Welcome!

This journal was created to house The Writer's Attic, the writing column which was originally published on www.fictionpress.com. Issues published on that site prior to the opening of this journal will be backdated according to the day they were uploaded onto fictionpress. Please feel free to email me, autumndark, at autumndark@fictionpress.com with any comments and/or submissions, or use the comment feature of livejournal to respond to either The Social Commentary or The Writer's Attic. All comments and suggestions are welcome, but please be warned that it may not always be possible for me to respond to everyone.


Looking for an old issue? All entries are backdated according to the dates they were uploaded on fictionpress. If you don't know the date of the issue you want, no problem. Just have a look at the calendar and click the "view subjects" button. All issues have been entered with their name and number as the title of the post.


Disclaimer: I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Any advice/opinions in this column come straight from my own experience which is not all-encompassing and may not necessarily apply to you. I do not guarantee success with my methods. Everyone's different, and everyone has their own writing styles, which may or may not apply only to them. With that in mind, I hope something I say is of use to you, and that you enjoy reading my column.



Please scroll down to view the column issues. This entry will always appear as the most recent post.



Autumndark: http://www.fictionpress.com/~autumndark
the dangling conversation: http://autumndark.livejournal.com
email: autumndark@fictionpress.com

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE FOURTEEN: INTERRUPT MODE



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

“And you read your Emily Dickinson,
And I my Robert Frost,
And we note our place with bookmarkers
That measure what we’ve lost.
Like a poem poorly written
We are verses out of rhythm,
Couplets out of rhyme,
In syncopated time
And the Dangling Conversation,
And the superficial sighs,
Are the borders of our lives.”
--Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:

The Trick of It, by Michael Frayn

- In a series of letters to an old friend, an anonymous narrator (literary critic at a British university) discovers that “the trick” of writing a novel is in fact beyond him. Enamored with the work of novelist “JL”, he invites her to speak to his students, and subsequently discovers that his dream come true is in fact a nightmare. He falls for her immediately, and although his courtship is perhaps as bumbled as is possible, eventually marries her. Unfortunately, he realizes thereafter that what comes out in her stories is lacking in her life—color. He begins to worry that he will appear in her writing, only to feel neglected as he realizes he can neither influence her work, nor create his own. As the novel progresses, it becomes clear that he wants nothing more than to get out, but is unable to do so: jobless (after all, he can’t critique his own wife’s work), aimless, and, ultimately, paranoid:

What? Are my underpants aubergine? Of course they’re not aubergine! Don’t you know anything about my taste at all? But she may be saying they’re aubergine! That’s what they do, these people. They embroider, they improve on the truth—they tell lies . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:

This month, we’ll take a look at two somewhat related (and also somewhat unrelated) topics. I know it’s the Halloween issue, but it wasn’t supposed to be, so you’ll have to make do with my slightly less than spooky prose . . .


1. The Intrusive Author

As discussed last month, one of the easiest ways to tell a story is in the third person. That is, to write as a historian recording a series of events in which you are not involved. When using the third person, the pronoun ‘I’ is necessarily omitted—the narrator, as such, is not a sentient ‘I’ but merely a pen on paper . . .
The voice of the Intrusive Author, however, eschews the boundary line between the first and the third person. It retains the narrative characteristics of third—the relation of events from an outside point of view, yet permits the usage of ‘I’ from time to time in short asides—interjections, or intrusions, into the main story.
To understand this, it is perhaps necessary to think of a story as something not written, but told. Indeed, in oral traditions, a storyteller is clearly visible, clearly a person who may be adding their own inflections and judgements to a tale, without necessarily having been involved in the events they are describing. The Intrusive Author is this storyteller made invisible and handed and pen and paper—still, however, the medium through which the story reaches the reader.
As might already be clear to you, this is not a commonly used voice. It was briefly popular something over a century ago, with such writers as George Eliot and E.M. Forster. It was also popular—and still is, if Daniel Handler (Lemony Snicket) is any indication—as a form for children’s books, used by writers such as Edith Nesbit and, of course, the quintessential preteen adventure novelist, Enid Blyton. Although it might at first seem to be a rather limiting voice, the greatly differing writings of these four (five) authors will hopefully serve to illustrate that the Intrusive Author can in fact be quite versatile.
First examine one of the key problems in fiction writing—how to achieve believability. The Intrusive Author makes this, if anything, an altogether knottier question. Once we see and recall that there is indeed a ‘man behind the curtain,’ the illusion loses its credibility—we are less likely to accept an account as fact.
This is not a problem. Some writers (Forster for one) have used intrusions rather humorously, to intentionally strip away the façade:

Once again Gold found himself preparing to lunch with someone—Spotty Weinrock—and the thought arose that he was spending an awful lot of time in this book eating and talking. There was not much else to be done with him. I was putting him into bed a lot with Andrea and keeping his wife and children conveniently in the background . . . Certainly he would soon meet a schoolteacher with four children with whom he would fall madly in love, and I would shortly hold out to him the tantalizing promise of becoming the country’s first Jewish Secretary of State, and promise I did not intend to keep.
n Joseph Heller, Good as Gold

This enters into the realm of the experimental novel. ‘Look,’ it says to the reader, ‘you know and I know that I am making this up, and that I can in fact make theses characters do whatever I wish, so why not admit that writing truly has no bearing on life?’ It eliminates the extended metaphor—how can there be a deeper meaning when there is no particular meaning to begin with? At the same time, the fiction (if well-written) is likely to be no less enjoyable, and the intrusions (if kept to a reasonable number) may even make it more so. After all, a lack of pretense is often refreshing.
The voice can also be used, in a more serious vein, to mediate judgement. Forster, naturally, did this as well. Most often, this is done at important points in a novel—when we are meeting a character, or after a significant action. For example, if a character possesses a physical attribute commonly associated with a specific characterstic, the author may step in to remind us of this fact: “Despite the blandness of his features, I hope you will not think Edward a dull man.” It can also be used to pass judgement—“Even as he slammed the door, he began to regret his harsh words, and this not without cause, as I think it must be said, certain of his comments had been in rather poor taste.”
In this fashion, authorial intrusions can be used to direct a reader along a certain path or into a specific mode of thinking about characters and events. We may be asked to refrain from making our own judgements—after all, the author clearly is better acquainted with the characters and therefore possessed of more valid opinions. On the other hand, we may be informed that the author does not feel qualified to judge and that we must trust ourselves to do it for them.
There are many other possibilities for the Intrusive Author, but I think that my own readers might grow weary if I attempted to detail all of these that occur to me. Some further examples are—to mitigate suspense, the author can provide a brief summary of events prior to describing them in detail (think of the scene on the spaceship as it reaches Magrathea in Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy). It can also be used (as previously mentioned) for children’s writing. Edith Nesbit did this, often creating a sense of camaraderie by referring to the failings of the “tiresome” grownups who would simply not understand her stories:

. . . and when I told you about the children’s being tiresome, as you are sometimes, your aunts would perhaps write in the margin of the story with a pencil, ‘How true!’ or ‘How like life!’ and you would see it and very likely be annoyed. So I will only tell you the really astonishing things that happened, and you may leave the book about quite safely, for no aunts and uncles either are likely to write ‘How true!’ on the edge of the story. Grown-up people find it very difficult to believe really wonderful things, unless they have what they call proof. But children will believe almost anything, and grown-ups know this. That is why they tell you that the earth is round like an orange, when you can see perfectly well that it is flat and lumpy; and why they say that the earth goes round the sun, when you can see for yourself any day that the sun gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night like a good little sun as it is, and the earth knows its place, and lies as still as a mouse. Yet I daresay you believe all that about the earth and the sun, and if so you will find it quite easy to believe that before Anthea and Cyril and the others had been a week in the country they had found a fairy.
--Edith Nesbit, Five Children and It

And this, I think we can all agree, is rather a nice way of approaching the ‘unbelievable’ action of a story.



2. The Epistolary and Telephone Novels

Further exploration, if you can forgive me, into the realm of the Experimental Novel, although these particular two are rather more mainstream these days.
This month’s Book, The Trick Of It, is in fact an epistolary novel—a novel in letters. Of course, this makes it a first person narrative, but accommodates certain special features—like a diary, we are allowed to see a character develop as events take place, and we are also confronted with the knowledge that, unlike someone writing in a diary, they are writing for an audience and may therefore not be entirely truthful. It is also interesting to note that, as both are intimately involved with the writing process, an fictional letter is entirely undistinguishable from a real letter. That takes care of believability . . .
Additionally, the epistolary novel gives you as a writer slightly more scope than a first (and perhaps even third) person novel. You can delve deeply into the psyche of not just one, but two (or even more; the possibilities of email en masse . . .) people . . . and exchange of letters, set down and recorded, eliminates the question of how the author became omnipotent. After all, these people did write it all down. It was simply a question of finding it. Even if, as in The Trick Of It, the author limits themselves to one character, it is possible to carry on a sort of dialogue with the intended recipient. People corresponding over a long period of time are likely to know each other well—letter answers questions posed in the previous one, anticipates responses, and provides ongoing details of both lives. This format even shares some characteristics with the Intrusive Author—the letter-writer may be interrupted by events in his or her life, or may digress from a retelling of events to make judgements, refer to past events, or lament/rejoice over a more immediate occurrence.
The more modern version of this, of course, is the telephone novel. The best example I can think of is Vox, by Nicholson Baker. I was, in fact, going to select this as the novel of the month, until I realized that a) I was not entirely sure if I had liked it, and b) it would probably be a good idea to recommend books with a slightly less mature rating . . .
Unlike letters, which require some sort of eloquence (that is, complete sentences and coherence), people speaking on the telephone can be rather less clear. The telephone, eliminating visibility, and, in some sense, tonal inflection, lends itself to deception. People are far more likely to tell ‘white lies’ on the telephone—perhaps to say they are calling from home when in fact they are upstairs with the neighbor (although the recent advent of caller ID might render this a problem). The telephone, as a function of its being, engenders confusion, miscommunication . . . and, to some extent, general discord. Long awkward silences . . . “Well, that’s what happened.” “I see.” And then?
The telephone can be a prominent feature of a novel . . . the center, perhaps of the conflict and confusion . . . or it can be the center of the novel, as in Vox. By eliminating the ‘he said’ and ‘she said’ and all other speech tags, such a novel requires the readers more active participation and involvement in order to decipher who said what. It also requires the reader to determine how and why words are being spoken—dramatic inflection, in this case, can only be in the mind, and therefore, what the author meant is set solidly in second place to the text. A modern convention perhaps . . . but then, so is the telephone.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY:

I very much fear that this is less a social commentary than a literary one . . . and a brief one, at that.

I’m currently working for a national literary magazine, and possibly one of the most exciting things about the job is that we receive advance copies of book from publishers in the hope that we will decide to review them. Of course, while we get the gems such as The Bright Forever, we also get books ranging from duplicate copies of The Seven Levels of Intimacy to Passport to Narnia, and it is this last that I wish to discuss in brief.

My first thought, of course, was “do we really need another guide to Narnia?” Nevertheless, I flipped through it, and ended up reading from approximately the middle of the introduction to the end of said introduction. At said end, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that it was the work of Neil Gaiman. As he had mentioned feeling cheated on discovering that the Chronicles of Narnia were really an extended metaphor for God and heaven, I felt somehow validated. This is, of course, remembering my own utter shock and anger when I suddenly understood that this was not “just a lousy ending” . . . this was an attempt to convert me.
In retrospect, my reaction may have been a little excessive.

In any case, finding this book containing something by Neil Gaiman, I felt obliged to palm through the rest of it, and discovered, in the very first chapter, to my utmost horror, a glaring error. The author points out some parallels between Nesbit’s The Story of the Amulet and C.S. Lewis’s The Magician’s Nephew . . . and concludes by saying that Narnia fans will likely enjoy Nesbit’s trilogy (and I quote)—The Railway Children, The Phoenix and the Carpet, and The Story of the Amulet.

Dear readers, please tell me you are as horrified as I am . . . The Railway Children, although by Nesbit, is a novel on its own and entirely unrelated to the actual trilogy, which consists of Five Children and It, The Phoenix and the Carpet, and The Story of the Amulet.

Clearly, this author is recommending a book he has neither read nor researched correctly . . . and fie on whosoever did the copyediting for Passport to Narnia. I of course immediately shot off an email to the publisher telling them of this error . . . while I doubted that they would be able to rectify this five days before publication, I hoped that they would take note of it for future printings (take note of the politeness—I am by no means sure that there will be future printings). It all made me feel rather like Meg Ryan in You’ve Got Mail (the scene in Fox Books . . . “Who wrote the shoe books?” “Noel Streatfield”) . . . but at the same time, if I don’t know my novels, I sometimes wonder what I really do know . . .

And look at that, I even got in some angst for you . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE GLOSSARY:

So perhaps this is yet another copout, but . . .

NaNoWriMo: National Novel Writing Month. November of every year. You start from scratch November 1, and the goal is to have a complete novel (175 pages; 50,000 words or more) by midnight of November the 30th. Unfortunately, there are no cash prizes for winning, since, as might be expected, a novel written in a month is likely to have some rather awful moments . . .but, on the plus side . . . you might walk away a novelist, and if you succeed your name will go up on a “Hall of Fame” type list. More information at www[dot]nanowrimo[dot]org.

On another note, I would seriously like to attempt this this year, as I have significantly more time than I will likely ever have again. Unfortunately, I have a dearth of novel ideas . . . so any ideas you would like to send my way would be greatly appreciated.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

This section, I must say, is largely what held up this issue. I got absolutely no responses . . . which makes me reluctant to issue a new challenge. Challenge however, I shall:

In honor of the epistolary novel, this month’s challenge is to write a letter. A fictional letter, of course, on any topic your heart desires. Not an email-type letter, please . . . something a little more formal would be nice, but other than that . . . have at it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:

Uploading as an essay has the interesting side effect of allowing you to respond to each other’s comments . . .

From: Muffers
I love tinkering around with POVs. Honestly, it just amuses me to no end and is usually a riot to do. My favourite is doing a first and second person mix, where I (as a tormenter, usually) play with a "toy" (or you, the poor victim). That mixture is wonderful for horror/suspense fiction, simply because it gets the reader involved in the thoughts of both viewpoints because they're being told at the same time. When I find fiction like that, I swoon. :D
When considering the POV to use in my fiction, I usually tend to go with third person. I'm not sure if it's just me, but first person seems like immature writing to me. Like, not that the writer is lacking in skill, but just that it's hard to sound ethereal in the way that third person characters can. I think it's because contractions are used a lot in first person, and because the reader and writer both can do so much deeper into the character's emotions and thoughts. I've started to question something regarding to that. Perhaps, is it possible to be drawn in a close to a third person character as a first person character? Or will third person characters always have that slightly detached feel to them? Even switch it around; can a character ever really be written as impassively in first person as they could be in third person? These are questions I've never really gotten proper answers to, even with all the columns and articles I've read. I suppose it really depends on the writer/reader, but there's always that general advice lingering around there somewhere ... :P
Well, I'm done. Wonderful article. I look forward to your next one. Always a pleasure. :D


From: Ivan Rathe (http://www.fictionpress.com/profile.php?userid=401237)
I've never read any of these "Writer's Attic" issues, but I thought this one was very interesting. I've only thought about POVs a little before this, but this made me evaluate my own style.
In response to Muffers's post...I believe that a third-person character can become just as close to a reader as a first-person character -- maybe even more so. When you read first-person works, sometimes the character's biases will influence you, and affect your opinions. This isn't necessarily a good thing. Third-person (at least, neutral or omniscient) allows you to view all the characters equally, and formulate your own opinions on them. (I personally like to use third-person limited, with a hint of omniscient...i.e., I generally focus on the main character, but sometimes I'll write from the point of view of a supporting character for a short time.) This is just all my opinion, though.
...Where was I going with all that...? Now I'm not quite sure. Hm. Oh, well...


And for my own take . . . I don’t know if you can feel quite as close to a third person character as a first . . . I don’t believe Ella Enchanted, for example, would have worked nearly as well in third person (just look at the movie—it was a different story entirely). I do, however, think that first person can be as impassive as third. It may perhaps not be a good example, but the novel The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime has a first-person narrator who is autistic. The style seems very dry . . . until you realize that the narrator is not quite normal. I suppose that make him more empathetic, not less, but it is an example of how facts about a character can be hidden just as long (and in this case perhaps longer) when they are telling the story rather than you . . .
Autumndark

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE THIRTEEN: THE WAY WE SEE IT


Note: I know I’m late—sorry. I had planned this issue around the “Intrusive author” for reasons I cannot currently remember . . . and decided to change topics at the last minute in order to make it a little more interesting. Hopefully, the delay was worthwhile . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

“Dreams are postcards from our subconscious, inner self to outer self, right brain trying to cross that moat to the left. Too often they come back unread: "return to sender, addressee unknown." That's a shame because it's a whole other world out there--or in here depending on your point of view.”
--Dennis Koenig and Jordan Budde



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:

About a Boy, by Nick Hornby

- You’ve probably seen the movie, and if you’re like me, thought it was pretty damn good. Read the book. It’s better.
Marcus Brewer is the oldest twelve year old in the world—he has a chronically depressed mother and a social life that’s closer to death, and not a clue what to do but accept both. Will Freeman, on the other hand, is thirty-six, has never had a job, and is totally out of touch with reality. Although, according to his magazines, he’s “sub-zero” in terms of cool. Not one for serious relationships, he has recently discovered single mothers, which leads him into the world of Fiona and Marcus, and may, eventually, teach him a few things about growing up. Assuming they all survive it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:

There are at least as many ways to tell a story as there are stories to be told. One of the most memorable things about a work of fiction is the way in which it is presented to the reader. This is not just a question of typesetting, blurbs, chaptering, etc—while important on some level, these things are merely aesthetic—but, perhaps most importantly, a question of who gets to tell the story. The obvious answer, of course, is the author—but even the author must take on a role, a character—a point of view.

