Hello and Happy Halloween from all of us here at The Geekiest Girls You Know!
As a "grown-up" with no children or younger siblings to make use of as a "candy beard", I often find myself standing in the aisles around this time of year, staring at the heaps and heaps of purple, orange and black packaging that traditionally encases a delicious sugary death warrant for my teeth and waistline.
The struggle to give in to my inner six year-old is often a futile one...six year olds are mean...but this year I was a good "grown-up" and only had a couple of Reese's cups out of the ridiculous sixteen pound bag of treats that I bought to keep the little ankle-biting terrorists at bay. I AM SO GLAD I DID because Space Buddah decided to reward me....WITH THIS:
I like it too!
I wish they sold that man in Fun-Size...
~Darcy
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Its mortal enemy...THE VATICAN
The Dan Brown Plot Generator
An ancient labyrinth beneath the streets of Chicago.
A ruthless cult determined to protect it.
A race to uncover the Daughters of the American Revolution's darkest secret
The Last Rune
When world-famous Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is summoned to the Sears Tower to analyze a mysterious ancient script--drawn on a calling card next to the mangled body of the head docent--he discovers evidence of the unthinkable: the resurgence of the ancient cult of the Destifori, the secret branch of the Daughters of the American Revolution that has surfaced from the shadows to carry out is legendary vendetta against it's mortal enemy, the Vatican.
Langdon's worst fears are confirmed when a messenger from the Destifori appears at Lake Michigan to deliver a deadly ultimatum: Deposits $1 billion in the Daughters of the American Revolution's off-shore bank accounts or the exclusive clothier of the Swiss Guards will be bankrupted. Racing against the clock, Langdon joins forces with the ambidextrous and charming daughter of the murdered docent in a desperate bid to crack the code that will reveal the cult's secret plan.
Embarking on a frantic hunt, Langon and his companion will follow a 800-year-old trail through Chicago's most exalted monuments and venerable buildings, pursued by a hypoglycemic assassin the cult has sent to thwart them. What they discover threatens to expose a conspiracy that goes all the way back to Susan B. Anthony and the very founding of the Daughters of the American Revolution.
I am so going to write this for my Detective Fiction class. Seriously.
An ancient labyrinth beneath the streets of Chicago.
A ruthless cult determined to protect it.
A race to uncover the Daughters of the American Revolution's darkest secret
The Last Rune
When world-famous Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is summoned to the Sears Tower to analyze a mysterious ancient script--drawn on a calling card next to the mangled body of the head docent--he discovers evidence of the unthinkable: the resurgence of the ancient cult of the Destifori, the secret branch of the Daughters of the American Revolution that has surfaced from the shadows to carry out is legendary vendetta against it's mortal enemy, the Vatican.
Langdon's worst fears are confirmed when a messenger from the Destifori appears at Lake Michigan to deliver a deadly ultimatum: Deposits $1 billion in the Daughters of the American Revolution's off-shore bank accounts or the exclusive clothier of the Swiss Guards will be bankrupted. Racing against the clock, Langdon joins forces with the ambidextrous and charming daughter of the murdered docent in a desperate bid to crack the code that will reveal the cult's secret plan.
Embarking on a frantic hunt, Langon and his companion will follow a 800-year-old trail through Chicago's most exalted monuments and venerable buildings, pursued by a hypoglycemic assassin the cult has sent to thwart them. What they discover threatens to expose a conspiracy that goes all the way back to Susan B. Anthony and the very founding of the Daughters of the American Revolution.
I am so going to write this for my Detective Fiction class. Seriously.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
I am both excited and apphrensive about this
So Routledge is starting an academic journal about graphic novels and comics. My inner lit nerd is torn between squeeing for this (and wistfully considering submitting a paper for it) and lapsing into a "hmm" state of mind.
Let's start with the squeeing, shall we? While I have spent a lot of time here making fun of comics--mainly in the guise of Alan Your Tears Are Like Wine To Me Moore and Aquaman I Live in a Cardboard Box Under the Sea)--I have championed graphic novels as literature in their own right. The most obvious examples of this would be Watchmen and basically anything Alan Moore has written and Neil Gaiman's Sandman.
