, he sexually assaults a female. Using a female as a tool to show evilness. Especially egregious when he does not do it again in the work. It reduces a female to a means of perverted gratification. In addition, there are some that I am in two minds about as well. A woman changing who she has been throughout the work to get the guy (see the film Grease) seems like the female is basing her own sense of self on a male. I am in two minds about this because in some stories a male does the same thing. A woman falling for a male she had zero interest in at the start of the work when the male has not really earnt it. The problem is, the change/ redemption arc might be subtle that leads to this, but otherwise, it makes the female look wishy-washy. However, some writers do the same with male characters. The female falling into bed with a male for story convenience, not because of any great emotional connection. The problem? Same can be said for some male characters. And so there are some of my pet peeves when it comes to portrayals of women. |
| Children Characters I recently finished some beta reading for a friend (now NaNo is over). It was a simple 25k word novella with some good technicalities (though she does struggle with sentence fragments). However, one thing I told her (and that she spent this morning complaining about) was that her children characters were just miniature adults. So I got another teacher to come in and explain what I meant. The teacher read the most egregious examples and agreed with me – that is not how kids do things. My friend saw where I was coming from; she doesn’t have children and was judging by TV and films and external observations. That inspired this little blog post. So, when writing characters that are children there are a number of things to remember: 1) Emotions: Children are emotional creatures. Logic is not an over-riding concept. And the younger they are, the more this comes to the fore. The idea of permanence does not really sink in until they are as old as 6 (this means if you hide something, it ceases to exist in a child’s mind). But they also do not use logic, or the logic does not follow what an adult would consider logic, and this lasts until the end of adolescence (once puberty is completed), sometimes longer. Emotions do tend to over-ride their thought processes. 2) Strength and Skill: Children are not as strong or skilled as adults. While there are some children who are skilled in some things, with only one or two exceptions, they do not match an equally trained adult. This is especially true in martial arts. A child might have a black belt, but a brown belt adult, with that added strength and better perception, can often win. Plus, they might be able to wield a sword, but they do not have the strength to make the same impact as an adult. These are things that should be taken into account. 3) Perception: ’Which leads to perception. Children tend towards tunnel vision, and single sensory concentration. This means if they are focusing on the visual, the audio, smell, touch, taste is muted. It is only with puberty that this expands to enable the ability to have two or even more going on; for example, children will remember the visuals of a film, not the dialogue, while an adult will remember both. 4) Knowledge: A child will not know as much as an adult. They might have great knowledge of a single topic, but they have simply not had the time to learn about lots of subjects. And if they do have knowledge of one, this most often comes at the expense of knowledge about other things. Life experience is sold short by way too many who write children. 5) Resourcefulness: I am not saying there are no children who have lived and survived in terrible circumstances, but most children coming from a Western urbanised environment would not cope nor survive well if dumped into a situation where they have to use their wits to survive. Hell, most adults would struggle! But adults have some experience, or have seen some TV, and would have a better mental means of coping. 6) Size: Children are small. Yes, when they hit 12 or so they are getting to adult size, but they are still small, and muscles have yet to develop. Puberty is very important to changes; they are not just miniature adults before the hormones kick in. 7) Age appropriateness: Don’t have 12 years act like 5 year olds! If you have no experience with kids – ask parents or teachers and they will tell you how different the ages are. These have come from my reading of books over the years, and are born of my experience as a teacher, and my studies in human movement and development, plus years of working with children. Every single one of these mistakes I have seen more than once. So, does any author write children well? Yes, in fact. JK Rowling, over the course of the Harry Potter series, shows the development and growth and learning of the children. Enid Blyton also wrote children well, especially the Famous Five. As for bad… Too many, and I won’t mention them here (except Empress Teresa by Norman Boutin, the worst book ever written). Anyway, I hope people write their children with a little more realism. Children are not adults and do not really think like them. Make them into kids, and the stories will benefit. |