And, of course, points of view (or POVs, in the much-loved slang of internet fiction) are what we’re going to talk about today.

To begin with, we have three main categories (yep, the ones you learned in high school)—first person, second person, and, logically, third person. We’ll deal with second person first, as it is almost never used.

The second person form uses only the pronoun ‘you’ (and, naturally, all related adjectives, etc). It therefore requires that the entire story be directed at someone. For example, second person might read: “You walked up the stairs, being careful to avoid the third one. You knew it creaked most awfully, and you did not want the dark shape at the top of the tower to have any warning of your approach.”

Clearly, this voice is a little awkward. It gives a reader the sense of amnesia—surely it is impossibly for you to have walked up these creaky stairs without knowing the story better yourself than this disembodied narrator? It is odd and to some extent disconcerting to be told that you have done things which you cannot at all recall. Admittedly, this voice works better in the present tense (“You walk up the stairs . . .”), and indeed, when it is used, it is generally used with said tense. This gives a story a sort of role-play effect. In fact, this is the form most used in the “Choose Your Own Adventure” type books that were so popular a few years ago. To my knowledge, no great literary gem has ever been written in the second person. Perhaps there is a reason for this. (If I am wrong, please let me know).

It would be easy to confuse the second person with one of the first person monologue forms. As an example, the narrator of Albert Camus’s The Fall speaks entirely to ‘you’. However, he also frequently refers to himself—and the usage of the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘me’ are, of course, the hallmarks of first person. While second person has no individual narrator (only you!), first person has the narrator as a character relating their own story, or possibly their role in someone else’s.

Within the first person category, there are several modes of expression that have grown out of a vast bulk of literature using the form. The first (and perhaps the one least suited to a novel-length work of fiction) is called ‘interior monologue’. In this form, only the protagonist speaks—at some length, to himself or herself. Other characters may be mentioned, but they do not speak—interior monologue, as the name suggests, takes place inside the narrator’s head and therefore follows their thought processes. In works of any significant size, interior monologue is often used briefly to get inside a character’s head. It rarely makes up the bulk of such a work. This form gets a reader closest to the true essence of the character the narrator is trying to portray—we do not just see their outward demeanor and language, but their innermost thoughts, their free association of ideas. We may also get a sense of their subconscious from the drift of their thoughts and learn things about them that they themselves would not be able to tell us.

Usually interspersed with interior monologue, although entirely able to stand alone in a long work is dramatic monologue. Again, the protagonist is the only speaker, but is likely speaking to someone—another character, or perhaps the reader (e.g. The Fall). Intervening speech from other characters may be implied, but it is presented through the narrator’s comments upon it or, as in The Fall, responses to it. In the latter case, dramatic monologue reads rather like one side of a telephone conversation, but I won’t elaborate on that since the telephone novel is almost a genre in itself these days. One of the most interesting aspects of dramatic monologue is that it is not necessary to be clear about to whom the protagonist is speaking. It can be implied that the narrator is imagining a companion, for instance, or talking to an inanimate object, and so on. A situation is imposed, and the readers becomes part of the story, but as a passive listener, rather than the active character of second person.

The third form of first person has been made famous through recent publications such as Bridget Jones’s Diary and Meg Cabot’s successful series. It is, somewhat obviously at this point, diary narration. It is effective because it is usually a record of the narrator’s most private and personal (to the point of embarrassment) thoughts and feelings, while at the same time remaining on topic, often unlike interior monologue. Since it is generally assumed that no one except the writer is meant to see what is written in a diary, diary narration also creates a feeling of secrecy which is appealing to many readers. Another feature of the form is that a reader can generally assume the narrator to be truthful. Unlike dramatic monologue, were the protagonist is putting on a face for the outside world, and may be lying to shield himself/herself or others from judgement, someone writing in a diary has absolutely no reason to tell anything but the truth. Unless, of course, there’s a psychological condition involved (such as chronic paranoia). An offshoot of diary narration is the letter novel, which, along with the aforementioned telephone novel, will be discussed at a later date.

The remaining forms of first person can be used in combination with the first three, or alone. A protagonist telling a story not long after the events have taken place is called a subjective narrator, as they may still be emotionally involved and thus lacking in objectivity. This may mean, as above, that the narrator is intentionally lying. It may also mean, however, that the narrator is giving a specific perception of events which may be faulty due to lack of information or misunderstanding.

In contrast to subjective narration, there is detached autobiography. In this form, the narrator is relating events long after they have taken place—for example, talking about his/her childhood as an adult. They are unlikely to be as involved as they were in the immediate aftermath, and may even be entirely objective and/or self-deprecating.

The final form of first person narration is memoir, which is similar in many ways to detached autobiography. In memoir, however, the narrator is usually an observer, or someone with a minor role in a major event. This form is not usually used with fiction, because it invokes what I call the “why?” reflex—why do we want this person’s story if they have such a small role? Why didn’t the author choose to tell us the major figure’s story instead? Memoir, therefore, is generally relegated to the realm of autobiographical prose.

Finally, there are a few forms of third person narration. Third person seems to be the most used mode for telling a story. It uses the pronouns ‘he,’ ‘she,’ ‘it,’ ‘they,’ and entirely omits the first person ‘I’ and the second person ‘you.’ Although some narrator is obviously implied—by the mere fact of the story’s existence—nothing in the story itself should provoke questions or pique interest as to who, exactly, the narrator is. Quite simply, this is irrelevant information.

The first form of third person is called limited. The narrator only records the thoughts of one character (usually the main character), although there may be a large cast. Occasionally, although not too often, limited is expanded to dual character point of view, such as in this month’s book, About a Boy. The benefit of this form is that we still get an ‘internal’ perspective on the action, as in first person, without being limited to events where the main character was present.

Third person omniscient expands this perspective by doing something I like to call “head hopping.” The narrator can enter the thoughts of all characters, which, although sometimes confusing, does add a certain objectivity to the telling of any event. It is used, for example, in Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time (and is, incidentally, one more touch I believe Mr. Jordan could have done without). Personally, I prefer limited as being more engaging and possibly more logical, but both forms are widely used.

The last form of third person is called neutral, or dramatic. The narrator acts like a cameraman—relating events as they happen, with no internal look at specific character’s thoughts and feelings. This is the least common form of third person, although I do believe it is used in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. Unless I am mistaken, it is the neutral narration that gives Lord of the Rings its epic feel. Thus, third person neutral, when used, is used for high fantasy. It is also an effective technique for a mystery novel, such as Agatha Christie’s Poirot series (although I believe she breaks neutrality occasionally).

For my own part, although you didn’t, it’s true, ask me, I am most partial to the first person forms. I enjoy getting to know one character thoroughly and find that it is easiest for me to develop a story when I can interject with my narrator’s comments (often sarcastic, unfortunately) from time to time. I do also use third person, but as mentioned, rarely in any other from than the limited one.

Picking a voice is not always easy, although I suspect you will find that some stories need to be written from the first person, while others (usually those with a larger cast of characters) have too much that happens outside the protagonist’s vision to be told well from his/her point of view. When in doubt, however, it is usually best to take a scene that you are very familiar with and tell it first in one voice and then another. One way will be more comfortable to write and, most likely, will read better to you.

My final advice: avoid the second person unless you’re writing an experimental novel, or are very, very good—or better yet, both.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY/THE GLOSSARY:

Democracy (not to be confused with hypocrisy) -
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Incidentally, India is the largest democracy in the world. At least, numerically speaking.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

Just for the record, I do ask that you run a quick spell check on submissions if you think you’re prone to making typos. I’ve taken the liberty of cleaning up a couple of things this time around . . .


From: Nick Lee
In the world of Silent Guardian: True Blades, the power of a character is determined by the strength of one's Waves. Most characters would only have five Waves: Audio, Visual, Taction (touch), Sapidity (taste) and Redolence (smell), each representing the potency of a sense. With careful analysis, which the Divine Blades calls "Division", one could read into capability of the enemy, sometimes even anticipating certain offensive weapons within the opponent's arsenal. An example of that would be Sincrotius Rieva and his soul-crushing eyes.
Each life form has its unique Wave pattern, and it is mandatory for a member of the Divine Blade to memorize the Wave patterns of humans and to what degree they can vary. This training is required as demons can also take on the form of humans (through possession or other forms of fusion; these are known as Corrupted).
Individual techniques of Division would vary, and the skill itself could be applied as a deadly weapon. However, a subject with powerful Redolence, Sapidity or Taction Waves can reject the mental invasion.
Regarding the use of Waves in battle: as the combatant grows weary, or as damage is dealt, Waves are weakened, thus leaving fewer options available. However, this doesn't apply to demons, especially some that heal during battle. The ultimate form of Wave usage was discovered by the Divine Blades, and involves committing suicide to unleash all the energy buried one's body, eliminating any alien presence (life forms with irregular Wave patterns) within a certain radius. This is a must for one to become Guardian.
Some characters have a sixth Wave, which is known as Spirit. This is the sensitivity to the spiritual world, how in tune one is to the underworld. Once potent enough, the character can then unleash some hell-raising devastation; this comes at the heavy price of sacrificing certain senses. Alfimi and her shadows is an obvious example.
Practical magic (spells, healing, and anything that can be used on the spot) has very limited use, for humans anyway, as their Waves are usually limited to a certain range. To overcome this some have learnt the technique of adjusting their Waves. Characters like Quinton Kinevan had mastered such a skill and therefore was able to give the most powerful demons a run for their money.
Sorcery, compared to practical magic, is far more potent. It is an art that prefers preparation over reaction, however, and thus, can rarely be used in direct battle. The capability of this field far outstrips practical magic, ranging from creating clones to animating statues. The process of creating such enchantments, however, is often very tedious and some spells can take up to years to prepare. Due to complexity and a desire for speed, modern society has shunned the art.



From: Joshua Wui
My system of "magic” is known as aurica. It is not really magic so much as a direct control over the elements around us (periodic table elements, not the primeval version of the elements). This means that, using a part of the mind that is not normally used (which is activated once the subject has learned aurica), one can focus and detect the individual atoms of select elements, move them, force interactions between them and others, etc. Thus, one can bind certain elements together to create a fireball, normally seen as a form of magic, and use his/her mind to force the fireball in a certain direction at a certain speed. As a sort of fantasy bit, I have made it so that anyone who learns to use aurica becomes immortal, not impervious to death (they can be killed in a variety of ways), but impervious to age.
More skilled aurica users can focus on more elements in a wider range at a time. Dagon Urik, the most skilled in aurica before he was slain by Dethorn, could perform a variety of feats that have been unrepeated in history. Dagon could create what are commonly called enchantments, which are really only a series of prearranged spells activated upon a certain prearranged command or moment. He could control the bodies of the dead as long as their bodies could still function (so long as they weren't missing limbs or blown into tiny little bits), though he could do nothing himself during the spell.
The drawback of aurica is that it requires the elements to be used. If the elements are not there, the spell cannot be cast. And using aurica may use up all the elements in the area, which could be quite dangerous. Combining the wrong elements could be dangerous as well. This makes aurica a very difficult type of magic to learn, one left only to the very best to use.
Here is a list of common "spells" and how they work.
1. Commonly used in battle, the user can focus on his enemies weapon and break it apart, literally causing it to disappear. Or they can take out critical elements that cause the weapon to weaken so that it shatters upon impact. This requires good concentration, and a beginner might get chopped apart before he can complete the spell.
2. Another common attack spell is the fireball. The world of the Norjick is made up of elements far different from our own. While there are similar elements, there are different elements as well. And their world is filled with objects and plants that constantly supply the world with these elements. Drawing a certain element from the air around them and binding them together to create a controlled explosion, and then sending the ball forward at whatever speed (dependant upon your skill), is a mediocre spell, one that every apprentice looks forward to learning, but, unfortunately, one that causes the death of many over-eager apprentices.
3. There are several simpler spells that can be used in every day situations, such as breaking a lock, moving a small object such as a rock, etc. One must only concentrate on the object and perform whatever action is required: breaking it, moving it, etc. Quite simple. Easy to learn.



This month’s challenge should be pretty easy to do, and could be a lot of fun. Pick your favourite scene from any work of literature (preferably something that a lot of people are familiar with), identify (roughly) the point of view it is written in . . . and redo it in a new one from those discussed in this issue. Feel free to add things—character’s thoughts, etc.
See you in a bit!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:

From: Muffers
A very familiar topic you presented here. I love to see it pop up every now and then, just because the reaction from authors is both amusing and gratifying. A few years ago magic realism was a "say what?" issue to me, but I've gotten better. Hurrah for grueling practice. Putting together a functional world with realistic restrictions for magic is difficult and time consuming, but it's so worth it in the end. Very beneficial indeed.
This article brought to me a musing of sorts, as I was thinking that perhaps magic could be all powerful in a rare circumstance and still be realistic. Of course, that would mean that every single individual in the story (including the antagonists) would have this godlike magic. Then of course, logically they would have to be the only ones existing on the planet in that story, because any normal human would eventually be caught in a crossfire between the good and bad side. And then still, the world would have a hard time keeping its appearance, as the opposite sides would be shoving their magic against one another to compare the strength, resulting in obvious and inevitable damage to the earth around them.
Heh, a bit of a ridiculous concept, but it may work if done properly. I guess we could all stick to the easier stuff, though, and stick with magic realism. You never realise how much of a friend it is to you until you start pondering about what I did. Well, excellent article. It really got my thoughts going, although after this you probably don't doubt that.

I agree . . . magic realism is kind of a “say what?” concept to many . . . including me up until I got into Milan Kundera’s works. I figure it’s something intruiging, and perhaps fun to play around with . . . and since I had an issue on magic in any case, why not?
I certainly agree that it’s possible to have story where everyone has magic. I would contend that in that case, the author has one of two options: a) to turn the whole thing into a sort of power contest (e.g. who can use it better/who is stronger) or b) to take the focus off magic completely, and have the story center around something else. Magic can and will be used by all, but it does not give them an advantage towards achieving the end goal.
I suppose Shade’s Children is, to some extent, like that. Everyone has a “Change Talent”—it is only the face that each talent is a little different that allows some to succeed where others do not.
Thanks for your time,
Autumndark

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE TWELVE: THE ART OF MAGIC


Note: I don’t know what is going to happen with the column upload. I’m thinking of trying to get a website going so that I can run this column in a form that is a little easier to access. Would anyone be interested in reading The Writer’s Attic offsite?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

“The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.”
- Eden Phillpotts



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:

One Hundred Years of Solitude, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

- This is the first Writer’s Attic book recommendation by a Nobel prize-winning author . . . boy, is it overdue. I chose this book to fit in with this month’s topic: magic. It uses magic realism, which is discussed below in the Workbench.
One Hundred Years of Solitude is a touch of senility, a lot of confusion, and not a little sadness. It’s hard to tell just whose story Marquez intended to tell—that of the Buendia family, or of the town Macondo that they founded. It follows the family through three or four generations, obsessions, deaths, loves, and everything else under the sun. It follows the village through it’s hundred years of solitude, cut off from the outside world—before death reaches the village until the last member of the Buendia family dies, knowing that there are no second chances.
I won’t lie—this book is very hard to follow, because Marquez writes with a stream-of-consciousness style. His timeline is all over the place, and it certainly doesn’t help that most of the members of the family have the same name. However, if you can stick with it, it’s well worth the effort. It is by turns absurd and heartwrenching—and when you reach the end, you’ll be sorry there isn’t any more.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:

We’ll take a look at two subtopics today—magic for fantasy writers (the “real”, wandwaving stuff), and afterwards magic realism, for those of us who prefer the more mundane genres.



Section I: Abracadabra!

“It’s not enough to create magic. You have to create a price for magic, too. You have to create rules.”
- Eric Burns

That, in a nutshell, is what I am going to tell you today. First I wrote a whole lot of stuff that I thought was useful and possibly even insightful, and then I found that quote, which summed it all up in three short sentences. I’ve found that, most of the time, if you think you have something profound and/or interesting to say, you will discover, on saying it, that a) nobody cares anyway or b) it has already been said, either by somebody far more awe-inspiring that you, or, occasionally, by you yourself. The point of all of this is . . . I could really just stop here, but then I wouldn’t get to write anything, this wouldn’t be much of an issue, and the probability of my boring you so much that you actually decide to go out and write would drop severely. This, I’m sure we can all see, would not do at all.
Let’s start at the very beginning—with the creation of your world. If you’re writing fantasy, chances are that magic is going to be a focus of your novel. Now, before anyone calls me out over that one, yes, it is conceivable that you can have fantasy without magic, but since I can’t think of any examples at the moment, we’ll ignore the possibility and continue.

There are several decisions that need to be made about magic. These generally relate to the characteristics of your world. As regards people—what kind live here? How does magic shape who they are? Who has magic, and who does not? How does that affect their interactions? For example, for a story set in our world, you would need to decide whether magic is hidden, or secret, or blatant. In an alternate world, aside from the aforementioned question of whether there is magic at all, you will, as I have said, need to decide who has it, and what kind of magic it is. If it is extremely strong and/or prevalent, it is likely to exert its influence on the social structure in your world—powerful wizards/magicians/sorcerers are in charge of the government, and weaker magic users are peasants (or some analogue of peasants). In the case of omnipresent magic, local customs are also likely to be structured around it. On the other hand, what if magic is bad? Is it accepted? Or are the people in your world trying to stamp it out? If magic is perceived as “bad,” does it help or hinder your protagonist?