As for the more monthly titles, while it would be hard to argue that some of them (coughTarotcough) construe literature, they are undeniably markers of popular culture, and you can certainly track social/political trends through them. Hell, just look at the evolution of Lois Lane's character, paying particular attention to her 1950s incarnation compared to her contemporary characterization.
The description of the journal as "covering all aspects of the graphic novel, comic strip and comic book, with the emphasis on comics in their cultural, institutional and creative contexts" makes me cautiously optimistic. Since comics have become so twined with American popular culture to the point where even non-comic readers recognize the shorthand used to portray certain personality types, like "man of steel, Wonder Woman" and so on, it's very important to examine comics in an academical and cultural context.
It has only been relatively recently that comics have been viewed in an academic light, since comics have historically been marked as "for children" and by "children" I mean boys. It has only been in the past twenty or so years that papers and books have been published (off the top of my head I think of Wonder Women: Feminisms and Superheroes by Lillian Robinson--if you are at interested in Wonder Woman and female superheroes you need to read this book like yesterday-- and Comic Book Nation by Bradford Wright). There has been studies on horror comics and the war comics of the 40s, but overall comics books have been dismissed as cheap genre escapism for boys (girls, as both Didio and Quesada are quick to assure you, don't read comics).
The journal also wants to include articles about comic book fandom and international comics. I'm happy that they are trying for a wider scope than just the US and maybe Britain. I, for one, would love to see if there's a comic book fandom/culture in, say, Iraq or South America or anywhere that's not predominately white and English speaking.
I really would like to read a journal that explores gender, race, sexual orientation, just among a few topics, in comics. I would love to read about Russian comic book fans, or writers and artists in Mexico creating their own superheroes, and god knows I would kill for a study of Internet based fandom and how much it's dominated by heterosexual Caucasian male fans, and the ramifications of that and the backlashes of criticisms posed by women and fans of color.
So there's the squee, and now we get to my "hmm" part of my reaction.
I'm going to be honest and say this part of my reaction is a bit harder to pin down, and some of you will probably disagree with my reasons, which in that case you need to debate me in the comments, because like I've said many, many times before I love a good argument.
First of all, I'm not entirely certain how successful this journal will be. I know that I'll be buying it, but others? Especially since a majority of average comic books fans aren't exactly inclined to do in depth analysis beyond debating who would win in a fight, Superman or Batman? This journal may very well put out one issue and then fold completely.
Second of all, I'm afraid that this journal, like in most areas of academia, the field will be dominated by, again, heterosexual white males, and that would probably, but not definitely, limit the topics explored (like gender and race and even sexual orientation).
Thirdly, how exactly to you tackle some of the monthly titles? It's one thing to write about Sandman or Watchmen, but what the hell do you do with, for example, Tarot (as godawful as it is) or Spiderman or Batman and his eight spin-off titles or the eight bajillion continuities in DC and Marvel? I'm not saying that no one could analyze this, but how do you handle that in a way that non-comic reading people will understand?
Fourthly, the fanboys. Oh god, the fanboys. Can you just imagine all the wank that will come out of this? Granted, most of them will probably never read the journal, but that's unlikely to stop them probably from complaining about how unfair everyone is to them and their comics and how, seriously, it's just not women objectified and there's, like, non-white heroes, dude.
Lastly, I'm afraid that in the end this will be less a serious studying of comics as culturally and literately important and more regulating comics to the ghettoized genre, which is still viewed as being for children and therefore has no literary or cultural value.
That all said, I am cautiously optimistic for this journal and will definitely be picking up the first volume. I am, first and foremost, a geek at heart.
Let's start with the squeeing, shall we? While I have spent a lot of time here making fun of comics--mainly in the guise of Alan Your Tears Are Like Wine To Me Moore and Aquaman I Live in a Cardboard Box Under the Sea)--I have championed graphic novels as literature in their own right. The most obvious examples of this would be Watchmen and basically anything Alan Moore has written and Neil Gaiman's Sandman.
As for the more monthly titles, while it would be hard to argue that some of them (coughTarotcough) construe literature, they are undeniably markers of popular culture, and you can certainly track social/political trends through them. Hell, just look at the evolution of Lois Lane's character, paying particular attention to her 1950s incarnation compared to her contemporary characterization.
