My class is finally over! Fantastic.
Now I get to continue on and on forever and ever writing on a story about spies in space.
'Tis very exciting.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Writing class a deux
The tidbit this week:
I leave little crumb to my character's personality in my prose that I need to sweep up before submission. Crumbs = things that are expository that the author needs, but the reader don't.
And now, I am late for the bus.
I leave little crumb to my character's personality in my prose that I need to sweep up before submission. Crumbs = things that are expository that the author needs, but the reader don't.
And now, I am late for the bus.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Writing Class Wisdom
I have joined yet another novel writing class and feel it is my duty to myself (because I am spending so much damn money) to record the wisdom of the ancients on my nuveau writing tablet.
#1: Imagine the structure of your story, visually- if you have no clue, then it should look like a tangle of earth worms. However, if you are neat and organized it will look like a nice tidy tree similar to that family tree you did in third grade before you realized your daddy ain't necessarily so.
#2: Plot is action- if you don't add enough action to your book, it ain't going nowhere. You will see this at best example in twilight. In movie form it was even more painfully clear that NOTHING EVER HAPPENED. Oh, and Edward was a creepy stalker, not romantic.
#3: Force your plot points- when you have a pivotal moment where the plot must be pushed along at breakneck speed, force your character to make the choice that furthers the story. If she has four days to twiddle her thumbs and cogitate, then there will be no tension.
#4: Tell yourself the storyline every day: Repeat it ad nauseum until you know every little in and out. THe bonus part of this is you will start to weed out undesirable parts of your story automatically.
And then, #5 says 'develop characters'. Well, duh, Jaye. Perhaps you should take better notes. I'll think on it and maybe get back to you.
And that was class #1. Oh,and (random fact learned last night) people with ADD are highly distrating.
#1: Imagine the structure of your story, visually- if you have no clue, then it should look like a tangle of earth worms. However, if you are neat and organized it will look like a nice tidy tree similar to that family tree you did in third grade before you realized your daddy ain't necessarily so.
#2: Plot is action- if you don't add enough action to your book, it ain't going nowhere. You will see this at best example in twilight. In movie form it was even more painfully clear that NOTHING EVER HAPPENED. Oh, and Edward was a creepy stalker, not romantic.
#3: Force your plot points- when you have a pivotal moment where the plot must be pushed along at breakneck speed, force your character to make the choice that furthers the story. If she has four days to twiddle her thumbs and cogitate, then there will be no tension.
#4: Tell yourself the storyline every day: Repeat it ad nauseum until you know every little in and out. THe bonus part of this is you will start to weed out undesirable parts of your story automatically.
And then, #5 says 'develop characters'. Well, duh, Jaye. Perhaps you should take better notes. I'll think on it and maybe get back to you.
And that was class #1. Oh,and (random fact learned last night) people with ADD are highly distrating.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Oh, for the love of God...
Is finding a man going to be this disappointing all the time? I just got the tackiest ass text message from a guy I hardly know telling me he wished he getting past second base with me right now (with a soundtrack). Romantic, no? I'll give you some backstory: this is from a "man" who refused to spend more than $7 on a date with me, tried to sneak me into one of the local amusement centers for free (and refused to pay up when we got caught), made a severely depressing double entendre involving coffee in a bookstore, then tried to make out with me in the middle of a park in broad daylight.
Is chivalry dead?
Stay tuned!
Is chivalry dead?
Stay tuned!
Monday, January 05, 2009
High heels, why they are intimidating...
Think about what position you would be in if you decided you wanted to jump on some prey and snap it's jugular. You'd be on your toes right? Crouched to spring, you're never going to be flat footed. Ready to run? Your heels are up in the air.
There's always that thing you hear in women's studies that men want women to wear high heels because it makes their feet smaller. Who cares about that when they'd rather stare at boobs all day anyways? I think it is just that women in heels are in an aggressive position everyone subconsciously registers. For women, that's why the threat, the enhanced spirit of competition. For men that's why there's double takes. It may revert to a mode of appreciation, but probably at first there's just a tiny twinge of your inner caveman going "WTF? Is she going to rip my head off?" This also comes with a touch of adrenalie rush which is the same rush attached to sexual urges. Which confims what everyone already knows:
Of course, the relative discomfort and balance issues right the threat factor immediately, but the initial impact is the same. That rush of "fight or flight" will always exist as a forethought.
Think of that next time you don those stilletos.
There's always that thing you hear in women's studies that men want women to wear high heels because it makes their feet smaller. Who cares about that when they'd rather stare at boobs all day anyways? I think it is just that women in heels are in an aggressive position everyone subconsciously registers. For women, that's why the threat, the enhanced spirit of competition. For men that's why there's double takes. It may revert to a mode of appreciation, but probably at first there's just a tiny twinge of your inner caveman going "WTF? Is she going to rip my head off?" This also comes with a touch of adrenalie rush which is the same rush attached to sexual urges. Which confims what everyone already knows:
HIGH HEELS = SEX
Of course, the relative discomfort and balance issues right the threat factor immediately, but the initial impact is the same. That rush of "fight or flight" will always exist as a forethought.
Think of that next time you don those stilletos.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Humor Theory: Interesting Stuff or Dry as Toast?
On a lark (since I am such a good employee) I decided to research humor theory yesterday for a bit during my many 15 minute breaks during the day. I found some damn fascinating stuff, some of which I will share with you below. And maybe with a few other posts.
Yay Everyone! Igor Krishtafovich, a U.S. physicist, has "discovered" the formula for humor! While this theory is just about as prove-able as the theory of relativity*, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and says he's right. After all, the man can probably best me in a battle of wits after drinking a fifth of bourbon after an afternoon lobotomy.