| More Punk Genres So, I did a column about different punk genres ("20241214 Punk Genres" ), and it turns out there are some I have not heard of, let alone read. Generally. Okay, some I’ve read, but didn’t know they were a punk. Or maybe they’ve been renamed because it is trendy.Of all the arts, writers are up there with film-makers and TV creators in chasing trends. Afro-futurism (or Afropunk) While the term Afropunk refers to music, it is now being used with the literature as well. It is basically a future based around black African culture. To be honest, what little I have read is standard science fiction (maybe verging on Solarpunk) set in the African diaspora. example: the comic and film Black Panther. Atlantopunk As the name suggests, a world where Atlantis exists in one form or another. This is one of those that I think has just had “punk” added to it. example: the TV show Stargate: Atlantis was the example given me, but I think the Disney film Atlantis: The Lost Empire might also qualify. I have tried but not completed a single story in this. Conspiracy Punk (also Conspiropunk) This is one I have read, where conspiracy theories (or things believed to be conspiracy theories) are true in a world. example: interestingly, The Da Vinci Code is considered a part of this punk. I have written some shorts in this. Covidpunk Stories set after a COVID or COVID-like disease devastation. This is very new, yes, but is the current “thing” in science fiction and alternate history circles. For the record, these stories do not include diseases that turn people into zombies, vampires or the like. example: while I am inclined to include an unpublished work of my own (yes, I have written a covidpunk story which I am exceedingly happy with!), I am more inclined to go wider and look at a modern post-disease film, like Outbreak. Infopunk This is cyberpunk, although the look is cleaner, but with the technology of the 1980s and 90s and nothing beyond that, no extrapolation, no technological advancements – floppy disks, CD-ROMs, dot-matrix printers, cables everywhere, that sort of aesthetic. I have no example. Metapunk This is apparently a form of cyberpunk, but involves the metaverse – all the action and everything is contained within the online world. It is relatively new. example: While new, it is claimed the film Tron is its progenitor. And so there are a few extra “punk” concepts in the art world! |
| Poor Characterisations There are some character types and character actions that I feel make a story weaker. So… it’s time for a list! So, these are taken from something I wrote many years ago, based on some stuff from the TV Tropes website . I wrote this for a site that removed it a few years ago, and I can’t find my original, but I do have the notes. So, here goes!Character Shilling: When a character talks up another character for no good reason except to let the reader know how wonderful said character is without just info-dumping it into the prose. See Lilly Potter in the Harry Potter series – every character describes her as so wonderful and glorious. Compressed Vice: When a character develops a bad habit just for plot convenience, despite having never shown any signs of it before. Worse when it’s done to push forward a message. Like the caffeine episode in TV show Saved By The Bell. Conflict Ball: When a character causes conflict for reasons which go against what the character has been like or which are really pathetic. Like when Ross had a hair-trigger temper for a few episodes of Friends, just to create conflict. Demoted to Satellite Love Interest: When a well-developed character is shunted to one side just so they can be the love interest for a more main character. One example that annoys me is Mary Morstan, who marries Dr Watson in Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes books, but becomes merely “my wife” after the wedding. Derailing Love Interests: When a writer has a love triangle and turns the preferred hero’s rival into an arsehole, or gets rid of them completely, so the preferred couple can end up together. See all the Elseworlds comics where Lois is killed off so Superman can hook up with Wonder Woman. Faux Action Girl: When you set up a female character as the strong hero but she does nothing much either strong or heroic. See Jinx from Die Another Day (James Bond film) where she kills one guy, then plays the “damsel in distress” a few times as the only other thing she does. Flawless Token: When the female or minority character is better than everyone else because they are female/ a minority; in addition, the male characters are incompetent simply because they are males. See the Star Wars sequel trilogy (or any Disney property under Bob Iger). Informed: When a writer tells a reader the character is stupid, smart, has great abilities, can do something… and then the character does not show this at all in the story. New Powers As The Plot Demands: When a character gets a new ability apropos to nothing because the plot needs it. In Superman IV: The Quest For Peace where Superman’s vision can suddenly build walls, for example. Romanticised Abuse: When a romantic coupling is not a healthy relationship. At all. The most blatant example is the end of the 50 Shades… series. Satellite Love Interest: When a character is there only to be the “perfect” partner for the main protagonist, and is not really essential to the plot of the work. Think Jennifer in the Back To The Future films. Stupid Sacrifice: When a character sacrifices themselves “for the greater good” when they have not examined all options, it is out of character for them as they have not shown any inclination to do this before, or it is because the writer just wants to kill the character off and this seemed as good a way as any. Like Vesper in the film version of Casino Royale. And there you have it, some bits of characterisation that I think do not work in writing. Am I gate-keeping? Sure. If you want. But I think your stories will be better if you choose to avoid these. |