The description of the journal as "covering all aspects of the graphic novel, comic strip and comic book, with the emphasis on comics in their cultural, institutional and creative contexts" makes me cautiously optimistic. Since comics have become so twined with American popular culture to the point where even non-comic readers recognize the shorthand used to portray certain personality types, like "man of steel, Wonder Woman" and so on, it's very important to examine comics in an academical and cultural context.
It has only been relatively recently that comics have been viewed in an academic light, since comics have historically been marked as "for children" and by "children" I mean boys. It has only been in the past twenty or so years that papers and books have been published (off the top of my head I think of Wonder Women: Feminisms and Superheroes by Lillian Robinson--if you are at interested in Wonder Woman and female superheroes you need to read this book like yesterday-- and Comic Book Nation by Bradford Wright). There has been studies on horror comics and the war comics of the 40s, but overall comics books have been dismissed as cheap genre escapism for boys (girls, as both Didio and Quesada are quick to assure you, don't read comics).
The journal also wants to include articles about comic book fandom and international comics. I'm happy that they are trying for a wider scope than just the US and maybe Britain. I, for one, would love to see if there's a comic book fandom/culture in, say, Iraq or South America or anywhere that's not predominately white and English speaking.
I really would like to read a journal that explores gender, race, sexual orientation, just among a few topics, in comics. I would love to read about Russian comic book fans, or writers and artists in Mexico creating their own superheroes, and god knows I would kill for a study of Internet based fandom and how much it's dominated by heterosexual Caucasian male fans, and the ramifications of that and the backlashes of criticisms posed by women and fans of color.
So there's the squee, and now we get to my "hmm" part of my reaction.
I'm going to be honest and say this part of my reaction is a bit harder to pin down, and some of you will probably disagree with my reasons, which in that case you need to debate me in the comments, because like I've said many, many times before I love a good argument.
First of all, I'm not entirely certain how successful this journal will be. I know that I'll be buying it, but others? Especially since a majority of average comic books fans aren't exactly inclined to do in depth analysis beyond debating who would win in a fight, Superman or Batman? This journal may very well put out one issue and then fold completely.
Second of all, I'm afraid that this journal, like in most areas of academia, the field will be dominated by, again, heterosexual white males, and that would probably, but not definitely, limit the topics explored (like gender and race and even sexual orientation).
Thirdly, how exactly to you tackle some of the monthly titles? It's one thing to write about Sandman or Watchmen, but what the hell do you do with, for example, Tarot (as godawful as it is) or Spiderman or Batman and his eight spin-off titles or the eight bajillion continuities in DC and Marvel? I'm not saying that no one could analyze this, but how do you handle that in a way that non-comic reading people will understand?
Fourthly, the fanboys. Oh god, the fanboys. Can you just imagine all the wank that will come out of this? Granted, most of them will probably never read the journal, but that's unlikely to stop them probably from complaining about how unfair everyone is to them and their comics and how, seriously, it's just not women objectified and there's, like, non-white heroes, dude.
Lastly, I'm afraid that in the end this will be less a serious studying of comics as culturally and literately important and more regulating comics to the ghettoized genre, which is still viewed as being for children and therefore has no literary or cultural value.
That all said, I am cautiously optimistic for this journal and will definitely be picking up the first volume. I am, first and foremost, a geek at heart.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Well, we think we're hilarious
So how many of you out there have thought to yourself, "You know, self, I wonder what the geek girls do when they're not here making fun of Alan Moore or spending money they don't have on Star Wars Force trainers?"
Well, wonder no more, my friends! While I cannot speak for my lovely co-mods, I can assure you that my day is spent consuming roughly my body weight in sweet life sustaining coffee, resisting the urge to kill undergrads, and exchanging awesomely geeky texts with my hetero lifemate.
To further strip away the aura of mystery, I'll even let you in on one such exchange (hetero lifemate texts in bold, mine in italics):
Batman: the Bold and the Brave. Attempting to make Aquaman useful since the 2st Century.
There is nothing I do not love about you or this.
His [Aquaman's] beard speaks volumes: he hasn't had a job in months and he's living out of a whiskey bottle.
Instead of tossing him some change, Batman was all, "Fine. You can help me save the world. Just don't do that talking to your fish friends thing. It's weird and makes everyone uncomfortable."