Once you know these types of things, you have to implement your magic carefully. It must fit seamlessly into your world. For example, in a “real world” story, you will need to have some sort of explanation for why regular people (i.e., you and me) don’t have any idea, or, for the most part, believe that there is magic. The Harry Potter books are this kind of story—“muggles” go out of their way to invent logical explanations for magical happenings. Not to step on any toes here, but this has always stuck me as a rather weak explanation. Maybe you can do better.

And then, of course, there is the question of how your protagonist discovers magic. If he/she has always known about it, then magic should not be a large part of his/her quest or journey—it’s nothing special to the main character, and it is therefore nothing special to the reader. With this type of augmented “real world” story, the common (and generally successful) approach is to have the protagonist discover magic during the initial part of the story. Examples of this include, of course, Harry Potter, So You Want to Be a Wizard, and, to some extent, The Neverending Story. You don’t, of course, need to explain everything from the get-go—but for this kind of story, magic is what makes it exciting, and your readers will be asking all the questions they can think of. Your story, eventually, should attempt to answer all the obvious ones unobtrusively.

For an alternative world, of course, the implementation is slightly different. You need to establish what kind of a factor magic is. To put it in a clichéd manner—magic is as magic does—that is, the magic and the way it is used need to fit together. To illustrate this point, if everyone in your world has magic and the same basic abilities with magic, then that magic, clearly, is not what distinguishes your protagonist and can hardly be what makes him or her successful. It’s simply background. If, however, your protagonist comes from one of the few races with intrinsic and/or powerful magic, or is the only one in his/her family to have magic, then it makes him or her special, and would understandably be key to his or her success.

In any case, the most important thing is to have some logical framework for everything that you are creating. At first glance, it might seem contradictory to ground the fantastic in logic, but it is logic, ultimately, that grants believability, and it is believability that is key to successful fantasy. Bear in mind the idiom—there’s no such thing as free lunch.
Magic simply cannot be allowed to do everything. If it could, then Gandalf could have transported the One Ring straight into the fires of Mount Doom without all that mucking about with orcs, Saruman, Gollum, etc, Frodo would still have had his fingers . . . and no one would be reading Lord of the Rings today. It simply wouldn’t work.

If you can just snap your fingers and make things happen . . . it is, frankly, boring. For anyone who has seen the new Bewitched, it is for precisely this reason that it’s not at all a good movie. Nicole Kidman waves her hands and creates money, cars, and ideas in the minds of others. This doesn’t make sense. If she creates money, doesn’t somebody notice that there’s more in the system than there was before? Shouldn’t this create the same kind of problem as counterfeit? We could go on . . .

In essence, up must remain up, and down down. Magic, as Mr. Burns said, must have a price. Most writers end up equating magic and energy—the difficulty of a spell is directly related to the energy required to perform it, which, in turn, is directly proportional to the results of performing it. This sounds like physics, and is therefore believeable—it appeals to our sense of how reality functions.

So, you need laws even for imagination? Exactly.

Think like a kid: “If you pull the covers up over your head, the Bogeyman can’t get you!” “If you break a mirror, you’ll have seven years’ bad luck.” (Incidentally, I only have on year’s worth left.) You get the picture. You can have any sort of system you like—there’s a wide range of choices out there—from more natural, Wicca-type forms, to Garth Nix’s “charter,” to Robert Jordan’s saidar/saidin (which, in my humble opinion, is the only thing about the Wheel of Time that was well done). The point is, once you have a system and laws, you need to stick to them. Break a spell in the middle, and it snaps your fingers like a rubberband. Try to work untrained, lose control. Stop a storm from hitting you—exchange it with the weather in Cancun.

As readers, we want to enjoy your story, and we will willingly suspend disbelief. We will accept that there is magic, that carpets can fly if you try hard enough, and that your molecules can disappear from one place and simultaneously appear in another. We will never, however, suspend logic. You can’t sit comfortably on the underside of the carpet as it flies through the air, and you can’t appear in a new place without disappearing from the old one. Logic, for good or evil, is part of who we are as human beings—and must, therefore, be part of what we create.



Section II: Magic Realism

Like metaphor or synecdoche, magic realism is a device which is used to tell part or all of a story. It is very effective when used correctly, but is (of course!) quite difficult to use correctly. It is a little like a daydream or a dream sequence to read—magic realism is when extraordinary, supernatural, and/or impossible things happen in an otherwise realistic work of fiction.

The term was coined in the 1920s by a German art critic seeking to describe a certain style of painting, and has since been associated with the work of Latin-American novelists such as Gabriel Garcia Marquez. However, it has also been used by authors from a wide range of countries, including Isabel Allende, Franz Kafka, Doris Lessing, Salman Rushdie, and Milan Kundera. In Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude (this month’s book), an unearthly character rises up to heaven while hanging out the washing. In Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, two men fall from a burning aeroplane singing to one another, and land on a beach in England to become, respectively, a demon and an angel—mimicking, to some extent, the fall of Lucifer.

As you might have gathered from the above examples, this technique is used to describe something of great significance—to make it clear that an event is incredible or important, or perhaps excessively emotional. Kundera, who writes largely from personal experience of Czechoslovakia during the Russian takeover, usually uses it for this last purpose. The unbelievable quality lent by magic realism adds a dimension to an experience that mimics human emotions that might otherwise be impossible to portray. Although a fantastic event is described as though it is actually happening, magic realism is usually a kind of extended metaphor. People achieving enlightenment float off into the sky and are never heard from again, a murderer holds nightly conversations with death in the form of his dead victims.

As I have said, it is difficult to use magic realism effectively, so there are some things to remember. For it to succeed, a writer must maintain a distance from the events he or she is describing—fantastic events must be told in a deadpan fashion. If the telling becomes emotional on the part of the teller, the scene becomes redundant and loses its power. At the same time, distance must not be confused with ridicule. If it sounds as though you are skeptical or think what you are writing is ridiculous or preposterous, your readers will think so, too, and wonder why you bothered.

Magic realism is, in fact, quite a controversial label. Some believe that it constitutes an established (or possibly emerging) genre, while others claim it is little more than a highbrow name for fantasy. For those who are interested in my opinion—having read Marquez, Kundera, and Rushdie, I would argue that magic realism is a valid concept. It is not yet perhaps a fully-fledged genre, but it is certainly an existing technique, and, to my mind, an effective one.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY:

I was going to talk about the brouhaha going on in Kansas right now over biology textbooks . . . but then I thought that the easiest way to share my opinion on that issue without ticking people off explicitly (I’m sure I’ll manage it anyway) is to share with you something I wrote a few weeks ago:


The Evolution

there was a man who
had a lot of funny ideas about
the way the world worked, and
more specifically, how
wethepeople came to be
and because he was, after all
more than a little ridiculous
they laughed at him and didn’t
bother to burn his books

which might have been a mistake
in the long run
because by the time it got to
let’s amend theconstitution
and we don’t necessarily hold these truths to be
selfevident anymore there had
already been a big fuss
about the monkeyman in the
south somewhere
and this time nobody said that it
wasn’t important

and eventually they all forgot
just how funny it had been to
begin with and
justliveandletlive people
went ahead and started to think maybe
he had a point before
they were convinced that it was
all too dangerous

and just the other day
somebody said if
there really was an
intelligentdesigner
and if the universe didn’t just
bigbanglookhereiam
then they probably would have
given Kansas a
better boardofeducation

and if, as the wise men
say, man indeed created god
in a proofdeniesfaith sort of way
then what is religion
really but an advanced and somewhat
complicated form of narcissism?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE GLOSSARY:

Sort of a weird glossary this time—more of an index. I listed a few authors up above, so I thought I might name some of their books in case anyone is interested in reading:

Isabel Allende—The House of Spirits, The Infinite Plan, My Invented Country, City of the Beasts, Zorro

Franz Kafka—The Trial, The Metamorphosis, The Castle, Amerika

Doris Lessing—The Sweetest Dream, The Fifth Child, The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four, and Five (part of the Canopus in Argos—Archives Quintet)

Salman Rushdie—The Satanic Verses, Haroun and the Sea of Stories, Midnight’s Children, Shame, Fury

Milan Kundera—The Unbearable Lightness of Being, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, The Joke (a personal favourite), Laughable Loves



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

I didn’t receive any responses to last month’s challenge, which I guess is understandable, as the column is up in a somewhat weird form. As a result, I don’t really have anything to put here, so I’ll leave last month’s challenge open and also issue a new one for anyone whose interest might have been caught by this month’s Workbench.

Option 1: For the fantasy side of things, I’d love to hear about your “system” of magic. In your story, novel, epic, etc, how does magic work? Who uses it? How do they use it? Is it hard to use or easy? And so on . . . If you haven’t worked one out already, make one up! After all, that’s what it’s all about.

Option 2: If magic realism sounds like an interesting style to you, send in a passage that uses it to enhance some sort of intensely emotional or similar situation.

Enjoy!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:

From: Muffers
Excellent essay. I've been reading your column for a long time, but haven't commented. The guilt is overbearing, and the review button for a story doesn't intimidate as much, so here I am. Commenting ... yes...
I was very pleased to see someone touch on the issue of people and their lacking usage of their own language. Quite honestly, it's only slightly pathetic that people fail to understand the major way they communicate with one another. More than once I've ventured among the fiction on this site, and have been sorely disappointed. People need to understand not only the intelligence that knowing the English language gives, but also the ability in which they can affect people when they use it. It's quite amusing to amaze another individual by speaking articulately.
Ah ... self-release, that above ringding is ... I apologize. Really, I'm just expressing my gratitude for this very interesting article. I very much appreciated it. Until your next addition, I suppose. Ta!

Yes. Verbal jabs . . . are the best kind.
Touchstone, from As You Like It, anyone? He has to be one of my favourite characters of all time . . . and because of that, I’ll leave you with what, in my opinion, is one of the best passages from that play:


Touchstone: I did dislike the cut of a certain courtier’s beard. He sent me word if I said his beard was not well cut, he was in the mind it was. This is called the Retort Courteous. If I sent him word again it was not well cut, he would send me word he cut it to please himself. This is called the Quip Modest. If again it was not well cut, he disabled my judgement. This is called the Reply Churlish. If again it was not well cut, he would answer I spake not true. This is called the Reproof Valiant. If again it was not well cut, he would say I lie. This is called the Countercheck Quarrelsome. And so to the Lie Circumstantial, and the Lie Direct.

Jaques: And how oft did you say his beard was not well cut?

Touchstone: I durst go no further than the Lie Circumstantial, nor he durst not give me the Lie Direct; and so we measured swords, and parted.

Jaques: Can you nominate in order now the degrees of the lie?

Touchstone: O sir, we quarrel in print, by the book, as you have books for good manners. I will name you the degrees. The first, the Retort Courteous; the second, the Quip Modest; the third, the Reply Churlish; the fourth, the Reproof Valiant; the fifth, the Countercheck Quarrelsome; the sixth, the Lie Circumstantial; the seventh, the Lie Direct. All these you may avoid but the Lie Direct; and you may avoid that, too, with an ‘if’. I knew when seven justices could not take up a quarrel, but when the parties were met themselves, one of them thought but of an ‘if’, as ‘If you said so, then I said so’, and they shook hands and swore brothers. Your ‘if’ is the only peacemaker; much virtue in ‘if’.

--As You Like It

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE ELEVEN: THE IRRELEVANCE OF LANGUAGE


“The time has come,” the Walrus said,/”To talk of many things:/Of shoes—and ships—and sealing wax— /of cabbages—and kings—/and why the sea is boiling hot—/and whether pigs have wings.”
- Lewis Carroll

Specifically, the time has come to talk of the most basic element of writing—words. Many different purposes, for just as many different people. Let’s take a look at words this month, and try to figure out just why they’re so important to us.


Note: I have had no further information on whether the column upload is fixed since my last update . . . so I apologize in advance for anything weird in this issue. I’ll try to get it all sorted out within the week.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

“We all live in our fantasy and only endure our reality.”
- R.A. Wilson



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:

Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, by Lewis Carroll

- I can definitely see this turning into a Lewis Carroll issue . . . despite the fact that the guy was a pedophile, he sure knew his words . . . take a look at the poem Jabberwocky, and the whole incredible conversation Alice and Humpty-Dumpty have surrounding it. I quote:
“When I use a word,” Humpty-Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty-Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
It goes on, but that’s the most memorable part. I know most of you have read this one, so I won’t summarize it. If you haven’t, I don’t care how old you are, this is something you absolutely must go out and read. In fact, you should probably go out and buy it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:

Words:
To my mind, the most important question about words is simply why? Everyone has their own answers to that question, personal and impersonal, and of course there is never one right answer. In this issue and the last one, hopefully you have seen what some of those ideas mean to other writers and what they can mean to you.

The following is an essay I wrote for my application to the University of Chicago. I’m putting it here because I believe it’s relevant to the topic. You’ll find it’s a little different from my normal style—I tend to write my columns rather informally, but I hope that doesn’t make it any less interesting. Without further ado—Wordpower:

Of all the strange and ingenious things humans have invented, I believe language to be one of the most wonderful. It goes to the root of what we call humanity. We set ourselves apart from all other animals because of our ability to speak. Yet is this not in itself a weakness? By relying on language, are we not admitting that we need more than other animals to survive? Why is it so? Why must humans communicate? What in our nature drives us mad if we cannot?
All animals communicate—our scientists are clear on that fact. But why do we choose language for this? No one seems altogether keen on words. Perhaps they are merely inadequate—we know, certainly, that some extremities of emotion are too much for speech—but, quite simply, words appear to have gone out of fashion. Gone are the days of Shakespeare, when a wordsmith was held in the highest esteem. High school students groan at the mere mention of an essay, and if you tell anyone that you write—actually write on your own without being forced to by the scary English teacher in the room next door, you will be regarded as severely masochistic, if not altogether insane. The average person does not use words effectively, is most likely unable to use them correctly, and, frankly, could not care less. For the most part, the art of language is ignored—it is simply a tool for getting things done.
When you come to think of it, this last is not altogether logical. Of all the ways we have for communicating our needs, language is the least likely to achieve anything.
Babies get on marvelously, crying and laughing by turns to let their parents know when to feed them, change them, and hug them. Irate citizens write letters to their senators and representatives, but are ignored until they turn out in droves in the streets. Nations throw terms like “peace talks” and “diplomacy” back and forth, but they achieve a much clearer effect by stockpiling nuclear weapons and flexing the proverbial muscle at each other. We are taught from childhood that actions speak louder than words. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words aren’t worth a quarrel.
Which leads us back to the original question: why words? When there are so many ways we can communicate, why select one we find both trying and ineffective? Language does not inspire wonder anymore—instead we seek to abolish the amazing diversity of speech by establishing a universal language. We developed words, perhaps, to develop ourselves, as a tool to allow us to cooperate and evolve. But in this day and age, they have become irrelevant.
And maybe that’s the whole point. We need words because we need irrelevance. We need books, with the happy endings and morals they offer, because these things are so rarely found in life. We need people to cry over who are not real and people to exult with who do not exist, because life does not provide us with enough opportunities for such passing grief and joy. Words take us away from the trial that is life. Although you may not find it listed in Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, we need beauty and wonder just as we need food and love and sleep. Words and language are the means by which we can conjure such images. Weak though they may be, ineffectual though they undoubtedly are, words are the only means we have to express the torrents that are human emotions—to express our very sentience. We are tortured by the knowledge of a world so vast, so complex, that we cannot hope to see it all—we thirst for experience beyond our own limited understanding, and we use language to share with others and to learn from them what we cannot know ourselves. We use words to escape the isolation of being human. They are beautiful, they are vital, and we need them to reach beyond our mere existence.

And to supplement that:
If you’re reading this, chances are you write. Maybe you want to be a published writer someday. You write because you’re good at it, you like it . . . because it’s fun. You’ve been telling me why. So here it is: why I like to write.

As you (hopefully) have seen in the above essay, I believe that humans write because they need language to survive. We need a grasp of experience beyond our own limited understanding of the world around us. We use language and writing as a means to see the world. We wish to share our thoughts with others because we wish them to know and understand us, to recognize why we, each of us individually, are the way we are. We wish to justify our existence, to create something that says to the world “Look! I had this thought. Not you, not anyone else, but I, and I alone, and therefore you, world, need me.” We write, alse, to escape from the prison of flesh and reach a higher, perhaps unattainable, level of consciousness—we, or I at least, write to discover what I am, and what I am doing here.
So . . . I write because I am afraid to talk. I am afraid to say what is in my head, what I think, how I feel, because I am afraid of being ridiculed—or worse, perhaps, misunderstood. I write to connect myself to others . . . and to escape from the common plane. I write to create a place for my mind to go, to try and understand, to explain to myself those things in my life which I cannot rightly comprehend . . . I write both to run away and to bring myself home. I write . . . because like all people, I need something uniquely my own.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE GLOSSARY:

Yes, I know it’s silly. But I thought it would be fun to see:


Word: A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.


Morpheme: A meaningful linguistic unit consisting of a word, such as man, or a word element, such as -ed in walked, that cannot be divided into smaller meaningful parts.


Phoneme: The smallest phonetic unit in a language that is capable of conveying a distinction in meaning, as the m of mat and the b of bat in English.