| Rewriting Classics Looking back over comments and emails from older blog posts, I found this question: What about copyright when rewriting a classic? Well… it depends on the classic you’re rewriting. And how you’re rewriting it. And the characters you’re using… Yeah, it just depends. But, as a general rule… go for it! Anything can be rewritten, so long as you do not use the same words. Obviously. Then it’s just plagiarism. It’s characters that create the issue. Even if you change a character’s name, if it was not in the original and was introduced later on by a different creator, and they can recognise it, then you can be in trouble. This is especially true if you rewrite a Disney story – they are litigious… and thieves, but that’s a story for a different day. So, for example, let’s say you want to rewrite Cinderella. Disney added the helpful mice and birds, so you can’t use them. However, the two step-sisters, the step-mother, Cinderella being used as a maid, the fairy godmother, the mice turned into horses, the glass slipper – that’s all from the Brothers Grimm, so you’re fine. How about Snow White? It always had a magic mirror, evil queen, poisoned apple and seven dwarves, so all good there. But do not think about naming the dwarves after personality traits – that’s a Disney thing. The Lion King? Well, that’s Hamlet with a happy ending, so do not do Hamlet with anthropomorphic animals because Disney will sue you into bankruptcy. Yes, Disney rewrote a classic and now claim it as their own. So, original (Brothers Grimm, HC Anderson et al.) fairy tales are fair game to rewrite, Shakespeare is fair game. I will also say original versions of myths are also fair game. In fact, so long as you change names, any story not copyrighted ("20240508 What Does Copyright Cover?" ) is fair game. Courts have sided with originators of works if ideas and story beats are copied, so if a work is in copyright, don’t rewrite.So, I guess the next question is: What is rewriting? It is taking the same or similar story beats as the original work, the same sort of characters going through the same or similar life events and changing the setting or time period. It must be stated that a parody is not covered here, as parody is defended under freedom rules and is seen as transgressive enough to not be liable for persecution. Disney have tried, and in some cases have won, but it does seem they are a law unto themselves. It is how Mel Brooks got away with parodying Star Wars with Spaceballs (that and the fact George Lucas was a fan). I think it’s easiest to give some demonstrations of rewriting. 1) Maid Marian And Her Merry Men was a rewrite of the Robin Hood legend with Marian in charge instead of Robin. 2) My Fair Lady is an updated musical version of Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw. 3) Pretty Woman is also based on Pygmalion, though the love story takes it closer to the Greek myth than the play. 4) The musical Rent is based on the opera La Bohème by Puccini (with some changes that are stupid… I hate Rent). 5) Clueless is based on Emma by Jane Austen. 6) Brigid Jones’s Diary (book and film) is based on another Austen work – Pride And Prejudice. Come on – the male love interest in both is Mr Darcy! 7) Roxanne starring Steve Martin is based on the play Cyrano de Bergerac by Edmond Rostand. 8) Phantom Of The Paradise (a truly awful musical movie) is based on the Gaston Leroux novel Phantom Of The Opera. 9) The 1950s sci-fi film Forbidden Planet is a retelling of Shakespeare’s The Ttempest. 10) And we’ll finish with Robin And The 7 Hoods, a Rat Pack 1960s musical about Robin’s fight against Guy, set in the era of gangsters. The story beats and characters are so similar, but the setting is great. Looking at those 10 retellings of some classic works and stories, you can see that the sky is the limit when it comes to what you can do with a story. Setting is whatever and wherever and whenever you want it to be. But the story itself and the characters are still recognisable to the audience. That last is important – the audience does need to be able to recognise that it comes from an older tale. I recently (well, in 2019 or so) read a book that was supposed to be a retelling of the Labours of Herakles myth, but I did not get that at all, either from the characters or from the things the character was forced to endure. Maybe in the author’s mind it started that way, but I am pretty good at recognising classical mythology, and this book did not do it, despite what was declared in its blurb. Now, one thing about a retelling that this brings up is that you can veer away from the original story if you wish. That is not a problem. The Lion King deviated from Hamlet. However, in my opinion, it should still be somewhat recognisable… and The Lion King was certainly that, So, if you are ever stuck for a story idea, maybe look at mythology, the classics, the folklore, the fairy-tales and see if a re-imagining can work for you. Give it a go! You never know. |