In case you're wondering, yes, this exchange is representative of our normal, daily conversation. Also, yes, we clearly are awesome.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The internet tries to scare the crap out of you
Halloween is coming up in a week and a half (holy crap, it's almost November! I just paid rent, I swear!), so I'm going to take this opportunity to post some links, because if I have to be scared, so do you.
The SCP Foundation Can be rather hit or miss, but I spend a lot of time here procrastinating (mainly when I have grading to do--nothing is as scary as undergrad papers). It's rather creepy, but it can be rather nifty, too, especially if you know your urban legends and fairy tales and can identify what the things are before they tell you. My favorites are the ones dealing with artifacts, because those are the ones that are really freaking creepy.
Creepypasta Very hit or miss. It's little bite-sized pieces of terror, and when it hits, oh god, it hits.
Candle Cove Related to Creepypasta, but something completely on its own. Also, creepy, because puppets, like clowns, are inherently fucking terrifying. Something a girl in one of my classes disagreed with, and was talking about how she makes puppets and paints them and I just sat there shuddering, because PUPPETS. Ech!
ETA: Oh god, someone made a video of it.
Ichor Falls Origin of Candle Cove (gah puppets!). Haven't really looked at it, but supposed to have creepy things there.
Bad, Scary Place Not so much creepy as it is just bizarre. Sort of feels like you're stuck in an acid trip for hours. Be prepared to get lost by clicking on things.
SFPA Halloween Reading Horror Poetry! Awesome!
Pesudopod and Wormwood Audio horror stories! Hello nightmares!
Sf_drama's latest OTT on creepy shit. I found a bunch of links through this. Well worth it to read through the comments and pick up on things that creep people out, like mirrors at night. My favorite comment is "Wyoming. No one has ever convinced me it isn't really a government conspiracy." I can believe that.
Pesdu-Realism
Ted's Caving Page This is definitely not real--was taken from a short story--but it still manages to be claustrophobic and creepy. Vaguely reminiscent of Lovecraft.
ETA: Original short story here
Indian Lake Project I am reading my way through that now. Definitely has that creepy "government conspiracy cover up" feel to it. Plus, there's something about old photographs that freak me out.
The Dionea House A story told through e-mail and chat logs. Have not started to read this, but heard it's really creepy. After you finish with that, go here (oh god, that "found you" makes me want to hide under the bed) and here and here and here
Vids
The girl or the weapon A Firefly, River-centric vid. First of all, Firefly is awesome, as is River. Second, fantastically made vid that is, like I keep saying in this post, creepy.
Also, scary clowns:
While this video is amazing, I have to go with OMG SCARY BLANK CLOWN MASK IS GOING TO EAT YOUR FACE. There is nothing not terrifying about clowns. Even worse, I watched this late last night before going to bed. I live in an old building, with creaking floors and whatnot. That meant every time the person who lives above me moves around and makes the floor creak in tortured ways, I was convinced the clown was coming to eat my face.
Since this post has a surplus of things designed to scare the crap out of you, wanna buy a ghost?
In conclusion, sweet, sweet dreams, everyone.
The SCP Foundation Can be rather hit or miss, but I spend a lot of time here procrastinating (mainly when I have grading to do--nothing is as scary as undergrad papers). It's rather creepy, but it can be rather nifty, too, especially if you know your urban legends and fairy tales and can identify what the things are before they tell you. My favorites are the ones dealing with artifacts, because those are the ones that are really freaking creepy.
Creepypasta Very hit or miss. It's little bite-sized pieces of terror, and when it hits, oh god, it hits.
Candle Cove Related to Creepypasta, but something completely on its own. Also, creepy, because puppets, like clowns, are inherently fucking terrifying. Something a girl in one of my classes disagreed with, and was talking about how she makes puppets and paints them and I just sat there shuddering, because PUPPETS. Ech!
ETA: Oh god, someone made a video of it.
Ichor Falls Origin of Candle Cove (gah puppets!). Haven't really looked at it, but supposed to have creepy things there.
Bad, Scary Place Not so much creepy as it is just bizarre. Sort of feels like you're stuck in an acid trip for hours. Be prepared to get lost by clicking on things.