Language:

1. Any means of conveying or communicating ideas; specifically, human speech; the expression of ideas by the voice; sounds, expressive of thought, articulated by the organs of the throat and mouth. (Note: Language consists in the oral utterance of sounds which usage has made the representatives of ideas. When two or more persons customarily annex the same sounds to the same ideas, the expression of these sounds by one person communicates his ideas to another. This is the primary sense of language, the use of which is to communicate the thoughts of one person to another through the organs of hearing. Articulate sounds are represented to the eye by letters, marks, or characters, which form words.)

2. The expression of ideas by writing, or any other instrumentality.

3. The forms of speech, or the methods of expressing ideas, peculiar to a particular nation.

4. The characteristic mode of arranging words, peculiar to an individual speaker or writer; manner of expression; style.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

Featured below are a few more responses to the last challenge:

From: Witchmaster
I could be boring and say that the purpose of language is to communicate, I write because I can, and the actual words mean little more than a way to express an idea, but I wouldn’t exactly be speaking the truth. Yes, language came to be a way of communication, but we can communicate with our body language and expressions too, can’t we? So it’s a more than that. It’s a way to express ourselves without any limitation, a way to put feelings into words. It allows us to get ideas across to anyone anywhere anytime in the world. And to me, the words used to express ideas are gold. There is hardly anything more valuable than the words we use, whether we’re using them simply to talk to our friends or putting them in stories to unlock worlds otherwise hidden from us. I write because I love it. I write because it’s a way for me to indirectly express how I’m feeling. It allows me to get away from the world I live in and go to another where what happens is (mostly) what I want to happen, though I’m always discovering new things. I write because it’s one of the most powerful ways to express myself.



From: Captain Scarlet Penguin Keeper (girlgunslinger@hotmail.com)
You ask why do we write. This is a tough question. It is hard to answer. Our souls are like abstract art, you don't show them to everyone, because they might not understand, and that misunderstanding can be very painful. But you asked nicely, so I will answer in like kind. I write so that I can have what I cannot. I have no romantic offers, a pair of complete opposites share a stormy but true love. I have a lasting sadness, a young girl gets over a terrifying event from her past to be happier.
Also, we write to understand, to get what we don't get. We use our stories to develop theories about life, about how the great game of existence is played. We create characters that believe these theories, then we hope that people will read it and believe our theories too. I'm not saying it isn't a little selfish, but it's true. But I think the final reason, the essence, is not to be alone. If we can create people at will, are we ever truly alone.



Before I give you the next challenge, I have a little confession to make. When I started writing this column, I was all about fantasy—it was all I wrote. Then I expanded my reading horizons . . . and for approximately a year now, I have wanted to write something much more realistic. However, I planned my topic outlines a long, long time ago (like the song) . . . and since I am trying to stick to them . . . next month’s topic is scheduled to be about the use of magic. I might play with that a little and deal with magic realism . . . but the challenge, to fit in with next issue, is as follows:
If you could have one spell, in your entire life, work for you . . . what would it be? How would you do it? Why that particular spell? Be creative . . . truth is secondary to beauty, at least on the imaginary plane . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:

From: DennisP1 (area5146@yahoo.com)
I found your page fascinating and will be back again to be motivated by your words.
A question I have though, after reading your section on apostrophes, an area, besides spelling, that I've often run into difficulties with.
In writing poetry for example, in order to reduce syllables in a particular line, I may, like in "She has" or “that is” use an apostrophe s to represent has or is. Like in, "She's been around a long time." Or That’s what I’m talking about.”
My question is; Is this acceptable in business and more formal writing as well?
In response to your questions from your Social Commentary dialog. “how is it that we do not accept socialism as good?"
Many people equate socialism to Nazism, despite the distinct difference; one's goal is equality and the other, racial purity. We are confronted constantly with visions of skinheads wearing swastikas representing Nazism and the visions of hippy communes from the 60's and 70's as failed experiments in American Socialism.
It's no wonder we back away from giving them any further serious thought.
Yet in my own opinion Socialism is destined to fail. Why, you may well ask, because it does not balance with the psychology of man.
Throughout our lives we are confronted with the givers and takers, it's a psychological reality. What one builds another destroys, what one may create for the good of man another will use for evil, therefore, government. Though government, since it is made up of man is plagued with the same problems.
The answer does not lie with government, the educational system or with a particular life style or religion. Rather, it lies within the mind of man and their inability to perceive correctly the dynamics of life, their position in it and the long term results, of their actions or inactions on and within it. .
What do you think?
Den

In response to your first question: there’s no absolute answer. It used not to be acceptable to use contractions in formal and/or business writing, but . . . we’re in the age of email and speedy, wireless connections . . . and no one is going to think less of you for using contractions. It really depends on how pedantic you want to be—listen to Data (from Star Trek) talk sometime. I believe he was intended never to use any contractions, although the writers did make the occasional error. The rule I generally go by is this: if it’s a job/internship application, most likely going out by snail mail, I try to be as formal as possible. If it’s something that I can send through email—i.e. a letter of enquiry (which, incidentally, can be spelled with an ‘i’ or with an ‘e’), then I use contractions. To be honest, I wouldn’t think anyone would fault you for using contractions in either case—I would be far more concerned about things such as spelling and grammatical errors, because those would indicate either that you didn’t care enough to check it . . . or that you just didn’t know. So . . . contractions are up to you.
I’m not certain I understand your second question . . . but what you seem to me to be saying is that man is neither fundamentally good nor fundamentally evil. I would agree with that.
I’m not sure I agree with the sentiment that socialism is doomed to failure, however. I would argue that’s it’s not a question of one man necessarily thwarting another—it’s a question of man choosing how he wants to live, and what measure of control he wants over that. I don’t believe that man is ultimately incapable of making the “correct” decisions, if indeed there are correct decisions. Nor do I believe that there is only one right way to do anything, especially to live—so I’m not supporting socialism above all else.
What appeals to me about socialism is that, in theory, the need for government eventually goes away. The reason that this hasn’t worked so far is because it’s been implemented on a large scale with a system of people who are used to government. The “problem” (I don’t see it as a big problem) with socialism is that it only works if everyone wants it to. Therefore, if you started with a group of people who wanted it to work . . . and gradually expanded that group along the same guidelines, I don’t see why it need ever fail.
Sorry if I didn’t really answer your question. As I said, I wasn’t sure I understood it. Let me know.
Thanks for your comments, Den.
Autumndark



From: xHannahx (ham_on_the_moon@hotmail.com)
there's one thing you didn’t get about the misuse of apostrophes (although this might be something found only in the UK)
this is what my mother refers to as “the grocers’ apostrophe” this is the phenomenon of prices pertaining to a plural inanimate object. for instance: cabbage’s £0.70 per kilo.
it might be said that i am obsessed with correct use of punctuation (tho i still can’t get colons and semi-colons), but it’s something that winds me up. ah dear.

I’ve never heard of this before, so please feel free to correct me if what I am about to say—type—is completely incorrect.
The grocers’ apostrophe, as you say . . . seems to me to be a grammatical error. At least, using your example—
“Cabbage’s – 0.70 per kilo”
. . . the price per kilo doesn’t belong to either the single cabbage or the many cabbages. You’re exactly right—cabbage’s refers (or should, if it were punctuated correctly) to an inanimate plural object, and so should be cabbages . . . simply a plural noun.
Anyone who puts an apostrophe near something like that is no grammarian, just plain confused.
Or, of course . . . in possession of some knowledge which I would dearly love to have.
Thanks for your comments,
Autumndark

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE TEN: THE BASICS


I’m not sure if there’s any point continuing to apologize for the lateness of the issues. All columnists seem to do it, and however many times we do, it doesn’t really change anything. Life’s been interesting, but you know, it’s always up and down, so it’s not worth stopping to watch it if it seems a little unusual. You’re highly unlikely to miss what’s going on, anyway. So why put living on hold?
Let’s get right to it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

“It's beyond me how a "fat chance" and a "slim chance" are the same thing, but a "wise man" and "wise guy" are considered opposites. Walking fast isn't considered jogging slowly, and it's perfectly normal to drive down a parkway and park on a driveway.”
- Zach Hauser, Kansas State University



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:

The Elements of Style, by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White
- If you don’t know what this is, I suggest you find out. Quickly.
I would not suggest reading this one cover to cover, unless you really love grammar. It’s an excellent reference source, from the basic rules of usage, to advice on style. A little review never hurt anyone – and chances are, you’ll be buying this book for a college composition seminar at some point anyway. So why not get a head start?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:

Grammar 101:

You knew I had to get dull and stuffy at some point, didn’t you?
First off, a warning. American grammar . . . is a topic of much debate. It is much less rigid than British grammar, which can be both a blessing and a curse. Often, the usage of American grammar lends itself to easy, realistic conversation – but at the same time, it’s the excuse for the writer who hates grammar to play fast and loose with the parts of speech, and that absolutely will not do. Bad grammar is one of the easiest ways to loose a reader’s interest. Not to say, however, that you must always be grammatically correct. Most (if not all) writers use poetic license. As they say, it’s vitally important to know the rules, so that you can decide whether or not to follow them.
Let me say this without fear of ridicule: if you refuse to attempt to understand grammar, or to use it correctly at all, you will not succeed as a writer. Hardly anyone enjoys learning grammar – but hardly anyone has the patience to struggle through a novel that reads like the author speaking to them at a hundred miles an hour. It’s a vicious cycle, but there it is – if you want to write, and write well, you must have a working grasp of proper grammar, even as you know your reader may not.



Section I: Parts of Speech

As most of you likely know, the English language is divided into eight major parts of speech: the noun, the verb, the pronoun, the adjective, the adverb, the preposition, the conjunction, and the interjection. If any of those eight words means nothing to you, get help. Now.

So, the basics.

1. Nouns and verbs are vital. You can’t have a sentence without them. When life gets complicated, just remember that all you need to make a sentence is a noun and a verb. So, while saying ‘People eat,’ may not be very exciting . . . it is a sentence. To take a leaf out of Stephen King’s book, so is ‘Rocks transmit,’ although I can’t really see where you’d go with that one.
Once you have a noun and a verb (a subject and a predicate), you can begin to embellish.

2. Pronouns – these are words like ‘he,’ ‘she’ and ‘we.’ To add a pronoun into our sentence, we can say: They eat.

3. Adjectives describe nouns and nouns only. There are two ways we can put in an adjective. The first is by modifying the subject. We can have: Hungry people eat. The second way involves adding a direct object to the sentence (another noun): Hungry people eat food. To add another adjective in: Hungry people eat good food. At least, we hope they do . . .

4. Adverbs next. These are describing words that modify adjectives, adverbs, or verbs. They usually end in ‘ly’. For example: Really hungry people eat good food. Here an adverb is modifying an adjective. We can also have: Hungry people eat loudly. In this second case, the adverb is modifying the verb – it’s telling you how hungry people eat. More on these hereafter.

5. The preposition allows you to use phrases as adverbs and adjectives. They are words like ‘to’ and ‘of’. To use a preposition in a sentence, we need a prepositional phrase. The sentence could become: Hungry people eat to stay alive. The italicized part is the prepositional phrase, and the underlined word is the preposition. In this case, the phrase is acting as an adverb – it’s explaining why hungry people eat.

6. There are two types of conjunctions out there: coordinating and subordinating. A coordinating conjunction joins two sentences together without giving one more importance than the other. Hungry people eat and thirsty people drink.
Subordinating conjunctions also bring two sentences together, but one is clearly more important than the other. A subordinating clause takes second place to the main clause, which in our sentence would be: Hungry people eat. Hungry people eat when there is food available. The clause in this sentence explains the conditions under which hungry people eat, but does not change the underlying fact that they do eat.

7. The interjection, sadly, cannot be worked into our sentence, for the simple fact that it is usually a sentence in itself. Some examples would be: Shoot!, Wow!, and the King favourite Fuhgeddaboudit!



Section II: A Word to the Wise

English, like most western languages (German, French, Spanish), is what is known as an SVO language. No, SVO doesn’t have anything to do with Law and Order. It stands for Subject-Verb-Object. Not altogether subtle, as you will no doubt have noticed. This means that the form “Jane eats peas,” holds precedence over “Jane peas eats,” although the latter is acceptable if you’re writing poetry. Most things are acceptable if you’re writing poetry. Most English speakers are aware of this rule intrinsically, but I put it in as a reminder.
Bad grammar does funny things to your writing. Literally. Consider the following sentences:

1. As the mother of five, Nancy’s kitchen is never empty.

2. You can call your mother in London and tell her about George’s taking you out to dinner for just two dollars. (From Strunk and White)

3. New York’s first commercial human-sperm bank opened Friday with semen samples from eighteen men frozen in a stainless steel tank. (From Strunk and White)

I’m sure you can tell what’s going on here. While amusing, these sentences do not convey their intended meanings.
In the first one, we are given the impression that Nancy’s kitchen has five children. This is because we have a modifier that’s intended for the word ‘Nancy’ included in the sentence. It doesn’t make sense, because ‘Nancy’ is not acting as a noun. A better way to put this sentence would be:

1. Since Nancy is the mother of five, her kitchen is never empty.

The second sentence is even worse. We would probably have understood the first one without readjustments, but the second makes George seem like a real cheapskate. This is because the modifier “for just two dollars” (it’s an adverbial phrase) is modifying “taking you out” right now. It is most likely intended to modify “You can call.” This sentence would be better as:

2. For just two dollars, you can call your mother in London and tell her about George’s taking you out to dinner.

Now George isn’t such a bad person anym0re
The last one is my favourite—it really makes me cringe. Of course, it is not the eighteen men who are frozen in a stainless steel tank (we hope). Once again, the modifier “frozen in a stainless steel tank” is in the wrong place. Since it is undoubtedly intended to modify “semen samples”, this sentence would be less confusing if it read:

3. New York’s first commercial human-sperm bank opened Friday when semen samples from eighteen men were frozen in a stainless steel tank.

You still have to read this one carefully, but when you do, it makes sense.

The moral? Make sure your modifiers are modifying what you want them to modify. And ten points to anyone who can fix that sentence.



Section III: Passive Construction

I’ll be brief on this one, because nobody likes it. I know you’ve been told a hundred times not to use it, so I won’t dwell on that either. The main problem I’ve noticed is that people don’t really understand what the passive tense is. To my extreme horror, my last English teacher (admittedly, she was a student teacher) didn’t know either.
So, for all those who are confused by the passive . . . here is my attempt to clear it up for you.

As I’ve said, a sentence in English runs S-V-O. To use the example above, “Jane eats peas.” This is active. Jane, the subject of the sentence, is doing something to the object, peas. She is eating them. If the subject of the sentence is acting upon the object, the sentence is most definitely active. In the cases where the construction is Subject-Verb-Subject Complement, e.g. “Jane eats greedily,” the subject must be doing the verb. Since Jane is the one eating, this sentence is active.
A passive sentence takes the object of an active sentence and makes it the subject. That’s the thing you have to remember. Using the passive eliminates the need to say who was doing a thing. As a result, “Jane eats peas,” becomes “Peas are eaten.” As you can see, there is an extra verb in the passive sentence – the verb ‘to be’. This is usually the case with passive sentences—the verb ‘to be’ enters into them. If we wanted to make it clear that it was Jane eating the peas, we could say “Peas are eaten by Jane,” but, as you can see, it would be a whole lot easier just to use the active “Jane eats peas.”
I find that the most common mistakes with the passive occur because people think using ‘to be’ makes a sentence passive. This is not the case. We can say: “Jane was eating peas.” This uses the past tense of ‘to be’, but since Jane is still doing something to the peas, the sentence is still active. On the other hand, when we make ‘peas’ the subject again, the sentence “Peas were being eaten” becomes passive.
And that’s all I have to say about that.



Section IV: The Adverb

I am unashamed to admit it: I loathe adverbs. This doesn’t mean I don’t use them, because I certainly do. But if you take one thing away with you, take this: adverbs are not friendly creatures. They are out to get to, to bring your prose down the level of pulp fiction . . . and they will bite you if you let them get too close. They are safe when there are only one or two of them, but when they start to multiply, it’s time to lock your door.
Consider this sentence:

“I hate you!” Sylvia screamed passionately.

It’s okay on it’s own, but now let’s add a few more lines.

“I hate you!” Sylvia screamed passionately.
“See if I care,” John replied callously.
She turned her back on him, still seething, and slammed the door furiously as she went out.

Notice the pattern? It begins to sound contrived, as if the author wasn’t sure you could understand the emotions without those little add-ons. The use of too many adverbs makes prose sound condescending—if you use them, you’re treating your readers like morons. Try this instead:

“I hate you!” Sylvia screamed.
John shrugged. “See if I care.”
She turned her back on him, still seething, and slammed the door as she went out.

I don’t know about you, but that sounds a whole lot better to me. Avoid adverbs like the plague. Yes, there are exceptions . . . but always remember, the road to hell is paved with adverbs, and if you can’t hear Stephen King shouting it, listen to me.



Section V: The Apostrophe

I have always known that the apostrophe is something that highschoolers have severe problems with. I was under the impression that they grew out of it until I saw the movie “Two Weeks Notice.” It was then that I realized that this problem has infiltrated all of society. I’m sorry to be a stickler, but please, the title of that movie should be “Two Weeks’ Notice.” When I pointed this out to a friend, she informed me that it is noted in the wonderful book “Eats, Shoots, and Leaves,” which I have not yet have time to read. That is probably a mistake. At any rate, the basic rules for the use of the apostrophe are as follows:

1. The possessive singular of any noun gets an apostrophe followed by an s, whether or not the noun itself ends with the letter s.
a. Jessica’s hair
b. Thomas’s song
There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they are noted in Strunk and White, so if you’re serious about it, you can find them there.