The formula is as following:
HE = PI x C/T + BM
PI – personal involvement
C - complexity of a joke. The higher degree of complexity the better provided that your audience can solve the problem within 1 or 2 seconds.
T – time spent by a person solving a joke. The longer the time, the weaker the effect.
BM – background mood. A joker can have an advantage if an audience enjoys the show. However, a real good joke can “blow up” the most dismal audience.
HE – humor effectiveness.
I figure the best way to analyze whether this theory is effective is to put it to the Eddie Izzard test. No one can deny the man is funny. Even people who are morbidly scared of transvestites will generally come around to the Eddie camp once exposed to his audio work. But the thing about him is, it's not slapstick, simple stuff, it's thinking man's comedy. You have to know stuff in order to get it. Some jokes I haven't gotten for years and then somthing clunks into place and I totally get it (usually slapping myself in the forehead in whatever public locale this happens at. Many strangers think I have spastic limb disorder.) I digress.
The first thing that interests me is the personal involvement index. Now, since his humor is not predicated on strict personal involvement, the jokes must be fashioned in a way to induce personal involvement (PI). I am assuming that humorists such as the White Trash Comedy Tour have a pretty specific audience in mind. They may expand their ideas to involve a wider audience, but generally, their jokes are based on the idea that you, your relations, or your acquaintances exist within the White Trash contingent. But, since much of Eddie's humor is based on history that no one has heard since fourth grade, ancient religious texts or spoken in another language, there is no guarantee of PI. Therefore, each joke must slowly be led into by feeding knowledge to the audience with smaller jokes until a generalized knowledge base exists. This is why many of his jokes become self-referential towards the end of the program. In having that knowledge base, the more complex the jokes can become, because the facts are easily accesible and time for solving the joke decreases dramatically.
These self referential jokes also up the personal investment because everyone loves an inside joke. If the audience is involved with solving these jokes themselves, then the PI skyrockets and you make a fan for life. One show that does this to great effect is Newsradio. There storylines build and build, and with most cases (not involving Matthew who is played mainly for physical comedy) the audience is required to provide the punchlines to the jokes which are played minimally.
Now, if you have a joke that requires more personal involvement, such as inside jokes. The time for solving jokes can be much greater with the same intended effect.
Point is, this humor equation is pretty darn fascinating, and I think I will be doing a little more digging into it. Much to you chagrin, mehopes.
*Sure, everyone assumes that Einstein is right, but if no one on the planet understands his theories, how can we know they're right?
Yay Everyone! Igor Krishtafovich, a U.S. physicist, has "discovered" the formula for humor! While this theory is just about as prove-able as the theory of relativity*, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and says he's right. After all, the man can probably best me in a battle of wits after drinking a fifth of bourbon after an afternoon lobotomy.
The formula is as following:
HE = PI x C/T + BM
PI – personal involvement
C - complexity of a joke. The higher degree of complexity the better provided that your audience can solve the problem within 1 or 2 seconds.
T – time spent by a person solving a joke. The longer the time, the weaker the effect.
BM – background mood. A joker can have an advantage if an audience enjoys the show. However, a real good joke can “blow up” the most dismal audience.
HE – humor effectiveness.
I figure the best way to analyze whether this theory is effective is to put it to the Eddie Izzard test. No one can deny the man is funny. Even people who are morbidly scared of transvestites will generally come around to the Eddie camp once exposed to his audio work. But the thing about him is, it's not slapstick, simple stuff, it's thinking man's comedy. You have to know stuff in order to get it. Some jokes I haven't gotten for years and then somthing clunks into place and I totally get it (usually slapping myself in the forehead in whatever public locale this happens at. Many strangers think I have spastic limb disorder.) I digress.
The first thing that interests me is the personal involvement index. Now, since his humor is not predicated on strict personal involvement, the jokes must be fashioned in a way to induce personal involvement (PI). I am assuming that humorists such as the White Trash Comedy Tour have a pretty specific audience in mind. They may expand their ideas to involve a wider audience, but generally, their jokes are based on the idea that you, your relations, or your acquaintances exist within the White Trash contingent. But, since much of Eddie's humor is based on history that no one has heard since fourth grade, ancient religious texts or spoken in another language, there is no guarantee of PI. Therefore, each joke must slowly be led into by feeding knowledge to the audience with smaller jokes until a generalized knowledge base exists. This is why many of his jokes become self-referential towards the end of the program. In having that knowledge base, the more complex the jokes can become, because the facts are easily accesible and time for solving the joke decreases dramatically.
These self referential jokes also up the personal investment because everyone loves an inside joke. If the audience is involved with solving these jokes themselves, then the PI skyrockets and you make a fan for life. One show that does this to great effect is Newsradio. There storylines build and build, and with most cases (not involving Matthew who is played mainly for physical comedy) the audience is required to provide the punchlines to the jokes which are played minimally.
Now, if you have a joke that requires more personal involvement, such as inside jokes. The time for solving jokes can be much greater with the same intended effect.
Point is, this humor equation is pretty darn fascinating, and I think I will be doing a little more digging into it. Much to you chagrin, mehopes.
*Sure, everyone assumes that Einstein is right, but if no one on the planet understands his theories, how can we know they're right?
My brand newest theory
I totally got screwed out of my nap because I had this really important long, involved theory running through my head. Now, it's gone. And I totally wasted three hours that I could have spent dreaming I was hanging out with the Beatles again.
Now I'm pissed.
Now I'm pissed.
Ah...New Years in PDX
Driving drunk on an arcade game is legal right?
Best game ever. Especially after 4 PBR's.
Best game ever. Especially after 4 PBR's.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