SFPA Halloween Reading Horror Poetry! Awesome!
Pesudopod and Wormwood Audio horror stories! Hello nightmares!
Sf_drama's latest OTT on creepy shit. I found a bunch of links through this. Well worth it to read through the comments and pick up on things that creep people out, like mirrors at night. My favorite comment is "Wyoming. No one has ever convinced me it isn't really a government conspiracy." I can believe that.
Pesdu-Realism
Ted's Caving Page This is definitely not real--was taken from a short story--but it still manages to be claustrophobic and creepy. Vaguely reminiscent of Lovecraft.
ETA: Original short story here
Indian Lake Project I am reading my way through that now. Definitely has that creepy "government conspiracy cover up" feel to it. Plus, there's something about old photographs that freak me out.
The Dionea House A story told through e-mail and chat logs. Have not started to read this, but heard it's really creepy. After you finish with that, go here (oh god, that "found you" makes me want to hide under the bed) and here and here and here
Vids
The girl or the weapon A Firefly, River-centric vid. First of all, Firefly is awesome, as is River. Second, fantastically made vid that is, like I keep saying in this post, creepy.
Also, scary clowns:
While this video is amazing, I have to go with OMG SCARY BLANK CLOWN MASK IS GOING TO EAT YOUR FACE. There is nothing not terrifying about clowns. Even worse, I watched this late last night before going to bed. I live in an old building, with creaking floors and whatnot. That meant every time the person who lives above me moves around and makes the floor creak in tortured ways, I was convinced the clown was coming to eat my face.
Since this post has a surplus of things designed to scare the crap out of you, wanna buy a ghost?
In conclusion, sweet, sweet dreams, everyone.
Friday, October 02, 2009
My new theory is I just hate myself
I was going to use this time to post a review of Terry Pratchett's The Nation, or talk about the animated adaption of Weird Sisters, or possibly get back to making fun of comics, but all that takes energy that I frankly do not have, what with grading some undergrad papers (I am going to staple Strunker and White to their foreheads I swear to god). Instead I am taking the time to do something like a public service announcement, which is not a selfless act in that I'm hoping that it will in the future help keep my eyes from bleeding.
So you all know that I read some truly horrifically bad books, right? Look, we've all picked up a book that was less than stellar quality and end up reading the entire thing out of morbid fascination, or in my case I read it for something to feel snarkily superior to. But, and this is a big but, I sometimes find myself actively seeking out horrible things to read of my own free will. There are days when I could either read a extremely tight paced story with beautiful language and fantastic dialogue and wonderful, insightful characterization or I could read something retarded about angel babies being hatched from eggs, and I am all over the egg hatched angels (I truly wish I was making the angel thing up, but I'm not. Don't ask. Seriously, don't.)
It's like being given a choice between the finest of Swiss chocolates made by a chocolatier that has spent his entire life working and training and preparing to make this one perfect batch of chocolates, one taste of which would make you weep in joy and gratitude that something like this could exist in the word, and a Twinkie and you choose the Twinkie. Worse still, this is not an either/an choice: you can have both the Twinkie and the transcendent chocolate, and yet you reply that, no, thanks, it looks good but the Twinkie filled you up and you feel no need to eat the chocolates.
That might have gotten away from me for a bit, but the point I was trying to make (before I made myself crave truffles) is that I have read some really awful things in my life and I feel it is my duty to offer advice to those young writers out there. And when I offer this advice you better take it because otherwise I may be forced to kill you. Just so you know.
1. For god's sake, keep your tenses consistent.
Seriously, if I have to read one more goddamn piece of fiction where the writer cannot keep the tenses straight for more than two sentence then I'm going to harness Alan Moore levels of bitter and blow something up.
Look, young and impressionable writers, most fiction is written in the past tense (commonly seen in words ending in -ed for those who are unsure), but you can also employ present if the fancy takes you, but don't switch between them. If you're having trouble keeping tenses straight find someone to look over your work and point out where you mix them up or I will find out where you sleep and come for you. Trust me when I say you do not want that.
2. There are point of views other than first
Try investing in some third omniscient or third limited. Please, I am begging you. If I have to read one more story with a whiny, self-indulgent narrator I'm going to snap and voluntarily search out plots involving magical angel babies being hatched from eggs. OH WAIT THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED SEE WHAT YOU'VE DRIVEN ME TO.