2. Possessive pronouns do not get an apostrophe or an s. This means:
a. Her umbrella
b. The umbrella is hers
c. Its own problems (as in “The company has its own problems to worry about.”) This is not to be confused with “it’s,” which is short for “it is.”

3. The possessive plural gets an apostrophe and no s:
a. The duchesses’ husbands
b. The teachers’ pet (as in, the pet of more than one teacher)
c. Two weeks’ notice

You knew I was going to put that last one in.

And that’s about all I have to say on that.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY:

I’m not going to talk about the elections. I’m not going to talk about the elections. I’m not.
It’s so hard not to be bitter . . . but move on we must. To quote Garrison Keillor: “It was weeks ago. I’ve moved on. I’m now heading a committee to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians . . .”

Anyway, I saw The Motorcycle Diaries this weekend, and to tell the truth, I found the experience quite odd. I went to the Lagoon in Uptown (if you live where I do, you know where this is), which is supposed to be somewhat offbeat, and while I was waiting for my dad to park, some kids hanging around outside with pamphlets asked me if I was going to see Voices of Rock. At least, that was what I heard. They actually asked if I was going to see Voices of Iraq, which I shortly discovered, and then when I came back out to talk to them, they explained that although the movie is being touted as objective, that’s really not the case. I’m not going to get on my soapbox about that one, because I’m sure I’ll get lambasted, but I will say this: to anyone who thinks any documentary is objective, remember that somebody gets to do the editing. You never know what’s ended up on the cutting room floor.

At any rate, I mention this merely to set the stage. I found the movie itself very uplifting, and I recommend it to everyone. In case you don’t know, it’s about Che Guevara before he started doing things that got him recognized—and murdered by the CIA. It was interesting to me primarily because he life was going very clearly in one direction—and then he suddenly took off and it went in quite another.

I find it fascinating that while Che Guevara has become a cultural icon, and is widely accepted as a good, honourable person today, a large majority of the western world still tends to regard any form of socialism as evil. I’ve heard a lot of conservatives say that if liberals are so in favour of big government, they’re not all that different from socialists, and I’d like to point out that this doesn’t make sense. Actually, the styles of government sort of come around in a circle—so that while liberals and socialists often do agree, socialism is actually an extremely right-wing form of government. It does not support big government at all—in fact, the theory behind socialism is that once you have everybody equal (and why shouldn’t they be?), the need for government evaporates. Once again, I know this is controversial, but I believe this to be quite reasonable—in theory.

Socialism doesn’t work because once people have been exposed to capitalism, they become fundamentally greedy. There is a short period of time, during the takeover by the proletariat and the downfall of the bourgeoisie, when it has a chance to succeed. However, more often than not, the proletariat becomes the bourgeoisie, and the cycle repeats itself. This is because power corrupts. If we could somehow isolate people from the greed principle—“more is better, I have the right to have more than my neighbor”—then, I believe, socialism would succeed. The need for government would evaporate, and we could have people living in harmony.

Since, as a society, we generally consider greed to be an ‘evil,’ how is it that we do not accept socialism as good? How is it that many of us still do not accept that U.S. involvement in Vietnam—a country that merely wanted independence—was a mistake? How is it that we do not revere Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels the same way we revere Che Guevara? Indoctrination.

I speak mainly to western civilization when I say we are born into a system that confines us as humans. We are bred to think that we must do certain things in order to retain our privilege. We feel like we have only certain options . . . that we cannot “take off,” rather like Che, in fact, and change our lives drastically. This is because the system we are born into confines not our bodies, but our minds. You cannot see the whole picture without escaping this system, and we live our lives afraid that once we escape it, we will never be allowed back in.

My question to you: Why is that so bad?


You have nothing to lose but your chains . . .
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, from The Communist Manifesto (1848)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE GLOSSARY:

I think we had enough defining in the Writer’s Work bench today. I’ll just leave you with these two in case anyone is not sure what they mean:

Bourgeoisie – The social class that, according to Marxist theory, owns the means of producing wealth and exploits the working class

Proletariat – in Marxist theory, the class of the industrial workers whose only asset is the labour they sell to an employer

I don’t agree one hundred percent with those definitions, but they are close enough.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

I got a lot of responses to last issue’s challenge—in fact, I’m probably going to use some of them in my next issue, which will most likely be on . . . well, words.


From: Camryndale (music_hitz@yahoo.com)
For me writing and words have always meant that I'm leaving a lasting impression. When I'm gone from this world my words will still be here whether in ink, recordings or pictures. And because my words are still here then my thoughts will be also. Then somebody who may have their own thoughts that are far greater than my own may take my thoughts after I'm gone and work on them to make them perfect and infallible. I don't write to be heard and it's not theraputic for me. I just write for the slim hope and slight chance that someone somewhere can take my ideas and run with them making them to eventually fly, which is something I can't do with my own words.



From: chronotiggerfreak (shadowmage_magus@hotmail.com)
I believe that written language as a whole is an
evolution of oral tradition - things cannot always be said, so they must be recorded in some other manner for future generations. Some have the talent for art - self-evident imagery; others, music, although that's about as effective as oral tradition. But those who either cannot do these things well or choose not to can simply write things down. Excuse me. The act itself is simple, but the art of writing takes a certain knack and/or a lot of practice. Anyway, for some people, as I mentioned, it's a fallback form. For others, it's a choice method of bringing what they see to life in the minds of others.
I enjoy literature over some other arts, such as music, that I am equally adept at because it leaves a lot of interpretation for the reader. While I see a clear picture of characters, settings, and events in my head, I don't have to detail it exactly as would be necessary in a painting. Rather, I can describe it with enough fluency so that the idea comes across, but the reader can still see what they want to see. In some ways, it's giving possession of the story to the reader rather than taking sole credit.
The main reason I write is something entirely different and selfish. I write because it's easy; it's natural. When I want to write something - sometimes even when I don't - it takes little thought or effort. It comes from the brain to my fingertips and lands in Microsoft Word. And sometimes, those times when I don't necessarily want to or have time to, I need to write.
Writing can often be my form of thinking. If I don't write, I'm not exactly sure what's going on. I keep a journal because it's the only way, at the end of the day, that I can make sense of things. Writing is a part of me.



From: etcetera-cat (etcetera_uk1@yahoo.com)
Words. Just little coloured markings on a piece of paper (or a computer screen) that look not very special at all if you happen to glance at them in passing. But if you actually take the time to read them, and to analyse what they mean, then the insides of your mind can be filled with soaring castles; charging knights; the greatest love story ever... a thousand and one portals into a rich dreamworld of imagination.
That's what words and the concept of language mean to me, at least: Collectively they are a way escape from the humdrum ordinary nature of daily life and to let loose our fantasies for a little while.
Which sort of leads on to why I write; I want to share all the unfolding stories and random tales that collect in my head. I want other people to enjoy them as much as I do and, in a way, it feels like I'm paying back some of the happiness and pleasure that I get from reading in the first place. Also, I have an absolute fascination with the use of descriptive language- and how using unlikely words and good flows can paint
vivid imaginary pictures, as well as the joy of producing something poetic and poignant... Or trying to, at any rate!
Committing those inner thoughts and ideas to paper (or word document) can be very hard, frustrating and down-right headache inducing at times, of course, but the very things that cause the most trouble can also be
the most helpful: For instance, writing something out often exposes the 'weaknesses' and fuzzy spots that are not appearent within an idea if if remains purely mental in composition, and the simple act of pinning it to the page with a series of connected lines and curves forces a writer to examine what 'it' is exactly and how it compares to the pictures in their mind.
I think that this is a process that forces a writer to adapt and grow- their stories, ideas, imagination and outlook on life.



These were the first three I got to this issue. I don’t have a challenge this time, because I’ll be featuring more of these in the next issue. Feel free to send one in, if you haven’t already.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:


From: Alexander (Lord of Woe)(theslyestwolf@hotmail.com)
I've been looking through your columns for a while, but I felt I had to write in. You raise an interesting point on villians. But, I must ask, what if you never really see the main villain?
What if he's just someone referred to by Lieutenants or minions? Is a characterisation important in those circumstances?

Well, clearly it’s difficult to use the standard methods of characterization on a character we never meet—you can’t describe him, or go inside his head at all. However, you can make it clear what his lieutenants and minions think of him (or her, of course), which is actually a form of characterization in itself.
However, if your main character never has any contact with this villain, I would argue that he’s not the real enemy. The hero, or protagonist, is going to be more concerned with what the lieutenant/minion is doing. As a result, it is this character who will get cast as your villain, and it therefore becomes important to show his/her motivation, etc.
Thanks for your comments,
Autumndark



From: Jedi Knight (rissawolf@hotmail.com)
Hello.
First off, I would like to thank you for all the time and effort you put into your column. I have found it to be a great resource for something so complicated as writing-- it helps to keep me focused and reminds me of all the little details that go into the making of a great story, forestalling my tendency to plow forward, typing furiously in order to find out what will happen next. :P
However, I must concede that I have ulterior motives in writing to you-- and I would like to apologize for contributing to the inundation which I'm sure has buried your inbox regarding Issue 9's social commentary.
So as not to monopolize your time more than is necessary, I will be brief. I do not have any quarrel with same-sex couples united in a civil union. While I may not personally approve of their actions, a person's
sexual orientation does not affect my perception of them; they are human beings, who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
My only qualm is over the word marriage. I'm certain you, as a writer, share my sensitivity towards words, and it is here my conflict originates. Marriage, by definition, is the legal and spiritual union of a man and woman ordered equally towards their mutual betterment. Because of this, which is the nature of marriage, it is illogical for two individuals of the same sex to marry. We cannot simply take a concept and create a meaning; we cannot simply take this word and redefine it. Marriage has no meaning if we attempt to do so; and why would one elect to participate in a ritual one does not believe holds any meaning? Why marry without accepting the reality of marriage? Similarly, it would make no sense for a Muslim, who did not desire to become a Christian, to undergo Baptism, and in so doing injure the meaning of a sacred ritual when it was meaningless to him or her.
I am all for respecting human dignity. All that I ask in return is respect; and injuring the meaning of an institution which is an expression of God in our world is, quite frankly, insulting. It is not our place to reinvent the nature of marriage, attempting to change this institution into something it is not, thereby altering its very character and significance. Gay marriage is unnecessary; same-sex couples already enjoy many of the same benefits, such as property ownership, which married couples receive.
Civil unions are emerging as one of the central concerns of the twentieth century, and I think it will be some time before we see any kind of resolution. But on the question of 'marriage' there can be no compromise. With the buzzwords flying, there is a confusion of words, and the differences between them-- and if you misspoke, I'm sorry to have commandeered your time, but thank you greatly for hearing me out; I understand being incessantly busy, better than most. :P
Thank you once again for your column and your time.

I beg to differ. To be honest, Jedi Knight, I believe ‘marriage’ is not so much a word as a name for something quite abstract. I believe that you can be ‘married’ to someone without being married by law. I believe that is expresses a bond of love and trust between two people—nothing more, nothing less. By “defining” it, we are taking something that defies explanation and trying to quantify it—we are trying to implement limitations which I believe do not exist.
To be honest, I believe the incessant divorces in today’s society to be vastly more harmful to the idea of marriage than what you would call an unorthodox marriage. I think it cannot be denied that Britney Spears, single-handedly, has done more damage to the sanctity of marriage than the thousands of people who went to Los Angeles to marry and make each other happy. At least, in those marriages, there is true love and trust.
If marriage is to be defined biblically, then we must not only prevent homosexuals from marrying, but Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, and any number of others from doing so as well, since they do not ascribe to the other aspects of the Bible. I certainly agree that there is a place for the Bible and for the knowledge it imparts, but I absolutely, vehemently deny that one must abide by the Bible, or the Koran, or the Bhagavadgita in order to be moral and righteous.
What bothers me the most about the debate going on right now is the fact that we are taking something which is, in truth, a religious controversy, and trying to resolve it by law. Since all people must be considered equal in the eyes of the law, denying some the right to marry is simply unconstitutional. The question of how to define marriage is purely religious, and any attempt to do so through law is completely breaking down the barriers we try, as a society, to erect between church and state. I honestly do not believe it hurts heterosexuals who are married if homosexuals are also married. Every person is entitled to their own beliefs. If a priest or a magistrate is uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, then I would argue that it is within their rights to refuse to marry a gay couple. On the other hand, it is within the rights of the gay couple, as equal in the eyes of the law, to find another priest or magistrate willing to marry them.
I may not be at my most eloquent, but I hope you can understand what I am getting at. Lastly, I would like to remind you of the saying: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
Thanks for your time,
Autumndark

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE NINE: EIGHT DAYS


First off this issue, I have to apologize. I have canceled the Writing vs. Typing issue. Before anyone gets upset with me, let me explain. I got a lot of wonderful responses about the topic, but I’ve been really busy lately (I know, I know, I always say that, but it is true, honestly) . . . and it took me such a long time to get through all of them that I’ve been feeling really guilty about not getting a proper issue out to you. So, that being said, this was intended to be Issue 10, but is now Issue 9. If there is any interest in it, the Writing vs. Typing column may be revived at a later date.

Second: I’ve had a lot of comments about my last Quote of the Month. Two main points – one, my copy of the book is called ‘Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,’ not ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.’ My British readers, if I have any, will understand this. The original name of the book used the term ‘Philosopher’s Stone,’ which is, incidentally, historically accurate. When the book was marked for publishing in the United States, the American publishers changed the name, because they felt that children would not want to read a book with the word ‘Philosopher’ in the title. This, incidentally, had not caused any problems in the UK. At any rate, I originally read it before it had been printed in the US, I own the British version, and I choose to respect the author’s right to name her own book. My second point also has to do with the citation. Apparently, the quote is used by Hermione in the movie version. I quoted from the book, however, and if anyone still believes that Dumbledore did not, in fact, say this, let them look on page 216 of the British version. I don’t know the page number in the American version, but it can be found in the last chapter of the book, during the scene with Dumbledore and Harry in the hospital wing.
And that’s quite enough of that.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

“Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.”
- Abraham Lincoln



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:

Song for the Basilisk, by Patricia A. McKillip

- I know I’ve already done a McKillip book, but since this issue is on characters, I had to choose this book. It has some of the best character development I’ve ever read. The book begins with a great fire, and a child left in the ashes . . . at a very young age, Rook is given into the care of the bards of Luly, with no memories of his past but those of fire. He is content, for a time, but that forgotten past will not leave him alone. With only his music and his nightmares for company, Rook leaves Luly and returns to the land of his birth, watched ever by the self-same basilisk who drove him away. At its deepest level, Song for the Basilisk is a tale of identity, of majesty, of revenge . . . and of human kindness. The sheer diversity and depth of characters is awe-inspiring . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:


Eight Days: The Creation of Characters

The character is, debatably, the most important element of a novel. Suffice it to say – lacking character, a plot rarely goes anywhere. We cannot identify with grand, epic events – history rarely raises a passion in us . . . but given a character who has emotions, thoughts, and choices to make, similar to ours, we are drawn into a story and unwittingly explore unknown depths. Books that unnerve us often ask us to question our own beliefs and our own views of the world – but they do not do this through simple prose. The skillful author does this by causing us to identify with a character . . . as a result, we wonder how we would have reacted, had we been in the situation the character was in.
Some of you will remember that I went briefly over the types of characters in the typical fantasy novel in my third issue. Here I use those same divisions, but, hopefully, go more in depth.

1. Hero/heroine – When writing about your main character, one of the most important (and hardest) things to do is to maintain their imperfection. If he/she is not imperfect, a reader will not be able to identify with him/her. As authors, amateur or otherwise, we tend to become very attached to our main character – often, they walk into our heads first and are the cause of the story. It is often very hard, then, to remember to give them failings – as our veritable protégés, we wish them to be only the best. However, sad as it is, it simply doesn’t work that way in real life, and in order to make your story more believable, it is important to make your character imperfect. In the course of your story, chances are they will make at least one big mistake. A reader needs to feel the embarrassment of this, to squirm in their shoes with them. As an example, I cite Lyra, from Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials. She begins the story as something of a barbarian – and one of the first things she does is lead her best friend to his death. Our love for her, however, becomes no less – we remain with her in her quest to avenge his death and to right the wrong she has done him.

2. Villain – The one thing that makes a villain authentic is their absolute certainty that they are right. To cite His Dark Materials again, the villain is portrayed as the Church, who, in its quest to rid the worlds of original sin, believes that it is doing God’s work, the only good thing. A villain needs motivation – ‘he just likes killing’ is not good enough. Why does he like killing? In Rowling’s Harry Potter, Voldemort, the villain of the piece, is motivated by a bad Muggle father. From thence arises his hate of all Muggles – it’s what I like to call the ‘he’s not a bad kid, really, he’s just a little misguided’ syndrome. Although even this motivation remains sketchy, there remains a sense that we will find out more, which is enough not to bore us. As another example, examine Sauron from Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. His motivation is never truly explained in the trilogy itself, although one can gain a better understanding from The Silmarillion. However, many readers become bored with the epic style of the LOTR trilogy itself – as a villain, Sauron is unrealistic, because he appears to be bad just for the sake of being bad. Scarier are his lesser minions, in the form of Gollum and the Ringwraiths, because they are closer to our sphere of understanding. While is it not necessary for a successful story – nothing is specifically required, in the end, it is often a good idea to create a villain that we can identify with, if we chose to do so. It draws a reader more deeply into the psychological level that exists – author unwitting or not – in almost every novel.