| Punk Genres A question was posed on a Discord server – what Solarpunk writing was, and this brought up a whole heap of other “Punk” writing styles. What a great idea for a blog post! What is a “Punk” genre? In its simplest terms, a punk genre takes the technology of a time and extends it across society, and yet treats it as if technology stopped at that point in time. The first was cyberpunk, and steampunk followed (though some argue this order should be reversed), and now we have way too many. This, therefore, is just a list of the punk types I’ve found! (In alphabetical order because I am nothing if not organised…) I will also indicate my experiences with each. The best punk writing, though, does not just look at the tech, but also at how a society would have been impacted by that tech, how the people would think differently to us. It is what makes a good punk story sing… and a bad one sink. Anthropunk (also Furpunk) A form of Biopunk where the biotech has combined humans and animals to create real-life furries. This is new. This is apparently huge in ao3 furry writing communities. example: Have not seen anything in this vein. Apunkalypse According to TV Tropes, any story set in a post-apocalypse world. example: Any Mad Max film after the first one. I have written a couple of these. Atompunk (or Atomipunk) The future as imagined by the people of the 1950s, based around nuclear powered everything. example: The cartoon The Jetsons. Teslapunk is a modern iteration based around battery-powered electricity in everything, but is very new to the scene. Biopunk A world where biological hacking, deliberate mutations, organic enhancements, et al. are the norm. This is almost an antithesis to cyberpunk. example: the book and film Jurassic Park at its base level. I have tried this once, and failed dismally, as in the story was awful. Bronzepunk (also Sandal Punk) Bronze Age technologies built into a retrofuturistic civilisation. Egypt and Greece are the most commonly used bases. Also often includes magic, and the reality of their deities. example: the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad films. I have written a little bit of this. Capepunk This is the aesthetic that examines a world where superheroes are real, and it is treated seriously. Becoming more popular. example: the graphic novel Marvels, showing the early years of the Marvel superheroes from the PoV of a photographer who doesn’t know them. Really good. Castlepunk (also Middlepunk) The technology of the Middle Ages is where the world stopped advancing. example: the 1999 Christopher Lambert version of Beowulf. Plaguepunk narrows the time down to between Black Death and Renaissance eras. Clockpunk This one is easy – Steampunk in a clockwork only world. example: the film Hugo. Cyberpunk Set in a not-too distant future, this is not just about the computer technology and computer-organic hybridisation, but also the dystopian government systems, the depression of the populace, and the rise in crime. Nearly always dark and dirty. example: one of my favourite films – Blade Runner; the books of William Gibson are the bibles of the genre. I tried but never completed even a short in this. Dieselpunk The technology from the end of World War One to the middle of World War Two taken to an extreme. Tends toward war-based stories and pessimism. example: the film Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow. Decopunk is at the same time, but things look more Art Deco, not as dirty, and there is less war emphasis. Dreadpunk Pre-20th century horror settings. The technology is as it is, but the supernatural elements that came to the fore in literature are emphasised. example: book and film Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I have written a couple of shorts in this, and some novellas. Ecopunk (also Greenpunk) A form of Solarpunk, but really looking only at the sensitive use of and the co-living with the natural world. Very vegan. example: I have not even seen anything in this genre. Sorry. Magic-Punk (also Arcanepunk or Aetherpunk) When magic is used in technology, in a setting very reminiscent of Dungeons And Dragons but with advanced weapons. example: the depiction of Asgard in the Thor movies. Dungeonpunk is this with a more swords and sorcery vibe, so more basic weapons, but weird magical technologies. Modernism Punk (also Formicapunk or Cassette Futurism) The future as seen through the lens of the 1970s or 1980s. Blocky and big in all aspects, but smooth and curved. Computers everywhere, all of them very basic and simple, yet also rather complex. example: the look of the décor in the film Soylent Green, everything about Logan’s Run. Nanopunk Nanotechnology taken to the extreme level. Unlike cyberpunk, very clean and shiny, yet still has the technology-human hybridisation. Very new genre, and it is still in a state of flux, finding its feet, as it were. example: Michael Crichton’s book Prey seems to be the main one. Oceanpunk {also Piratepunk) A flooded world and the technology required to live and exist in that situation. example: Kevin Costner’s film Waterworld. Solarpunk Environmentally friendly technologies dominate this. There is more a sense of hope in Solarpunk, and the designs are usually more in tune with nature. Often depicted after a climate catastrophe. example: I could look this up, but that would