In all seriousness, though, I understand that most new writers employ first because it seems the safer choice, but be aware of what you're trying to achieve in your narrative and what pov might suit it better, which leads me to:
3. Stick with one pov
This is mainly for those working in third person limited. I think there is some confusion between the difference between third person omniscient and third person limited. In third omniscient, the narrator knows everything that's going on, all the characters' thoughts, motivation, actions, ect. In third limited, the narrative is filtered through one specific character, meaning the reader has access to his/her motivation and thoughts, but not to other characters'.
A mistake a lot of young writers making, including me when I was but a wee lass, is that mid-scene you'll switch from third limited focused on character A to third limited focused on character B. Do not do that. It's true that some authors employ that switch, but they are considerably better at their craft than you. Many young writers make the switch clumsy and that throws the reader out of the narrative. If you're not sure if you switched povs then once again get a reader for your work for the love of Space Buddha.
4. It's okay to use the word "said"
It is. You can trust your Aunty Jayne on this. Yes, yes, I know what you've learned in school, that you don't want overuse the word and that you should employ synonyms. But here's the thing in fiction: said is one of those words that become invisible to the reader. They'll just gloss over it. What they won't gloss over is exclaims, demands, argues, and whatever else your thesauruses vomits up. Just stick with said.
5. The use of epithets
I can write an entire goddamn book on this, but in short, if the characters have names, which I'm assuming they do, use their goddamn names. If the reader knows them as John then there is no reason why you refer to him as "the blond" or "the surfer" or "the baker" or what-the-fuck-ever in the narrative when he has a fucking name.
Don't worry about being repetitive. Like the word said, character names become invisible pretty quickly and the reader won't suddenly stop and go, "You know what? I wish the writer would stop calling John by his name. I am so sick of reading it."
There are exceptions to this, like if you introduce character X and character A doesn't know his name and refers to him as "blond boy" or "thug one" or whatever. But as soon as the character has a name use it.
Sometimes in the text, it is okay to refer to a character by, for example, their profession. That will signify them pulling rank on another character or thatthey know what the hell they're doing. But only do that once or twice, not every other sentence. In short, USE THEIR GODDAMN NAME OR I WILL COME FOR YOU.
6. It's "come," not "cum."
Cum is not a word and you are not twelve. Grow up.
7. Cocks should never be weeping.
And no, I am not talking about the bird. Look, I am not about to step in and tell you if you should or should not use a sex scene in your story. What I am saying is that you damn well need to be aware of your language and description in sex scenes or you're going to end up with something that's not erotic but a giant messy ball of hilarious mess.
If you want your sex scene to be awkward then by all means make your narrative and descriptions as awkward as possible to get that across. But if you want your scene to be sexy and erotic then "his weeping cock" is not going to achieve that.
Yes, yes, I am aware that the phrase is referring to the pre-come and all that, but it just makes me think the penis is sad, and no penis should be sad when it's about to be laid. Also, you use "weeping cock" and I will make fun of you forever. Even more than the person with the magically hatching angel babies.
6. Be really aware of your descriptions
This is related to the above, in that you don't want your reader to suddenly start laughing during a dramatic scene because you whipped out a weeping cock.
For example, I was perfectly invested in one story until I came upon "his rock hard abs." Instead of responding with, "My, he is most definitely a ripped and sexy individual," I IMed my Hetero Lifemate this: "ROCK HARD ABS, HL. HE WAS HEWN FROM ROCK."
That led to this exchange:
HL: They made him from the finest granite.
Jayne: He has to be careful if he lays out on the sun, otherwise lizards come to soak up the heat from his granite abs.
HL: He is like geiko-nip.
Jayne: Though he does have to watch out for erosion, because god knows that in twenty, thirty years, his abs aren't going to be rock hard so much as mudslide.
So unless that's what you're aiming for, get someone to read your work over and point out anything that is ridiculous.
7. Learn what the word "literally" actually means.
You know what, let me help you with that. Literally is defined as: "adv. in the literal or strict sense; word for word; actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy; in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually."
That means when you say something literally happens it actually happened just like you said. This is not a hard concept, people.