3. Minions – Here we have the motivational thing again. To go back to Lord of the Rings, we can look at Gollum, as a sort of pseudo-minion. His motivation is clear – his mind is possessed by the ring, as his life was destroyed by its power, and his only goal is to get it back. As I mentioned before, minions are often rather foolish (take the case of Hack and Slash, for any ReBoot buffs out there), but they still need a reason to do what they do. It is for this reason, in fact, that Hack and Slash don’t work too well – they’re just slapstick – and, as a matter of fact, they end up on the good side. A very good (and well known example) of a motivated minion is Peter Pettigrew, from Rowling’s Harry Potter. He has always been around people stronger and brighter than he is – and his goal in becoming ‘evil’ is to finally outshine them – to show them up, in a manner of speaking. Like any good minion, he is cowed – but he does not choose to be on the ‘wrong’ side simply because he is afraid.

4. Mentor – this is one of the few characters who is allowed to be somewhat static. It also common to have a mentor symbolize perfection. However, in this case, the mentor is often out of the thick of the action. Tolkien’s Gandalf, who is very much involved in the action, starts out imperfect. As his role becomes less and less, he gets closer to perfection.
A mentor has a variety of different functions. One of the most common is as a source of knowledge (i.e. Gandalf). Another can be as a source of comfort—for example, Mandy in Ella Enchanted. She can comfort Ella, and help her, to some extent, but she is powerless to do anything major. A third possible role is as the ‘last resort’, and it is in this circumstance that a mentor is often perfect. Take Aslan, from The Chronicles of Narnia . As a symbol for God, he does indeed represent perfection, and is absent from the thick of the plot. He is unexplained, enigmatic, and arrives to help only in dire need.

5. Brother/sister – A brother or sister figure can also be static, provided that they are not in the story much. However, if presented as a main character, your brother/sister figure will be expected to change and grow with your main character. An example of a novel with both these types is Diana Wynne Jones’ Charmed Life. Cat Chant’s sister, Gwendolen, does not change at all during the course of the story—but since she has little or no sisterly interest in Cat, this does not cause the story to lose out. Her replacement, Janet, on the other hand, is just as confused and lost as Cat himself, and changes as he does towards the end of the story. She is much more of a sister to him than Gwendolen ever was.

6. Sidekick – this character is also rarely perfect. Usually the same sex as the main character (Samwise Gamgee, Lord of the Rings ), a sidekick is usually less of a leader than the protagonist. Often in the position of a pet or a friend—Mogget, from Garth Nix’s Sabriel , is an interesting example, in that he is also a mentor and evil. A sidekick will normally have the characteristics lacking in the main character. For example, in Pullman’s His Dark Materials, where Lyra is impetuous and hotheaded, her dæmon Pantalaimon is cautious and would be slow to act, given the choice. Doing this serves to offset mistakes made by the main character and to move the story along—without the guidance of their (faithful or otherwise) sidekick, your main character could be walking around in circles for days.

The modern style of characterization is to let the facts about a character emerge slowly, rather than presenting an entire portrait of them at once. This is done through action and dialogue—meaning that you should know your character thoroughly before you begin to write about them. The most common technique used for characterization today is a perversion of synecdoche, in which an author lets one part stand for the whole. If your character is a bard, you might describe his/her hands as a musician’s hands—what makes a musician’s hands? What other characteristics does a musician have? Is this character a conformist?
Characters can (and often do) fall under the DRT (Divine Revelation Theory, see Issue 1), but it is important to remain willing to play around with them. As authors, we are often reluctant to make changes until we see that our stories go nowhere without them. In some sense, I suppose, we become our characters—resisting change for them, resisting the twisting of their fates . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY:

The purpose of a law is to resolve conflicts that might arise between people. If I, for example, enjoy hitting people, and you enjoy not being hit, it would be logical to make a law that says I cannot hit you—or that I can only hit people who do not mind being hit. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and all that. On a simple scale.
Now, it simply doesn’t make any sense to make a law outlawing gay marriage. If I, for example, wanted to marry another girl, it wouldn’t mean that you couldn’t marry whoever you wanted to (unless you wanted to marry the same person, in which case it’s just tough luck for you). The right of homosexuals to marry does not infringe on the right of heterosexuals to be married . . . it just doesn’t make any sense to even be talking about it. What doesn’t affect you is none of your business . . . can’t we just let people be happy? Is the purpose of man to ensure that he is the only one who can be happy?
Let it be, folks . . . they’re people too . . . they don’t have problems with you being married. If your religion says it’s wrong, tough. No one’s forcing you to do it. Not everyone believes what you do—we don’t tell you to believe it’s right, so do not ask us to believe that it is wrong. It’s life . . . let it be.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE GLOSSARY:

Tip - an acronym for To Insure Promptness. How many of you knew that?
Actually, I don’t have anything for this month. So, just for the heck of it:

Identify that quote!

“We are all subject to the fates. But we must all act as if we are not or die of despair.”

Name, speaker, and source. There would be a prize, but I can’t think of anything . . . so . . . there isn’t.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

I selected two entries from the four or five I got for this month. This first is a really excellent example of what a name can do for characterization.


From: R.V. Kingsbury (rvlee07@holycross.edu)
A giantess with a wooden ruler and a broad smile was waiting for him, a broad-shouldered Englishwoman with a battered Latin dictionary tucked under her arm, its golden lettering flaking and its leather binding peeling away. The English schoolmistress was unlike any of the ancient and venerable educators at the Edinburgh Preparatory; she strode about the room like a Prussian field marshal, masterful and imposing in dark worsted wool, her caramel-coloured hair glinting richly in the gaslight.
Like any student at the Preparatory, he had heard countless tales of the English schoolmistress, Mary Campion. Certainly a descendent of legionnaires, or at least Britain's mighty warrior-kings. Her mysterious surname had a French flair - the patriotic young boys teased her constantly for it - or perhaps it was a direct descendant of the Latin, as would be expected in a Latin teacher of no uncertain renown. Yet all were false... on the day of graduation, she had promised she would reveal the truth of her name.
Hesitatingly, the boy took a seat beside the grate as the intimidating schoolmistress set her dictionary on the podium with a small puff of ancient dust. She pulled out a small black roll-book, its leather cover cracking, and glanced over the class. "Leicester - Robertson - ah, fresh blood - MacLeod."
"Here," Alistair MacLeod whispered, scarcely daring to breathe in the presence of Pallas Athene.
Mary Campion smiled, as she placed a small check in her book. "Salve - rats and blazes, I can't Latinize that." She looked up, and said generously, "Salve, Alistair. Welcome to Cicero. I suppose the others have told you the secret of my name."
The other boys prodded each other, and watched. Alistair MacLeod said uncertainly, "You are not a descendent of Boudicca... nor of French knights, nor of Britain's ancient kings..." Alistair MacLeod unfolded the scrap of paper in his copybook, and said more strongly, "there was a Jesuit, Edmund Campion, who was martyred under Elizabeth."
Mary Campion held up her hand, as she cracked open the volume of Cicero. "Let's not be dragging Jesuits through the mud, my dear boy. You have discovered, Alistair MacLeod, what fifteen years of students have not. Congratulations." Mary Campion glanced at the clock above the coal-grate, and smiled. "Within a hour the Headmaster will be here, demanding my resignation, and another Campion shall go the way of first. Open to the Verrine Orations... MacLeod, since you have been so apt this morning, take the first line: venio nunc."
Hesitatingly, Alistair MacLeod began to translate, glancing up at Mary Campion as she nodded along. The gaslight glowed across her face; there seemed no bitterness in her broad features. But then, she was a daughter of martyrs . . .



From: Hime D. (hime1999@yahoo.com)
'Maharani', that's my name. It's Sanskrit for 'The Great Queen'. Sometimes I can't help but wonder what my parents were smoking when they named me that. 'Rani', my childhood friends always called me. Might as well bellow, "My Queen!"
Parents have hopes for their children. Mothers, for they cared for us inside her body for nine months and then years outside. Fathers, for they are the ones to provide us. No, I don't believe in unconditional love. There is always, deep inside the heart, the desire of every parent to see their children to be exactly what they want them to be.
I'd like see myself a bad example of that.
Oh yes, I managed to pull myself and be a 'queen'. My manners were delicate, no different than those who were luckier than us to be born in the world that knows no financial sorrow. My brain was something to be proud of, as it was as cunning as it could be behind the obidience to obligations. My looks might be unlike supermodels, but I was by no means average. And combined, I was the dream of every parent and the envy of
every child.
No wonder I wasn't happy.
So when I left my hometown and came to Japan, I abbreviated the name to 'Ran'.
Storm.
Chaos.
It's amazing that a mere elimination of a letter could change the whole picture.



Next month: What do words mean to you? What do you see as the purpose of language? Why do you write? As aspiring authors, we spend so much time struggling to get the thoughts in our head out on paper, though it is so easy to fail. Why? Why is it so important? I guess this could be in an essay format, but I’m just interested in hearing the thoughts of others about this subject. See you next month.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:

From: Allie (saldek_liruhan@yahoo.co.uk)
I would just like to enquire as to which one of the artforms you find most influential in your life and work. Literature is often seen as the most primary inspiration, but I have not found this to be entirely true. I am currently working on a major piece that has been part of my life for around five years (which is saying something, especially as I am only just 15!) and have found that literature can sometimes be most unhelpful and frustrating, and possibly even an obstruction, to many of my ideas. Perhaps it is not a good idea to try and associate literature and your own writings too closely - although much of what we already have in our minds is drawn from things we have learned or experienced, it is far more effective simply to take an idea that strikes you on the spur of the moment and use it for your purposes. Music, on the other hand, can be a wonderful form for developing the embryonic concepts of a work. Music speaks in other ways than words, penetrating our subconscious and evoking some of our deepest and darkest emotions, thus being ideal for writers when they begin a piece.
To hear a fellow writer's opinions on this subject would be very insightful.

Allie,
I don’t believe there is any one inspiration for anything. My most recent writings have all been poetry, and for that I draw from many different sources. My life experience, words and phrases I see or hear, music I play, music I hear in my head—and also from literature, from things I have read, from situations that stuck me with a particular memorable emotion. Rather than one source of inspiration, I believe we are inspired first and foremost by our emotions, and that this is especially true for poetry. Anything can help us, anything can hinder us—the important thing is to know when to move from one muse to the next.
Autumndark

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE EIGHT: A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME

Okay, I know you people don’t want to hear a lot of crap from me, but this time it’s really important, I swear. That’s why it’s in bold type.

My next issue will be, in majority, based off the things people send in. It will deal with the gimmick question for us amateurs: Writing vs. Typing. Some of you may remember that I mentioned the possibility of doing a column on this in my second issue.
At any rate, it cannot be done without the opinion of the public. I know it’s a bother, I know it takes up part of your valuable time, but I would be greatly obliged if you could send in your personal preference (writing or typing) together with one or two reasons why you prefer it. If material is not in too much excess, all views will be posted, since that will be making up the bulk of the column.
Thanks for your time,
Autumndark



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

“Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself.”
- Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, by J.K. Rowling



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:

Neuromancer, by Will Gibson

- Case was the best data thief in cyberspace, plugging his consciousness into the matrix to steal information for anyone who could pay his price – until he double-crossed the wrong people and they ruined his nervous system, destroying his talent micron by micron. Trapped, indeed, for one such as him, in his fleshly body, Case courted death in the seedy underworld of Japanese Chiba and the American Sprawl (Boston-Atlanta urban region) until he was offered a chance at a cure . . . the price, his all-or-nothing service . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:

The Naming of Lights

“Adam’s one task in the Garden had been to invent language, to give each creature and thing its name. In that state of innocence, his tongue had gone straight to the quick of the world. His words had not been merely appended to the things he saw, they had revealed their essences, had literally brought them to life. A thing and its name were interchangeable. After the fall, this was no longer true. Names became detached from things; words devolved into a collection of arbitrary signs; language had been severed from God. The story of the Garden therefore, not only records the fall of man, but the fall of language.”
- Paul Auster, “City of Glass”


Which is to say that these days there is no real connection between the name of a thing and its actual character. It is not a river because the word sounds like running water (although ocean, in fact, does sound rather like its concrete representee) . . . it is a river because of “the arbitrariness of sign.”

Quite the proverbial rose.

Proper names, however, are a slightly different case. In real life (much as I hate to admit it exists), they are generally chosen by our parent or parents, usually because they have some special meaning to them, or some hope that you (the child) will live up to what the name means. My own name means ‘inspiration’ . . . I often regret that my parents did not pick the one that meant ‘flame.’ Your last name is the fault of no one . . . if your neighbor is Mr. Miller, you could probably deduce, without much mental strain, that someone in his ancestry worked a mill . . . but it probably has no bearing on what he does or does not do today.

However, once your friend Miller becomes a character in a story, it is inevitable that people will begin to assign meaning to his name. Perhaps not the name Miller, but any number of other names which signify profession, have, to some extent, religious connotations. Perhaps this is intentional. If your Mrs. Shepard is a teacher, she will be connected also as a mentor . . . a shepherd of her students, per say.

One of today’s best-known authors certainly intends us to look into her naming system. I speak of course of none other than J.K. Rowling. It has often been said that part of her appeal to the older generations are her mythological naming references. She names the Hogwarts caretaker Argus Filch, evidently hoping that someone will remember that the mythological Argus was a Greek watchman with eyes all over his body. The significance, perhaps, at this point escapes me, but Dumbledore was an old English word for Bumblebee (which struck me as quite an amusing coincidence, because prior to discovering this, I had attempted writing a Harry Potter spoof, and had toyed with calling the headmaster Bilius Bumblebee). The Transfiguration teacher is Minerva McGonagall, the Latin name for Athena, Greek goddess of wisdom. And, the most obviously significant, Harry’s godfather Sirius Black, named after the dog star, whose Animagus form is a giant black dog. Coincidence? I think not.

One may well, wonder, then, what Rowling means by naming her main character, obviously the most important to her still developing plot, Harry Potter, a veritable “Joe Smith” among names. She confides that his surname is that of one of her childhood friends . . . but may we still wonder, perhaps she means something – it is the most commonplace person who will be shown to save the day? We can wonder.

While Rowling characters appear to suit her names, another well-known author, Philip Pullman, changes his name to suit his character. Lyra Belacqua, heroine of His Dark Materials, finds her surname changed to ‘Silvertongue’ by an armoured bear when she does the allegedly impossible, and tricks one of his race. Lyra discards an arbitrary name – the Count and Countess Belacqua were not her parents, if indeed they ever existed – and adopts the new one, which describes part of who she is, an adept and skillful liar.

Naturally, we occasionally name characters to amuse ourselves (the naming of Argus Filch may have been one such incidence) . . . I find myself guilty of this all the time. The twins in my new story, Night Walker, find themselves named Castor and Pollux, while old Shen, named shortly after a reread of The Two Towers, is saddled with the last name of Isendor, not all that different from Isengard. The significance is none, but once I had assigned the name to the character, it felt wrong to change it. Sometimes I pick a name that fits my mental perception of a character – a tough tomboy who wears her hair cut short and refuses to marry is named Brin . . . a short name, to suit both her temper and her hair . . . and neutral enough to denote either a boy or a girl.

The significance may be blatantly obvious . . . in a future short story project of mine, a look at both sides of the war and peace argument, my characters have assumed the names Warren and Frieda. The meaning of the first is blatantly obvious, and the root for the second, in my mind, at least is the German ‘Frieden’, meaning ‘peace.’

On the other hand, we sometimes choose to deliberately show the disassociation between a name and its owner. Leto is the reluctant (and exalted) princess, Tseus the fireless dragon and Narcissa the girl mortally afraid of mirrors.

Not to say, however, that you must consider these questions. It is certainly relevant to think once or twice before you select the name Mary for a single mother, Cain or Abel for the brother of your main character. People will and do attach significance to a fictional name of any kind, but perhaps the most important element of naming is to select a name that seems like it belongs to someone you could and would like to get to know.

Chances are, it’ll make it easier for you to write about them.


“. . .and a girl you have not yet been introduced to, who now comes forward from the shadows of the side aisle, where she has been lurking, to join the others at the altar rail. Let her be called Violet, no, Veronica, no Violet, improbable a name as that is for Catholic girls of Irish extraction, customarily named after saints and figures of Celtic legend, for I like the connotations of Violet – shrinking, penitential, melancholy – a diminutive, dark-haired girl, a pale, pretty face ravaged by eczema, fingernails bitten down to the quick and stained by nicotine, a smartly cut needlecord coat sadly creased and soiled; a girl, you might guess from all this evidence, with problems, guilts, hangups.”
- David Lodge, “How Far Can You Go?”


This month’s odd coincidence (that the columnist only just noticed): The man who wrote The Neverending Story, is himself named Michael Ende.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY:

What is there but dark in a world with no light?
But we have light . . . we have the sun, the moon, the stars, and so much wonder and strange beauty around us. Let us enjoy them while we can.
Depression is not an excuse. It is a lifestyle, and it is useful to no one. It is a state of mind . . . one becomes selfish, narrow minded and unwilling to change . . . it is to be pitied, but not to be condoned.
It is as simple as saying no.
Enough said.

"Self is the only prison that can ever bind the soul."
-Henry Van Dyke



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE GLOSSARY:

Speaking of naming, who’s been studying Greek mythology recently? A lot of Greek names are still in use today . . .

Let’s start at the top . . .

- Zeus – the god of the sky and ruler of Olympus. Roman Jupiter, known to fling thunderbolts when angered. Notoriously promiscuous, he is also the husband and sister of wily Hera.

- Hera – one of the original Olympians, the most fiery (save Zeus, her husband and brother) of the six. Her beauty and guile are legend, and she is the goddess of marriage. Also known as Juno in Roman mythology.

