Pages: 1 2 3  Next -- Posted by chalkboard sonata at 12:49 am on Mar. 19, 2006 This board is unfortunately flooded with hordes of godawful, no-talent hacks who wouldn't know good writing if it hit them in the mouth and stole their wallets. Page after page of trite, juvenile garbage; a perennial infestation of bad poetry, puerile rants and narratives replete with netspeak and grammatical holes. Reading these physical manifestations of word-vomit and literary acne cause me pain. I'm not talking about an intellectual pain either; I'm referring to an actual physical pain over my sternum that feels a little like heartburn. It's not heartburn though, no no - it's the feeling you get when you die a little bit inside. So I'm here to help. This isn't going to improve your grammar, your punctuation or your body odour (if you're still struggling with the first two, it's probably time to resurrect the crayons and Little Mermaid colouring book), but it will help you to create work with complexity and subtext - two things that are sorely lacking in the vast majority of the literary output of teeny-boppers and maladjusted adolescents. This is a diagram based upon the literary theories of a certain Sloan (a large version can be found here) that was drawn for me by my old English teacher at the end of year eleven (at the time of writing, I am in my second year of university). I was already a fairly accomplished writer at the time, beginning to discover the joys of competent phraseology and other such textual flourishes that make a work not only competent, but memorable. At any rate, I found it to be useful, and I would hope that you do too, once I have explained it. You will notice that the dichotomous relationship between Innocence and Experience dominates the diagram, and it is a schema by which all narrative texts may be interpreted. Associated with Innocence are positive concepts such as comedy and romance, culminating in the societal model of the utopia - itself a marker for the Promised Land/Heaven/Paradise/idealised past (id est: The Garden of Eden, the Golden Age of Man, Atlantis, Satya Yuga etcetera). These markers (comedy, romance, utopia) operate as exemplars, bereft of subtextual complexity. Texts that correlate to these exemplars include I Love Lucy (comedy), Sonnet XVII (romance) and Island (utopia). Conversely, associated with Experience are the negative aspects of those aforementioned exemplars - irony, tragedy and dystopia (with associated symbols). Once again, these operate as idealised metatexts, into which other texts slot into (completely or not). Examples include Variations on a theme by William Carlos Williams (irony), most of the bullshit on this forum (tragedy) and Brave New World (dystopia). However, the texts I have mentioned, though all classics of television, literature or poetry (with one notable exception), lack something crucial. Subtext. I'm sure a lot of people are going to have apoplexy at the suggestion that such hallowed and exalted texts are one-dimensional, but it is true. But there is a secret to complexity. To write something that has elements of complex and ambiguity, one must traverse the canyon that separates Innocence from Experience. Truly (and I mean truly) great pieces of literature blend genre and form, thereby giving substance and weight to otherwise rather yeastless narratives hopelessly bound by genre. And thus were born the tragicomedy, the black comedy, the tragic romance and the ironic romance. I have little doubt that scores of you little munchkins eternally lament why your work is never quite as good as equivalent work in the public sphere - and I can guarantee you, that this is a factor (along with being functionally illiterate, of course). Life is not diced nicely into discrete units, so there is no reason why art should not be a similar goulash of genre and form. Don't be afraid to take risks. Remember Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) when writing - it's okay to write garbage. Just make sure no one sees it. Learn the rhythms and sighs of the language. Have an affair with words. Be creative. Finally, I must advise you to read and write, read write read write read write readwritereadread writewrite read (and I don't mean reading Goosebumps and The Baby-Sitters Club either. I mean meaty texts with taste and extra gravy - Hemingway, Tolstoy, Heller, Grass, Marquez, Camus, Mann. Go crazy). Down the right hand side of the schema is a list of texts, each with a very distinct voice and tone. Learn to emulate and ape these styles. Make them giggle. Tweak their nipples occasionally. Write 100 000 words of your own, then burn them. Now, you are ready to be good. (Edited by chalkboard sonata at 9:45 am on Aug. 2, 2006) -- Posted by snowfish at 12:55 am on Mar. 19, 2006 well thank you for the encouragement, though I feel I'm already trying to find this path. -- Posted by Charolastra at 1:03 am on Mar. 19, 2006 O NOES THE RHETORIC IS TOO MUCH FOR MY BRAIN -- Posted by Blacksummer at 1:06 am on Mar. 19, 2006 *wets self in an alcoholic haze* (Edited by Blacksummer at 1:22 am on Mar. 19, 2006) -- Posted by the real anti christ at 2:37 am on Mar. 19, 2006 I sort of wonder why you linked me here Ryan, are you implying something? -- Posted by chalkboard sonata at 3:08 am on Mar. 19, 2006 Quote: from the real anti christ at 7:37 pm on Mar. 19, 2006 I sort of wonder why you linked me here Ryan, are you implying