be disingenuous as I have not read any solarpunk. Sorry. Lunarpunk is a Gothic form of Solarpunk, darker and with Wiccan/ pagan imagery throughout. Tidalpunk is Solarpunk at sea, Oceanpunk with hope. Spacepunk This is space opera science fiction, but which takes its aesthetic deliberately from Star Wars and its ilk. Probably ironic. example: the film Battle Beyond The Stars (The Magnificent Seven in space). Steampunk This is Victorian Era technology of steam engines, clockwork, cogs & gears, hot-air balloons, et al. taken to an extreme level. I love me a good Steampunk story. They tend towards the British or, at least, European settings. example: the not very good film Wild Wild West with Will Smith and Kevin Kline has amazing steampunk creations all through it. Not only have I written this, but had a short story accepted. Fun to write. Silkpunk is steampunk in a Far East setting, around Japan and China, and there is a lot more gunpowder and terracotta creations. Cattlepunk is steampunk in the American Wild West. Stonepunk Stone age technology is where stonepunk stops. Often dinosaurs did not become extinct in these worlds, either. example: simple – The Flintstones. Written some of this, but did not take it seriously. And finally there is one that it seems is being forced down our throats: Hopepunk This was created, essentially, in 2017 by Alexandra Rowland who says it focuses on “resistance and activism through hope, optimism and positivity.” She says also, “that in this world of brutal cynicism and nihilism, being kind is a political act“. It is yet to be taken up by others seriously, as far as I can tell. And that is a list of punk genres! |
| Stages Of Grief When writing, there are often times when we kill off characters. This leads to the other characters having to process this. A lot of writers ignore this, and someone just dies and the story goes on, with the other characters simply just proverbially shrugging their shoulders and getting on with things. This is hardly realistic (except in the case of genuine sociopaths). The problem is, how do we show what characters go through? Well, this is where the stages of grief come in. Actual psychologists/ psychiatrists tend to downplay the formal stages of grief because they are not universal (as in, some people miss stages), and a lot of people go through them in different orders (children especially), and some people even go through two of the stages at the same time. Some mental health professionals even say there are no real stages and everybody’s processing of grief differs, and putting people and their responses into boxes diminishes the lived experience an individual goes through following a death. I am not a psychologist (studied a lot of psychology, but not registered), but that last seems about right to me. However, in the writing world, using these stages can add a sense of realism to the characters and how they process events in the story. Even if the reality they are based on is not entirely accurate, it is a trope that people can relate to. So, what are the stages? First is the five stage model. This is the original idea, coming from the 1960s and the stages are: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Denial means refusing to believe it happened; anger is being pissed off that it happened; bargaining is awkward – some people go through it by offering themselves instead, some want to change the past or live in the past, and still others do the “deal with God” prayer; depression is just feeling profound and deep sadness about it all; acceptance is realising nothing is going to bring them back and getting on with life, with memories. In the 1990s, it was felt that a sixth stage needed to be introduced – guilt. Guilt over things unsaid or undone, over a life unfulfilled, or over the circumstances of the death. The problem was where it fitted in with the rest of the stages. As such, guilt was outside the 5-stage model, as not everyone went through it, and it could appear at any time. Then in the early twenty-first century, a seven-stage model was introduced. Shock (a feeling of numbness, inability to process the death), denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance/hope (hope is added as a way of accepting a future without the dead person), and processing (which is where you let the feelings out) Processing is seen as important, as keeping the feelings bottled up was seen as a way of causing the cycle to start again. The website I was given a few years ago (when my uncle died and I found the body, then sat with it for 6 hours in the Australian sun) says this: express your grief in words or another creative outlet, such as painting or drawing; connect with others – this can be loved ones or community support groups; ask for help, in whatever form; practise deep breathing regularly; set small, realistic goals; ensure you’re getting enough sleep and aim for some form of movement each day; eat a healthy, balanced diet and keep hydrated; rehearse how you respond to questions and new situations. (https://www.hcf.com.au/health-agenda/body-mind/mental-health/moving-through-grie...) There is no timeframe, by the way. It might take a few weeks, it might take years, but after a death a person will be somewhere along these stages, be they 5, 6 or 7. General acceptance, even by those who do not believe in the stages, is that people take at least two weeks to fully