Let's look at some ways to use the word in the most inaccurate way possible:
"His eyes literally burned with an emotion."
Unless he is Superman or Cyclops then his eyes were not actually burning with an emotion. If his eyes were smoldering from an emotion (although god only knows which one it is, since the author doesn't specify. Possibly he is bored) then this story would have been far more exciting then it was.
"They literally devoured each other's mouths."
If that was what was actually happening then this is not a sexy kiss scene but cannibalism and drastically different then what the writer was going for. However, if the writer wanted to properly use literally here then just make the two characters zombies and you're good to go.
An example of the proper use of literally: "People who misuse the word 'literal' make me literally want to concuss them with a volume of the Oxford English Dictionary."
I am fully aware that this list will not cure me of my self-loathing quest to consume my body weight in the literary equivalent of Twinkies, but hopefully some of you young writers out there will take this advice and save me the effort of finding you and beating you to death with the OED. Because I will do it. As soon as I finish reading about the baby angel breaking forth from its shell. Aw, it's so fluffy like a little chick!
Share us with others! Hooray sharing!
So you all know that I read some truly horrifically bad books, right? Look, we've all picked up a book that was less than stellar quality and end up reading the entire thing out of morbid fascination, or in my case I read it for something to feel snarkily superior to. But, and this is a big but, I sometimes find myself actively seeking out horrible things to read of my own free will. There are days when I could either read a extremely tight paced story with beautiful language and fantastic dialogue and wonderful, insightful characterization or I could read something retarded about angel babies being hatched from eggs, and I am all over the egg hatched angels (I truly wish I was making the angel thing up, but I'm not. Don't ask. Seriously, don't.)
It's like being given a choice between the finest of Swiss chocolates made by a chocolatier that has spent his entire life working and training and preparing to make this one perfect batch of chocolates, one taste of which would make you weep in joy and gratitude that something like this could exist in the word, and a Twinkie and you choose the Twinkie. Worse still, this is not an either/an choice: you can have both the Twinkie and the transcendent chocolate, and yet you reply that, no, thanks, it looks good but the Twinkie filled you up and you feel no need to eat the chocolates.
That might have gotten away from me for a bit, but the point I was trying to make (before I made myself crave truffles) is that I have read some really awful things in my life and I feel it is my duty to offer advice to those young writers out there. And when I offer this advice you better take it because otherwise I may be forced to kill you. Just so you know.
1. For god's sake, keep your tenses consistent.
Seriously, if I have to read one more goddamn piece of fiction where the writer cannot keep the tenses straight for more than two sentence then I'm going to harness Alan Moore levels of bitter and blow something up.
Look, young and impressionable writers, most fiction is written in the past tense (commonly seen in words ending in -ed for those who are unsure), but you can also employ present if the fancy takes you, but don't switch between them. If you're having trouble keeping tenses straight find someone to look over your work and point out where you mix them up or I will find out where you sleep and come for you. Trust me when I say you do not want that.
2. There are point of views other than first
Try investing in some third omniscient or third limited. Please, I am begging you. If I have to read one more story with a whiny, self-indulgent narrator I'm going to snap and voluntarily search out plots involving magical angel babies being hatched from eggs. OH WAIT THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED SEE WHAT YOU'VE DRIVEN ME TO.
In all seriousness, though, I understand that most new writers employ first because it seems the safer choice, but be aware of what you're trying to achieve in your narrative and what pov might suit it better, which leads me to:
3. Stick with one pov
This is mainly for those working in third person limited. I think there is some confusion between the difference between third person omniscient and third person limited. In third omniscient, the narrator knows everything that's going on, all the characters' thoughts, motivation, actions, ect. In third limited, the narrative is filtered through one specific character, meaning the reader has access to his/her motivation and thoughts, but not to other characters'.
A mistake a lot of young writers making, including me when I was but a wee lass, is that mid-scene you'll switch from third limited focused on character A to third limited focused on character B. Do not do that. It's true that some authors employ that switch, but they are considerably better at their craft than you. Many young writers make the switch clumsy and that throws the reader out of the narrative. If you're not sure if you switched povs then once again get a reader for your work for the love of Space Buddha.