- Hestia – the gentlest of all the Olympians, she is also one of the first, oldest daughter of Rhea and Cronus. Vesta in Roman legend, she is the goddess of the hearth and often the home.

- Demeter – one of the original Olympians, sister of Zeus. Ceres in Roman mythology, Demeter is the goddess of grain and fertility, and very mild-mannered, for a Greek god.

- Poseidon – Poseidon, or Neptune, is the god of the sea and of earthquakes. Although he was one of the original Olympians, he chooses to dwell beneath the waves rather than among his brothers and sisters.

- Hades – Hades, surprisingly, is the god of Hades, which is also known as the Greek underworld. Named Pluto in Roman mythology, he is also the husband of the lovely Persephone, daughter of his sister Demeter.

- Athena – the patron deity of the city of Athens, the goddess of wisdom and often of war. She sprang fully grown and armed from the head of her father, Zeus, and her mother is said to be Metis, who Zeus swallowed in a panic. Minerva in Roman mythology.

- Apollo – the son of Zeus and the Titaness Leto, twin brother to Artemis. He is the god of the arts, archery and divination, and his position as leader of the muses gives him dominion over intellectual pursuits.

- Artemis – the sister of Apollo, daughter of Zeus and Leto, goddess of the hunt and protector of children. She was known to punish misdemeanors swiftly and harshly. Often identified with the goddess of the moon, Artemis is said to have two other forms – Hecate, a goddess of the underworld, and Selene, the aforementioned moon goddess. She is known as Diana in Roman mythology.

- Aphrodite – the Greek goddess of love and beauty, named Venus in Roman mythology. She is said to have emerged from the sea – she was born of foam, and the root of her name, aphros, is the Greek word for this.

- Ares – the god of war, interested in nothing but battles and bloodshed, and perhaps Aphrodite. His Roman name is Mars – the planet, being blood red, was named after him.

- Hermes – Roman Mercury, always depicted with winged sandals. He is the god of merchants and the messenger of Zeus. The son of Zeus and Maia, he is also said to have invented the lyre, with nine strings, one for each of the nine muses.

- Hephaestus – the lame and disfigured son of Hera and Zeus. Angry during his birth and angry at the sight of her son, Hera cast him off Mount Olympus. He landed on the isle of Lemnos, which became his home. The Roman Vulcan, Hephaestus is the god of smiths and metal workers.

- Dionysus – the Roman Bacchus, more commonly known by that name. God of wine, mysteries and the theater, he is one of the few gods who is constantly a comic figure. At the same time, much of his life is shrouded in shadow, for he is the only god said to have died.

Before anyone comments, I am well aware that that is not nearly all the gods and goddesses or renowned figures in Greek mythology. Is is merely a selection from the ones I know best.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

If you are going to send in a response to the challenge, make sure you send it as either a word, html or text file. Word is preferable, but I can access the other two. Any other format cannot be read by my computer, and will therefore not be qualified.



From: Julie (jelliedonut@yahoo.com)
Coffee ice cream is her favorite. Richer than vanilla and haughtier than chocolate, it offers a balance between childish indulgence and sophisticated restraint. She raises the spoon to her mouth and slowly savors the brief shock of ice and sugar. As the concoction melts into a sticky residue on her tongue, the sun filters in through opened windows, illuminating the bare walls and infusing it with an uncommonly cozy glow. The peeling paint and nail scars no longer bother her as they did before, and she allows herself to sink into the rare silence emanating through her limited space, feeling the warm light playing with the hills and valleys of her face.
A robotic “Ode to Joy” suddenly beeps its way into her resting ears, startling her out of her trance. She jumps slightly, allowing the spoon to slip out of her poised hand and onto the rough wooden floor, the ice cream now a shapeless blemish on her bare foot. This time, the coldness is an unpleasant jolt. After fumbling for a few seconds, hopping on one foot and retrieving the fallen spoon, she manages to locate the music’s source and grabs it off the cluttered table.
“Hello?” Her answer is slightly breathless and tainted with faint irritation.
“Robbie, hey, I meant to call you back earlier, but—”
“What?” Whispered now, her voice quavers with disbelief. Icy tendrils begin to crawl into her fingers, toes, surging and gaining in strength until they form a solid block of ice deep inside, somewhere vaguely behind her bellybutton.
“Oh, God. When?” Her queries are almost inaudible, more for herself then for her audience. Staring blankly at the wall as words and static crawl hesitantly inside, she feels her focus draining and wonders briefly how the world spins without drifting away into oblivion. Her vision swims and she quickly blinks.
“Where?” Mind clearing and resolve gathering, she barely hears the answer before blurting her reply.
“Wait for me. I’m coming. Tell her to hang on, wait for me,” she demands, trying to prevent her racing pulse from seeping into her voice. Snapping the phone abruptly shut, she stands (was she sitting?) and grabs her thin wallet, gathering speed until she flies through the door. The slam echoes rudely, then fades.
Whirlwind gone, the room quietly resumes its meditative state. As the sun burns brightly in the cloudlessly brilliant sky, its light ceases to erase the ugliness from the walls. Each imperfection, each stain and scar, announces its presence without shame. The space is strangely silent.
On the wrinkled sheets sits a wilting carton and a spoon stiff with abandoned cream and sugared sophistication. Its frozen contents slowly become a swirling pool of artificial coffee.



From: Lucerna (lucerna_uk@hotmail.com)
Transitory Elevenses
Coffee is always sitting before her. The mug will vary with venue and type of establishment: sometimes new and elegant, sometimes shabby and cracked. The beverage inside remains unchanged. She finds some poetic justice in it - the container is never the same, and nor is she. She will reinvent herself; taking on a new identity that comes into play the moment the welcome sign of a town passes the windscreen. But the coffee always grows cold, the mug dirty, and so she will move onward again, inexorably drawn forward and onto new things. She hasn't quite figured out what it is that she searches for.
Meanwhile, the coffee is her companion. Peering over its rim allows her to scrutinise the passers-by, to decide if their lives are comparable with her own, and watching her darkened reflection in its rippling surface passes the time. Then, when the intensity of the stranger's gaze looking up at her becomes all too much, she adds more sugar, viciously stirring away the image.
She never drinks the stuff. She hates coffee.



From: Sangwaelen (sangwaelen@yahoo.com)
Coffee shops are great places to people watch. Every Saturday I head for a little "hole-in-the-wall" shop on Main. I bring a book or some homework, order a latte and settle into one of the old overstuffed chairs by the window. I'm not sure why I even order the latte, because I never drink it. I hate the taste.
As I stir my coffee, I make note of all the characters that come in and pass my chair. Two drama students, scripts in hand, order black coffee and discuss the finer points of Shakespeare. A business woman, looking slightly out of place in her crisp skirt suit, orders a cappuccino and heads out of the door quickly, her pumps clicking on the wood floor. Every now and then some giggly girls about my age will come in, making complicated orders and disturbing the usual peace of the shop with their chatter of boys and fashion. It's my personal opinion that people that perky don't need caffeine.
Then, there is the old man. Just as my latte is becoming cold and I'm questioning why I just didn't get tea instead, he comes in. Every Saturday, without fail. He has lonely eyes, and I wonder who he is. He orders plain coffee and always puts three packets of sugar in it, stirring slowly as he stares into the swirling liquid. Sometimes I wonder what he sees there. More than once have I wanted to ask his name, but something keeps holding me back, including this time. As I pick up my books and cold drink, I glance back his way. Next time. Definitely next time, I will know your story. I leave the shop as usual, curious and smelling of coffee.


Many really great entries this week. These were the three I found the most insightful (although there were some great funny ones, I wasn’t in the mood for humour this time). Thanks a lot for the great responses.


This month: a short descriptive paragraph about a character with some oddity in their name. Either it can describe their character (though perhaps not as well as Dylan Thomas’ Nogood Boyo), or it can serve to highlight how little their personality is like their name. Something to do with naming, I’m not particularly picky. Have a great month!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:


From: Waltraute (yggdrasil14@yahoo.com)
I can't remember if I've emailed you before or not... anyway, I've got a problem. At least I think it's a problem. Scratch that: I've got an ISSUE. You seemed like a good person to contact because you have a sort of advice column for writers, and you also seem to know your Terry Pratchett a bit. Oh wait! I'll write this like a real Advice Column Letter, and then it will be more interesting!
Dear Autumndark,
I am having an unusual Terry Pratchett issue right now, and I was hoping you had some words of wisdom for it.
I have this story called "The Best Damn Battle Ever," and I will save you some time reading by telling you what it is: it is basically a humor/fantasy/satire thing starring an idiot with a sword, an alcoholic elf, and an assortment of other crazy characters, who are all on a Quest to put a stop to a senseless civil war. Zaniness ensues, etc.
The issue is that it sounds like Pratchett. TOO much like Pratchett. I am not trying to brag here. I didn't set out to sound like Terry Pratchett, but apparently Terry Pratchettness has infected my brain and my narrative voice, so that any time I try to write anything amusing I come out as Terry Pratchett.
Reviewers have certainly pointed this out to me, but thankfully have stopped short of screaming: "You can't publish this here! It's PLAGIARISM! It belongs on fanfiction.net!" I am definitely going to finish the story anyway, and it would be foolish to change my narrative voice in the middle (and furthermore I'm not sure I could if I wanted to), but I am starting to wonder if I should just move it and have it over with... Frankly, however, I don't WANT to move it. I didn't borrow characters
or setting. I think it's just fine where it is! And I happen to be very attached to it.
Enough babbling... should I be worried that I'm sounding way too much like a certain author in this story? I didn't mean to write a tribute!
-Experiencing Unwanted Pratchettude in the Northern Hemisphere
PS. Golems are cool. The golem originated with a story written hundreds of years ago by a rabbi in Prague (I've actually visited his grave), and was first made into really famous literature by Mary Shelley.
Thanks for reading.
-Waltraute

Waltraute (or Experiencing Unwanted Prachettude in Northern Hemisphere),
Forgive me if I don’t regard this as a major problem. I’m going to assume you’re in high school or college, and say that this is part of discovering your own voice.
While I think it can be declared plagiarism if it is clear you are intentionally copying an author’s voice, it’s not a very well defined line, and I see no reason to change the style unless you really want to. If you are concerned, I’d suggest adding a note at the beginning (with apologies to Terry Prachett) or something like that.
However, the plot and characters are your own idea, and during the editing process you can change the voice/style if and when you need to . . . borrowing another author’s voice is part of finding your own.
In the long term, however, the best thing you can do is to broaden your reading range. Take a hiatus from Pratchett while you’re writing this story, perhaps and try some other authors – fantasy, scifi, novels, perhaps even some nonfiction. Chances are you’ll find something else you like, it will mix with the way you’re writing now, and turn into a style that’s all your own.
Thanks for your time,
Autumndark



From: Shian (savanah@midsouth.rr.com)
I really liked this. It's neat to know a fellow teenager, can write something like this and not sound like some boring old fogey. :P It helps that you know a lot about English and things like verb agreement and modifiers. *shudders* I hate identifying things myself.
So, do you ever have trouble explaining what you mean when you write? Not just this collumn, but stories as well. That is what usually hinders my writing, or what little writing I actually get done. . . that and my limited knowledge about writing, erm but that's off the subject.

Shian,
Do I ever have trouble explaining what I mean when I write? Do I ever! If you look at my profile, you’ll notice that the only completed things I have are a couple of one-shots and poems . . . this is not because I ran out of ideas on the stories, but because I’m having trouble expressing those ideas without sounding corny. I find that the best way around this is just writing and rewriting and sometimes starting over, until I have a result that I can continue. Recently I had to scrap a prologue that I had not changed for over a year while I worked with the first chapter . . . because I realized the problem was that the prologue was too static and explained nothing that it should have.
Thanks a lot for the compliments, although I’m not sure I deserve them.
Best of luck,
Autumndark



From: Katie (danceurhrtout419@hotmail.com)
I am just writing to post a tip to all writers that i found rather useful. When I am brainstroming for a story i prefer to write and draw in a sketchbook. That way if I draw a particular character or place I can write a story sbout it and actually seeing it helps me visualize their life better. I also think that all of the arts are connected and trying another art that isn't your expertise will improve you art of choice.
For instance, when I am having a serious writers block, I tend to get up and dance around then when I sit down and write again, I have a ton of ideas swirling around my mind.I just thought I'd write and tell you about it, even thugh you don't
have the editor's inbox anymore.
Katie

Katie,
Thanks for sending in the tip!
I tend to like to draw characters too, although I often find myself discouraged by a lack of drawing skills . . . some visualization of the character is very helpful to me. What helps me most, perhaps, is drawing maps, writing strange footnotes, and then trying to come up with something that explains those footnotes . . . in doing so, I find out a lot more about my land and its people, which helps greatly.
Thanks for your time,
Autumndark



To everyone –
For the last time, my dears, columnists are not fictionpress or fanfiction admin, and we cannot do anything about your questions and concerns with the site. I cannot disprove or verify any rumours, and neither can the other columnists.
I’m also getting tired of the insults and threats in my email . . . while I can’t do anything about the abuse, threats are certainly illegal and I can and will start reporting them if they continue. Please don’t fill my inbox with what amounts to merely a waste of your time as well as mine. If you need to be foolish, do it on your own time. I’m not sitting around to watch.
Autumndark

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE SEVEN: THE RACK AND THE THUMBSCREW


Kind of a departure from the norm this issue, although I’m fairly sure there is some kind of explanation that you’d accept . . . unfortunately, I don’t know what it is. Read and enjoy, if you can.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

"The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
- Excerpt from Chapter 28 of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Douglas Adams.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:

Good Omens, by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett

- The Apocalypse is here. Well, almost. It’ll actually arrive next Saturday. That is, unless one goodish (but don’t tell him that) demon and one slightly tempted angel can manage to stop it. They quite like humanity, after all. And it might not be so hard. The spawn of Lucifer has been accidentally redirected, the horseman Pestilence has died out and been replaced with Pollution – as a matter of fact, there aren’t any horsemen any more. In keeping with modern times, they’ve decided to become a biker gang and infect the world through technology. And Anathema Device has accidentally misplaced the one accurate telling of the event – The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter (and no, she didn’t invent crazy people).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:


Today's Topic: The Tortured Artist

A famous person once said that to be good, an artist (or writer) must be tortured.
I beg to differ.

We hear of the "tortured artist" stereotype constantly - we're being told, all the time, that there's no money in the writing business or the fine arts. Truth is, there is money - it's just not for everyone. The good writers - well, they're the ones who get it, so they're certainly not tortured.

At least, in the financial sense.

Another famous person said, "write what you know." This would undoubtedly be useful - if I considered that what I know would make a good story. Don't worry, it wouldn't. My attempts at nonfiction about me are usually stretched to the breaking point, hovering over the fine line between real and imagined. But then, isn't what might have been always better than what is? For me, that holds true so far, and I suspect it will for the rest of my life.

Unfortunately, that famous person seems to have been at least partly right. I find that some of my best work comes when I invent characters, put them through things I went through, and make them react either the way I did, or the way I should have. It's that fine balance between truth and fiction that makes even fantasy seem plausible (to a certain extent).

The problem is, I hate writing what I know. I'm always afraid someone will recognize that it’s me and come bite my head off . . . I'm aware that's a little odd. Just one of my things . . . like the clown in my attic . . . anyway, I'm getting off the point.

So I do the next best thing.

When I was little I used to hate "I" books (I didn't know the term first person then). I never knew why - I just disliked them. As I got older, however (Ella Enchanted helped quite a bit) I ended up liking them more than other kinds. I liked getting to know one character through and through, in and out, up and down . . . you get the point. Head-hopping (even though I use it a lot) actually kinda bugs me.

My point is that I enjoy writing in first person. It's how I "write what I know". You'll notice - a lot of my first person will sound similar, because I tend to use my own voice (for female characters, at least).

The voice - for me, it's a bit cynical, because that's how I am. It uses long sentences to describe things, but it fairly blunt when it comes to shockers. The voice - whether it's the one you hear in your head, or the one that comes out of your mouth, is your own personal writing style. Be warned - it will probably change over the course of your life. Don't get too used to it being one way.

Okay, now I'm just getting a bit stupid.

Anyway, I think you can get the point.

Let's get back to the tortured artist. Physical torture is . . . not done. So we have mental torture left.

And this is where we hit the gold. A lot of bestselling books have been written by mentally disturbed people, abused people and/or about them. It's a bit strange actually, but that's what makes them so popular. These people are writing what they know and it makes their stories more real, somehow. For me, it's the different voices you hear.

I think nonfiction is where the tortured artist may strike big.

Let's move a little away from the truth now. To fiction. Just plain fiction - no magical or supernatural happenings, on earth, modern day. It's getting harder to be tortured, isn't it? So write what you know. If it's a school story, make the school yours. Make the city your character wanders around in yours - personally, I like setting stories in Chicago, because that's the city I know best. Do your characters have to spend the night in a haunted mansion? When you describe it, why not make it the one down the street . . . your prose will become that much more real, because you actually saw what you were writing.

Now, fantasy . . . makes it a bit hard to "write what you know." Unless of course, you've actually been attacked by a hydra while trying to cross the Aegean Sea? I didn't think so.
If it's in first person, this gets a bit easier - like I said before, just use your own voice. If it's not, well - okay, I don't really know. I did have some good advice, and I was going to try using it myself before I told you, but then I got called downstairs for dinner and totally forgot it. Honestly. I'm thinking, I'm thinking here . . . okay. Use your imagination. Don’t write Tolkein's elves into your story, or even Keebler's (I hate those guys). Perhaps your elves can be tricky - or have the power of prophecy (gosh, I give myself a lot of ideas while writing this column).