process and get over death. The exceptions are in times of war where some who are confronted by the deaths of friends too often reach acceptance in a day or so (while others never reach acceptance and live with the guilt of “why not me?” for their entire lives), or when someone dies and the death has been protracted and drawn out, as with disease, in which case the bereaved might already have reached acceptance. It should also be noted that some people never reach acceptance. In 1994 a friend of mine died of cancer; he was 25. It is now 30 years later and his old bedroom has not been touched, except to be vacuumed and dusted by his parents. See, he was an only child, and his parents were older when they had him; they should not be living alone as his father has mental degeneration, but they refuse to leave the house because it is where their shrine to their son is. His best mate (a former friend of mine) also has not got over it, and it was definitely a thing there in his divorce. So, when writing about death, writers often forget to go into the feelings of those left behind beyond a few tears. The stages of grief can really help bring the story to life, and bring the characters out. |
| Using Numbers In Writing In the last post, I looked at the rule of three. In this one, I am going to look at numbers that could help a writer… and look at writing numbers. Number facts! 1) If you double the dimensions of an object or animal, you quadruple the surface area (multiply by 4) and octuplet the mass (multiply by 8). This is important when looking at creating large animals… because can their bone structure support such an increase in mass? 2) There are 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 46.08 seconds in a standard Earth year. We call it 365 days. So, every four years is a leap year of 366 days. However, if the year can be divided by 100, then it is NOT a leap year… unless it can also be divided by 400, in which case it IS a leap year. So, 1800 was NOT a leap year, 1900 was NOT a leap year, 2000 WAS a leap year, 2100 will NOT be a leap year. 3) The year 2000 is also the year: 5760 in the Hebrew/Jewish calendar. Their year 2000 was in 1760BC. The Lunar calendar they use dates to 3760BC, Jewish traditional beginning of the world; 4698 in the Chinese calendar. Their year 2000 was in 698BC; 1921 in the Reformed Indian calendar. Their year 2000 will be in 2079CE; 1421 in the Muslim calendar. Their year 2000 will be in 2579CE; 1378 in the Persian calendar. Their 2000 will be in 2622CE; 2543 in the Theraveda Buddhist Calendar. Their year 2000 was in 1457CE. (Dates from 544BC, the date of Buddha’s death). So, so long as you have a 365 or so day year, on Earth there are many ways you can number your years, as can be seen by those used to this day. 4) The ancient Romans had no sign for the number zero. It was left blank if not written as a word (nullus). 5) If you are reading a book from before the twenty-first century, you need to be aware that the USA and UK had different forms of the number billion and above. In the USA (which is now standard in the world) a billion is 1,000 times a million; in the UK it was a million times a million. In the USA, a trillion is 1,000 times a billion; in the UK it was a billion billions. The USA increased numbers linearly; the UK exponentially. We have gone to the USA system because, let’s be honest, it is easier and makes more sense. Writing Numbers Writing numbers in a work is… complicated. In a technical or scientific paper, all numbers are written as numerals. It is that simple. In other non-fiction works, the numbers one to ten, sometimes one to twenty, are written as words, and everything else is written as a numeral. This does often come down to the style guide of a publishing company, or even the preferences of the writer. The main thing here is that it is consistent throughout the work. In non-fiction, all ordinals are written numerically – 1st, 2nd, 100th, 10,000th, etc. Fiction is where it gets really complex. It is generally accepted that every number to twenty is written as a word; twenty-one onwards… hmmm. So… I personally write every number up to one thousand as a word, and then the even thousands, millions, etc. afterwards. So I would write nine hundred and ninety, one thousand, 1001, ten thousand, twenty-two thousand, 34,790, one million, a hundred million, 234,891,209, etc. Only one publisher has changed my numbers over a hundred to numerals. When it comes to ordinals, words to twentieth, from 21st onwards, I do tend towards numerals, but have lately been writing the full word up to hundredth, then use numerals. However, some publishers do have in their guidelines what they want done with numerals. A lot less nowadays than in the past, but some are there. If not, so long as you’re consistent in your own work, I think publishers mind a lot less than they used to. It is possibly the influence of social media for numerals, or maybe an attempt by traditional media to separate itself from social media for the written word. I have not seen any publisher guidelines regarding ordinals, but my understanding is industry standard is words to twentieth, then numerals after, as I do it (which is why I started doing it that way in the first place). So… what does a writer do when writing fiction? Standard is up to twenty is the written word. After that, I would suggest it is your call, just be