4. It's okay to use the word "said"
It is. You can trust your Aunty Jayne on this. Yes, yes, I know what you've learned in school, that you don't want overuse the word and that you should employ synonyms. But here's the thing in fiction: said is one of those words that become invisible to the reader. They'll just gloss over it. What they won't gloss over is exclaims, demands, argues, and whatever else your thesauruses vomits up. Just stick with said.
5. The use of epithets
I can write an entire goddamn book on this, but in short, if the characters have names, which I'm assuming they do, use their goddamn names. If the reader knows them as John then there is no reason why you refer to him as "the blond" or "the surfer" or "the baker" or what-the-fuck-ever in the narrative when he has a fucking name.
Don't worry about being repetitive. Like the word said, character names become invisible pretty quickly and the reader won't suddenly stop and go, "You know what? I wish the writer would stop calling John by his name. I am so sick of reading it."
There are exceptions to this, like if you introduce character X and character A doesn't know his name and refers to him as "blond boy" or "thug one" or whatever. But as soon as the character has a name use it.
Sometimes in the text, it is okay to refer to a character by, for example, their profession. That will signify them pulling rank on another character or thatthey know what the hell they're doing. But only do that once or twice, not every other sentence. In short, USE THEIR GODDAMN NAME OR I WILL COME FOR YOU.
6. It's "come," not "cum."
Cum is not a word and you are not twelve. Grow up.
7. Cocks should never be weeping.
And no, I am not talking about the bird. Look, I am not about to step in and tell you if you should or should not use a sex scene in your story. What I am saying is that you damn well need to be aware of your language and description in sex scenes or you're going to end up with something that's not erotic but a giant messy ball of hilarious mess.
If you want your sex scene to be awkward then by all means make your narrative and descriptions as awkward as possible to get that across. But if you want your scene to be sexy and erotic then "his weeping cock" is not going to achieve that.
Yes, yes, I am aware that the phrase is referring to the pre-come and all that, but it just makes me think the penis is sad, and no penis should be sad when it's about to be laid. Also, you use "weeping cock" and I will make fun of you forever. Even more than the person with the magically hatching angel babies.
6. Be really aware of your descriptions
This is related to the above, in that you don't want your reader to suddenly start laughing during a dramatic scene because you whipped out a weeping cock.
For example, I was perfectly invested in one story until I came upon "his rock hard abs." Instead of responding with, "My, he is most definitely a ripped and sexy individual," I IMed my Hetero Lifemate this: "ROCK HARD ABS, HL. HE WAS HEWN FROM ROCK."
That led to this exchange:
HL: They made him from the finest granite.
Jayne: He has to be careful if he lays out on the sun, otherwise lizards come to soak up the heat from his granite abs.
HL: He is like geiko-nip.
Jayne: Though he does have to watch out for erosion, because god knows that in twenty, thirty years, his abs aren't going to be rock hard so much as mudslide.
So unless that's what you're aiming for, get someone to read your work over and point out anything that is ridiculous.
7. Learn what the word "literally" actually means.
You know what, let me help you with that. Literally is defined as: "adv. in the literal or strict sense; word for word; actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy; in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually."
That means when you say something literally happens it actually happened just like you said. This is not a hard concept, people.
Let's look at some ways to use the word in the most inaccurate way possible:
"His eyes literally burned with an emotion."
Unless he is Superman or Cyclops then his eyes were not actually burning with an emotion. If his eyes were smoldering from an emotion (although god only knows which one it is, since the author doesn't specify. Possibly he is bored) then this story would have been far more exciting then it was.
"They literally devoured each other's mouths."
If that was what was actually happening then this is not a sexy kiss scene but cannibalism and drastically different then what the writer was going for. However, if the writer wanted to properly use literally here then just make the two characters zombies and you're good to go.
An example of the proper use of literally: "People who misuse the word 'literal' make me literally want to concuss them with a volume of the Oxford English Dictionary."
I am fully aware that this list will not cure me of my self-loathing quest to consume my body weight in the literary equivalent of Twinkies, but hopefully some of you young writers out there will take this advice and save me the effort of finding you and beating you to death with the OED. Because I will do it. As soon as I finish reading about the baby angel breaking forth from its shell. Aw, it's so fluffy like a little chick!
Share us with others! Hooray sharing!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)