something? *shifty eyes* -- Posted by the real anti christ at 6:10 am on Mar. 19, 2006 Quote: from chalkboard sonata at 5:08 am on Mar. 19, 2006 Quote: from the real anti christ at 7:37 pm on Mar. 19, 2006 I sort of wonder why you linked me here Ryan, are you implying something? *shifty eyes* Well than I will never write for you again. -- Posted by rimv at 2:52 pm on Mar. 19, 2006 Most necessary LW post ever. -- Posted by Ricos Panties at 7:49 pm on Mar. 19, 2006 *thumbs up* (Edited by Ricos Panties at 2:50 pm on Mar. 20, 2006) -- Posted by myystic at 11:35 pm on Mar. 19, 2006 Quote: from rimv at 9:52 am on Mar. 20, 2006 Most necessary LW post ever. Now there's a compliment, right there. In any event, this here might be an inspiration for me to actually create something, Ryan. Maybe. -- Posted by chalkboard sonata at 12:03 am on Mar. 20, 2006 Quote: from rimv at 7:52 am on Mar. 20, 2006 Most necessary LW post ever. I am humbled, sage and eminent guru. -- Posted by the real anti christ at 1:53 pm on Mar. 20, 2006 A sticky of this should be included in EVERY board. -- Posted by Porcelina at 4:23 pm on Mar. 20, 2006 Printed. [I dearly hope I'm not a shit writer you speak of, but never the less, there's always room for improvement and critiques.] -- Posted by StonedInCourt at 12:02 am on Mar. 22, 2006 Don't be silly, kids. It's actually more like the most useless post on Livewire, though Ryan gets some credit for trying. Very few who could truly use the information will read or comprehend the post. It's like trying to teach a 2-year-old to read by plopping them in front of a dictionary - they might have the capability to learn something but are more likely to rip out the pages and eat them. -- Posted by chalkboard sonata at 3:34 am on Mar. 22, 2006 How do you expect me to separate the concepts from the jargon? You nasty bitch. (OH YOU KNOW I'M KIDDING). -- Posted by StonedInCourt at 8:12 pm on Mar. 22, 2006 YOU KILLED ALL MY FEELINGS. -- Posted by the real anti christ at 9:57 pm on Mar. 22, 2006 Why cater to the lowest commen denominator anyway? -- Posted by StonedInCourt at 10:28 pm on Mar. 22, 2006 Because the post is targeted towards the lowest common denominator, obviously. If you're trying to help the stupids, you have to start out talking a little bit stupid. -- Posted by chalkboard sonata at 10:33 pm on Mar. 22, 2006 Quote: from StonedInCourt at 3:28 pm on Mar. 23, 2006 Because the post is targeted towards the lowest common denominator, obviously. If you're trying to help the stupids, you have to start out talking a little bit stupid. I'm not out to help the stupids. I explicitly stipulated that my post would not deal with language fundamentals such as grammar and vocabulary; I am assuming of my audience a certain level of literacy. -- Posted by the real anti christ at 10:40 pm on Mar. 22, 2006 kindergarten perhaps... -- Posted by StonedInCourt at 10:47 pm on Mar. 22, 2006 Quote: from chalkboard sonata at 11:33 pm on Mar. 22, 2006 Quote: from StonedInCourt at 3:28 pm on Mar. 23, 2006 Because the post is targeted towards the lowest common denominator, obviously. If you're trying to help the stupids, you have to start out talking a little bit stupid. I'm not out to help the stupids. I explicitly stipulated that my post would not deal with language fundamentals such as grammar and vocabulary; I am assuming of my audience a certain level of literacy. I don't necessarily mean stupid in the sense of illiteracy, either. But, if you take a group of "teeny-boppers and maladjusted adolescents" and expect this to improve their literary output, I think your expectations are a little high. It's a beautiful and brilliant post, regardless, but we apparently have different ideas about whom your target audience is. -- Posted by the real anti christ at 9:59 am on Mar. 23, 2006 I thought his target audience was kola bears. -- Posted by cutie2 at 10:16 pm on Mar. 24, 2006 Possibly useless in context. In fact, probably more than useless to the majority of posters in this forum, which is a pity. H'wever, I'm reading it, I might gain something from it, and if so, it'll have been some use and I'd expect more people to benefit than just moiself. Clearly some already have, so what-hey. -- Posted by chalkboard sonata at 11:09 pm on Mar. 24, 2006 Quote: from cutie2 at 3:16 pm on Mar. 25, 2006 Possibly useless in context. In fact, probably more than useless to the majority of posters in this forum, which is a pity. H'wever, I'm reading it, I might gain something from it, and if so, it'll have been some use and I'd expect more people to benefit than just moiself. Clearly some already have, so what-hey. ...I like your goatee. -- Posted by ilocin at 7:43 am on Mar. 28, 2006 hehe, neato. -- Posted by Blacksummer at 7:10 pm on Mar. 30, 2006 If anything gained, another round of smug shots in our elitist circle-jerk of literary fags. <3 -- Posted by StonedInCourt at 7:21 pm on Mar. 30, 2006 Well, in that case, it has my full support. Because, really, who doesn't like to circle-jerk over a good literary diagram? (Edited by StonedInCourt at 8:22 pm on Mar. 30, 2006) -- Posted by the real anti christ at 12:01 am on April 2, 2006 Thats right. -- Posted by Chicharrona at 12:00 am on April 3, 2006 chalkboard sonata , the champion in plagiarism. You are no smart. -- Posted by osmoticdespair at 12:04 am on April 3, 2006 I'm too stupid to get anything from this post. Self awareness hurts. Pages: 1 2 3  Next