consistent. As a side comment, all years are written in numerals. In dates, unless quoting a written piece, write the month as the word and it is generally accepted that the numeric part will be a numeral, but that is also not set in concrete. So April 23, 2022, or 23 April, 2022, or 23rd April, 2023, or April twenty-third, 2022, or twenty-third of April, 2022. Please note the use of the comma before and after the year. Not 23/4/2022 nor 4/23/2022 nor 4-23-2022 nor 23-4-2022 (month then day is only used in the USA, but that’s because you guys just wanted to annoy the British and it stuck). The reason for this is because the USA does it differently, and it can completely change the meaning of the date. For me, for example, 9/11 means the ninth of November. In non-fiction, never use the slash/dash date technique. But feel free to ignore all of the fiction advice and just do your own thing. In non-fiction, there will be a style guide for a publication. If not… really? In which case, do what you think best. |
| The Power Of Three There is a little “rule” in writing called “the rule of three.” This is where three things occur, or there are three main characters, or three events lead up to a major event, or three pieces of “thing” need to be found, or even the three-act structure itself. Threes are so common that many writers utilize them without even realizing it – it just feels “right.” Why? So, why does the number three stick with us like this? It has to do with that basal part of our brain. Brains like patterns and pattern recognition is one way that we understand our place in the world. It is theorised it could stem to mother, father, child in early hunter-gatherer communities. Three forms the most basic patterns, arranged evenly can form a triangle or circle, or in a different configuration, make the simplest line. People tend to be able to remember three things. While the human memory goes to 7±1 items for memory (hence the length of traditional telephone numbers, and why some people cannot remember their mobile/cell phone numbers, which can be 10 digits), three is something even children remember. Three is basic, three is simple, and three forms a definite pattern that one or two will not. Three works for a human being. Examples In literature, I guess the most obvious examples come from fairy-tales and nursery rhymes. Three Little Pigs, the Three Billy Goats Gruff, Three Blind Mice, Goldilocks And The Three Bears are well-known in this sphere. Even going into later literature – Dumas’ The Three Musketeers, the three ghosts in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, the three witches in Macbeth – threes appear everywhere. And then, when it comes to story-telling, the three-act structure of beginning/ middle/ end (or whatever other terms you use) is the most common one, and the one we teach to youngsters when they write their first works of fiction. Going beyond that, for works that go beyond a single volume, the trilogy is the most common length of a series. A work rarely has just one sequel. This is not new. Lord Of The Rings by Tolkien is probably the best known; my favourite trilogy is the Eden trilogy by Harry Harrison. Even movies – Star Wars has had a trilogy of trilogies (as I type this, ignoring standalone movies). While some do now push past the trilogy format (think Rowling’s Harry Potter series), plenty still stick the original series of books to three (think that alleged writing series of 50 Shades…, or, on a better writing scale, Collins’ Hunger Games original books). Extra volumes might be added later, but those first three stand on their own in all cases. Non-literary Examples In history, there have been surprising trios. There were the two triumvirates that preceded the Roman Empire (Julius Caesar, Pompey and Crassus, then, after Caesar’s death, Octavian (Emperor Augustus), Mark Antony and Lepidus (essentially the money-man)). There have been a few in US history, and even in early Communist history in Soviet Russia. In religion, there were the three Fates, Graces and Furies of ancient Greece, Hecate had three heads, there were the three planes of existence (Olympus, Earth/Gaia, Hades) and so on. In the Christian religion there is the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost), Peter denied Christ three times, thirty pieces of silver for Judas, and so on. In advertising, how many slogans are three words or phrases? “Snap, Crackle, Pop.” “Stop, Drop, Roll.” “A Mars a day helps you work, rest and play.” “Tune in, turn on, drop out.” “Slip, slop, slap.” “Faster, higher, stronger.” Three is everywhere. You can’t avoid it! What does this mean for writers? Apart from that already mentioned, there are several things that a writer needs to take into account. If writing comedy, the “rule of three” has been well-established. Think of jokes like, “A Scotsman, Englishman and Irishman walked into a bar. You’d think the last two would have ducked.” The three people being different works better than two, and doesn’t drag on like more might. And a punch-line works best as a third line. Take this example from Roseanne: Roseanne: “Can I get you something? A drink? Some food? A taxi to get the hell out of here?” So many jokes lead to this sort of punch-line. Three trials is very common, dating back to Beowulf where he fought Grendel, Grendel’s mother and the Dragon. Yes, he died at the last one, making it a tragedy, but that is not the point. The repetition three times of a phrase s a common motif. Think about the fairy-tale of Rumplestiltskin and the saying his name three times to get power over him (in one version). In the modern urban legend, saying, “Bloody Mary,” three times into a mirror sets the titular entity free. Going much more feels redundant; saying it less could be a mistake. Three is deliberate but not too much. If giving someone a motivational speech to say, the best speeches use group of three. Martín Luther King Jr did this a bit: e.g. “justice, good will and brotherhood.” Winston Churchill said that all the Brits had to give was “blood, sweat and tears.” Remember that for your own rousing speeches in the mouths of characters. And then there is the love triangle in a romance plot/ sub-plot. The love rivals conflict over the object of their desire. This even has mirrors in history – think Cleopatra, Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. Two people is just a romance, more than three is verging on an orgy or a comedy of manners, but three is just right for this to work. The number three can really help give the audience just what they want. Conclusion While this is an expectation, it is important to remember there are no “rules” in writing. Harry Potter told us from the word go that this was going to be 7 volumes (though you do have the three main protagonists in Harry, Hermione and Ron). But if you want to make readers feel comfortable, then the “rule of three” is a nice way to go. Of course, if you want to unsettle a reader, then stop before three or drag on afterwards. In comedy, it is accepted that after three it stops being funny; after seven, it starts being funny again because you have completely subverted expectations. I just thought this was interesting. |
| Antagonists This is going to be quick, following on from the discussion of antagonists and protagonists ("20241208 Protagonist and Antagonist" ).To reiterate: an antagonist is something or someone that stands in the way of the protagonist (hero, whatever). They can be a character, or a group of characters, a creature, a system, natural phenomena, a philosophy (e.g. slavery), whatever – so long as it goes against the protagonist and stops the protagonist from reaching they goal, they are the antagonist. A simple, non-proactive victim of the protagonist is not an antagonist. In general an antagonist drives the story on. Most are written as proactive, while the protagonist is reactive, responding to the situation. The protagonist needs to complete a task and the antagonist stands in their way; maybe the protagonist getting rid of the antagonist is the task. It depends on the story you are writing. The antagonist is often simply put forth as “the bad guy”. But is that fair? An antagonist that is a living creature who is just bad for the sake of being bad is unrealistic and makes for a very 2-dimensional character. Also, a very boring character. The idea is the reader wants to see the protagonist overcome the antagonist, and there needs to be reasons for that, but just because the bad guy is “bad” does not a good story make. Part of the reason is that “good” and “bad” are concepts that do not have the same ideas to all people. What one person thinks is bad another might see as good. This brings me to the idea of this: for an antagonist to be a more believable, more relatable character, and for them to be more complete as a character, they need to not see they are the bad guy. They need to think they are the good guy. In their own story, they are the hero. Okay, first, I do not believe in “good” or “evil.” Asking “why?” can often make the so-called “evil” people seem a little more human. We, as a society, have very rarely asked, “Why?” So, this is coming from that perspective. But making a character just evil for the sake of evil is boring and really hard to write well. They need to believe what they are doing is the right thing for them. A creature is easy – they are just finding food or doing what comes naturally, or defending themselves or their young. They are not just hunting humans for “reasons.” Think of the well-developed creatures – the shark in Jaws was hungry and developed a taste for human; the giant snake in Megaconda was defending its home; the bigfoot creatures in Devolution were defending their home while also terrified following a volcanic eruption. It makes the stories so much easier to get lost in, even a bad film like Megaconda. With people, there should be a reason why the person is bad. Or, again, they might not see themselves as bad. They need the same sort of motivation as the protagonist, and a motivation maybe just as strong (sometimes stronger). Exaggerated portrayals of evil are more a parody than anything else. A desire for power is fine. Why? Is it because they were told they were useless? Or is it because they honestly think they are the best thing to happen to a place? While these might not come up in the story, they do need to be there in the characterisation. About the only thing that does not do this is a demonic supernatural/spiritual entity. They can be pure evil. But I don’t believe in them in the real world, either, so they are fine and dandy. Still, they need to be summoned to this plane of existence… Anyway, that’s my brief overview of the antagonist of a story. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
thinking. 