I wonder how I ended up writing about that? I actually just meant to write about the tortured artist stereotype. I seem to digress a lot . . .

Let's see - yes. I saw somewhere, once, "consumed, not tortured," and I think that's exactly what it is. To be good, you don’t have to be put through god-knows-what, you have to let the mood control you. Don't write because you've got nothing better to do - write because you need to, because that idea running around in your head won't let you rest until you do. Odd as it may sound, you have to let the writing control you, rather than controlling the writing.

Anyway, that's what I think.

See you next month, folks!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY:

The world is so unfair.

I have the luxury of sitting and typing this, on a trip which my family can afford, while down the street, the guy doing our ironing is making 1/45th of a dollar (literally, one rupee) for each item of clothing he irons. True, pants go for two – but what’s the use? What’s the purpose of life?

He irons all day, his whole family irons all day, because all they have are two coal irons. They could go faster if they had electricity – but why worry about it, they don’t have the money to pay the bill anyway.

On one rupee per item of clothing, they’ll be ironing forever. It’s not like they can stockpile enough money to be able to do something else with their lives. It’s never occurred to them that there is anything else they can do – there isn’t, not for them, not in that situation.

Still, they’re better off than some. They’re much better off than the people living in the slums of Mumbai, shanties and huts made of iron and corrugated cardboard and rich folks’ garbage, packed so close together that you can barely draw a line between the ‘houses’. The people fit through, though. They don’t eat that much. There isn’t that much to eat.

You probably wouldn’t want to set foot there.

Something’s crying out that it needs to be stopped, these people need to be helped – us privileged people need to stop being so selfish. But the worst part is, there’s only so much we can do. Half the money we send this way never gets there anyway.

The west is still imperialist. It still sees it as its right to take control of any resources (oil, gold, human) that it wants, that it sees fit to use for its own purposes. Imperialism did this to India, in the form of Britain. During their occupation of this country, gentle and not riotous before their arrival, they drained out the wealth. Evidence of this remains – the Kohinoor, the largest diamond in the world. It came from India. It rightfully belongs here. Where is it today? Ten points for the right answer. The crown of the queen of England.

When they left, they left poverty, destruction, brutality, devastation. Make no mistake – the partition of this country and the designation of Kashmir as No Man’s Land – this was intentional. This was left, the British parting shot, to occupy the country, to increase religious hostility – and to stop both Pakistan and India from developing to their full potential.

Imperialism is still laying waste to our world.

While we can still see it, there is still time to make repairs.

To those nations and those leaders of whom I speak: Hands off the world. It hurts to see our fellow world citizens like this.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE GLOSSARY:

Hmm . . . another couple of common phrases that don't make too much sense to me.


"I could care less!"
This of course, means that you care. Because it's possible to care less. For some strange reason, people seem to think that it means that you don't care at all. This is one of those subversions of a common phrase that makes no sense whatsoever. The real phrase is "I couldn't care less," and a good number of people DO use it. The ones who don't . . .well, confuse me.
You see, if it's not possible to care less (as implied by "I couldn't care less"), then you're saying that you don't care at all, which is what people are usually trying to say when they use this phrase or it's subversion. It's just that little "n't" that makes all the difference . . . drop it, and you sound a bit silly . . . use it, and you say what you mean!


"What's her/his face?"
This one, I think, is purely American. The true phrase, as we all know, is "What's her/his name?" This is a logical question to ask when referring to person or persons unknown. The face version is . . . to put it bluntly - somewhat illogical. Knowing what somebody looks like is important, sure, but as you obviously know the name (since you're not asking for it), why not use that instead of replacing it with a mile-long description of the person's features. When you know both face and name, you use name, correct?
Besides that, most people use "What's her/his face?" to imply "What's her/his name?" which again, is not entirely logical. The word "name" is no longer than the word "face," so why not say what you mean instead of complicating matters by asking for something else?
Just a thought . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

I only received one response to last issue’s challenge. As usual, it is featured below. Underneath that, you will find the challenge for next month.


The Dictionary of Fantastical Places – GOLEMS
Tui Head (birdheadnz@hotmail.com)
So, You're a Character in A Fantasy Series and You Desperately Need Information on the World You Live in, RIGHT NOW, Before You get Bitten by a Vampire, Please? You've Come to the Right Place! The Dictionary of Fantastical Places offers a comprehensive overview of Every Fantasy Series Ever! New Series? Don't Worry: Your Author probably isn't Creative! Almost none of Them Are! We Will tell you everything you need to know! NOW with a section on Serial Variations! theauthoracceptsnoresposibilityforanydeathmishaporinjuryresultingfrommisuseofthisdictionary.batteriesnotincluded.
GOLEMS
What is a Golem: Created Creature of a humanoid shape. Emphasize created; most often by priests (see Judaism, Christianity, others) or sorcerers (see Evil, Good, Robed); come in many varieties (for the most edifying comparisons, take Edding and Wynne Jones. Pit them against each other. What fun.). Golems seem to be created for many reasons, but usually to do some sort of Dirty Work (see Quest, Assassin, the Watch, Vimes, Feet of Clay (Pratchett)) or, from time to time, to raise hopes (The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay (Chabon)). Generally end up being tragically misunderstood and commanded to do All Sorts of Evil Things. This is what happens when you're created by a group of people who think they know What's What, and, in the case of the type who are likely to create things exclusively to do their bidding, are in fact probably terminally clueless.
What's Good for a Golem: rumours abound without concrete fact. As they are most often made out of clay, a nice bath should take care of them- the frogs, too. An alternative method for the creative, or those who live in the Sahara, is to find the instruction set into their purpose. The theory is that this set of instructions (often religious texts) is what gives them this semblance of life; take it away and they become inanimate.
Varying Features of Golems: Thought levels. Depending on the interpreter (fantasy inhabitants: this is why it pays to Know Your Author) golems may be any of a) completely and utterly without original thought b) having original thought but being unable to exercise it because they have an Evil Master to whom they are some how bonded c) Thinking Being that just happens to be made out of clay (or frogs.)


Aha! New challenge . . . this'll probably be a bit longer than usual, but try to keep it down. Write a short story - doesn't actually have to have a plot, but it should be at least interesting - which begins and ends with the word "coffee."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:

Selected comment(s), as usual . . .


From: SLWatson (slwatson@sdandi.net)
>>War - noun, 1 a) armed hostilities between esp. nations; conflict. b) specific instance or period of this. c) suspension of international law etc. during this. 2 hostility or contention between people, groups, etc. 3 (often followed by on) sustained campaign against crime, poverty,
etc.
>>Peace - noun, 1 a) quiet; tranquillity. b) mental calm; serenity. 2 a) (often attrib.) freedom from or the cessation of war. b) treaty of peace between States, etc. at war. 3 freedom from civil disorder.
Depends on the war. ::nods:: And on the peace.
Take internal wars; war within ourselves. In a perfect world, we would all be tranquil within ourselves all the time. But, in reality, we aren't. Now, here we have a dilemma...
Internal war = adversity. Adversity = adaptation. Adaptation = evolution. Evolution = peace.
Outside war = adversity. Adversity = adaptation. Adaptation = evolution. Evolution = peace.
War and peace are like yin and yang... be it internal war or external. One cannot exist without the other. Say the sludge that crawled out of the ocean was perfectly tranquil being sludge, and never had to become anything else. We sure wouldn't be here. But, instead, the sludge had to war with its environment and had to become something better, something more than sludge, in order to survive and find tranquility. Generations pass, and then another problem comes along. Single-celled organism adapts. Eventually, here we are.
One way or another, war and peace are constants. Maybe the definition doesn't indicate it, but really? They're intertwined, interconnected forever. And that's the nature of reality.
:::grins::: Sorry. Couldn't resist the philosophy.

SLWatson,
And I couldn’t resist putting it in. Thanks for your time
Autumndark



And that's all I've got for you this time. Sorry about the delay/inconvenience . . .
See you next month!


Autumndark

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE SIX: OUR MUTUAL FRIENDS


Okay, so this was originally supposed to be the January issue. I think there's one word that's appropriate for its delayed appearance. Oops.
Or sorry, maybe.
Pretty poor, eh?
It was going to come out in March, but I kind of . . . went out of the country and all that nonsense.
Wait. Scratch that. It's all your fault. I had to wait for comments, didn't I? Entries and all that? You're all getting remiss.
It's fun blaming you. But it's probably still my fault.
At any rate, ignoring all the above nonsense, this is going to be my first issue posted after the fanfiction.net split. I've done a little remodelling on both the fanfiction.net profile (which is looking quite sorry at the moment, I'm afraid) and the fictionpress.net one, which I guess I'm planning to take in a slightly new direction. Personal bios are changed, certain things have been removed, there are, I think, four new poems up, and one more by the time this issue appears. Most of my stories are on hold at the moment for a newish project of mine. Night Walker, however, will not be appearing until the story is completed. This will probably take some time. As this policy now applies to anything and everything I post, it may be quite some time before anything new shows up in the way of stories.
And you probably weren't interested in that, either. Sorry. Please aim a good kick in my direction and carry on.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

"All those in favour of officially changing Grumpy's name to "Prozac," say "Aye.""
- Bizarro, by Dan Piraro (Issue 7/24/02)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:

Five Children and It, by E. Nesbit

- I picked an old favourite this month. E. Nesbit is one of my favourite authors, and this book is one of the best. I keep thinking that I'm too old for it - and then I read it again and realize that I'm not. Although it's called "Five Children and It," the book is really about four children - Cyril, Anthea, Robert and Jane (the fifth is their infant brother) - who find a "psammead", or a sand-fairy - in the gravel pits by their new home. Every day, 'It' tells them, they are entitled to one wish that will last until sundown. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the children aren't too adept at wishing, and their choices often end in disaster. Beautification that turns their household against them, wings that leave them stranded on the top of a church tower, jewels stolen the day before that turn up in their mother's bedroom. It may sound a tad childish, but rest assured, no one is too old to read this book for the first time.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:

The Creature Feature, Part Three
People (Or Things That Pretend To Be)

1. Golems: Golems come from Jewish folklore - they're said to be the images of humans brought to life - very little free will, naturally. However, I've also heard it rumoured that they're made entirely of frogs . . . so it's up to you. Base definition: they look like humans but aren't . . . and have no free will.
Book(s): The Golden Compass, Philip Pullman (there's only one reference)
Movie(s): Halloweentown

2. Vampires: Dictionary - an accursed body which cannot rest in the kindly earth, but nightly leaves its grave to suck the blood of sleeping men: an extortioner. I don’t know about you, but I found the second definition quite amusing.
Anyway, I didn’t find anything too startling about these creatures. There’s a lot more mythology surrounding them – silver, crosses, holy water burns them; they can be killed by daylight or a stake through the heart; they have no souls; and then of course there’s all the good stuff with the long canines and everything. Never invite a vampire into your house . . . and the bite will turn you, etc. I think it’s fun to make up your own new myths.
Books: In the Forests of the Night, Amelia Atwater-Rhodes; most books by Anne Rice; Count Dracula, Bram Stoker. There should be more, but I can’t think of them. The TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, of course. Portrays vampires as quite ugly – some mythology says they’re good-looking. There was an interesting article in Scientific American a few months back about a new light treatment being researched for cancer – it also shed light on how some of the vampire myths got started. Apparently, they could have been caused by a disease called porphyria (I think) which eats away at the flesh. It’s worsened by sunlight, so people with it would have learned to go out at night. Drinking blood (not necessarily straight from people) might also have been tried as a remedy. If you’re interested, check out a few back issues of the magazine.
Vampires are also featured in Night Walker, my current pet project. Yes, it’s another vamp story, but I flatter myself that I’m changing some of the myths to suit me . . . whatever.

3. Ghosts: Most sources agree that a ghost is the spirit of a person, left behind when the person dies. Most people who believe in them also believe that the happiest people don’t become ghosts. The Irish, I think, also believe that ghosts can be like recordings – either great and traumatic events in history, like battles, which replay every once in a while, or a certain routine – if someone did something every day for a very long time, their ‘recording’ may continue to do it after their death.
Books: The Time of the Ghost, Diana Wynne Jones; Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency, Douglas Adams; Dial-A-Ghost, Eva Ibbotson; Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, J.K. Rowling; A Tale of Time City, Diana Wynne Jones; A Wizard Abroad, Diane Duane

4. Shapeshifters: Oddly enough, the dictionary does not house these. There does not, in fact, seem to be a very concrete definition of them. All the better for you and me, I say.
A shapeshifter is a person, or creature, that can change shape – take the form of any creature or thing it so desires. Have fun.
Books: The Lost Years of Merlin, T.A. Barron; Wild Magic, Tamora Pierce; Lirael, Garth Nix (not labeled as shapeshifting, I think, but it does have some material)

5. Hags: Ugly old woman, originally a witch. Dictionary definition. ‘Nuff said.
Books: Charmed Life, Diana Wynne Jones; Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, J.K. Rowling; Prince Caspian, C.S. Lewis

6. Ghouls: The dictionary defines a ghoul as “an eastern demon which devours the dead.” Ignoring the word ‘eastern’ in that sentence, I really like that definition. Probably because I’ve never seen it before. But just think of all the scope. I don’t think people normally think of that definition.
Books: Which Witch?, Eva Ibbotson; The Witches, Roald Dahl (brief mention); Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, J.K. Rowling (Weasleys’ attic)

7. Banshees: The world banshee is a phonetic spelling of the Irish bean sidhe, meaning ‘woman of the fairies.’ Mythology says a banshee is a female fairy who makes herself known by wailings and shrieks before a death in the family to which she is attached. Hence the phrase ‘scream like a banshee,’ I guess. Irish indeed!
Books: The Mystery of Banshee Towers, Enid Blyton; Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, J.K. Rowling

8. Necromancers: Dictionary – one who reveals future events by calling up and questioning the spirits of the dead. Sounds a little boring, doesn’t it? I’d always thought of a necromancer as one who raised the dead.
Some other good words include: necropolis (cemetery), necrophilia (love of the dead) and necrolatry (worship of the dead).
Books: The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkein; Sabriel, Garth Nix.

9. Witches: According to Chambers, a witch is a woman regarded as having supernatural or magical power through compact with the devil or some minor evil spirit.
Books: Good Omens, Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett; A Break With Charity, Ann Rinaldi (Salem Witch Trials); Breath of Magic, Teresa Medeiros; Calling on Dragons, Patricia C. Wrede.

10. Fakirs: Chambers – a member of a religious order of mendicants or penintents in India. Okay, so I guess they don’t count.
Books: I don’t know of any books with fakirs in them, but Winston Churchill took the liberty of calling Mohandas K. Gandhi a “half-naked fakir,” which should piss anyone in their right mind off so much that it doesn’t matter, anyway.
11. Shamans: Wizard priests, witch doctors. Voodoo-type and all that, I expect.
Books: The Woman Who Rides Like a Man, Tamora Pierce

12. Fairies: Why am I bothering? Please tell me you all know, at least vaguely, what a fairy is. Right, well, it doesn’t get much clearer than that until you start writing. To wit, compare Tinkerbell to Katriona from Spindle’s End. Random fact: the Irish word for fairy is sidhe, pronounced ‘shee’.
Books: Peter Pan, J.M. Barrie; Spindle’s End, Robin McKinley; The Enchanted Wood, Enid Blyton.

13. Gorgons: Chambers – one of three fabled monsters (Stheno, Euryale and Medusa), of horrible aspect, winged, with hissing serpents for hair. I think that covers it. Oh, and looking at them turns people to stone.
Books: Everyone knows the story of Perseus and Medusa, right? Anyone know any stories involving Stheno or Euryale?

14. Clairvoyant: One who is said to have the power of seeing things not present to the senses. I dunno, I just like the word. It’s Fancy for ‘fortune teller’.
Books: Charmed Life, Diana Wynne Jones; Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, J.K. Rowling

15. Demons: Demon – an evil spirit, a devil
Dæmon – friendly spirit or good genius
Demonology – an account of, or study of, demons and their agency
Incubus – the nightmare: a male demon said to consort with women in their sleep
Succubus – female counterpart
Books: Good Omens, Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett; His Dark Materials, Philip Pullman; Dark Lord of Derkholm, Diana Wynne Jones; Castle in the Air, Diana Wynne Jones.
Some common misguided thoughts about Hell (following a conversation with a friend): there are nine circles of Hell, not only seven. Nobody wants to claim the ninth, though a lot of us think we’ve been to the seventh. Death has nine gates in Sabriel, doesn’t it? Also, Hell appears to be a lot more like some warped computer game than previously believed during the Dark Ages, when people were mostly living in it by mistake. For more information, read Dante’s Inferno. I haven’t.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY:

The rant below was originally intended to appear in February, in what would have been the issue after this one. However, certain events caused that not to happen. If you know me, you know why I am not going to trust myself to say anything objective about the war at this point, because I’m furious that the world is letting it happen.


February 2003:
My reasons against a war on Iraq:

1. It is morally wrong. If the United States goes ahead, especially without full UN support, they will be guilty of something very close to what they are accusing Saddam Hussein of.

2. We are calling this strategy "preemptive prevention," assuming that Iraq is going to attack us. Given that the US has previously shown a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, and we are clearly planning to attack them, what if Iraq used preemptive prevention?

3. While this is parroted as part of the "war on terrorism," bear in mind that an all-out military attack in response to a policy over which they have no control will look remarkably like terrorism to many Iraqi civilians. I doubt they'll enjoy being bombed. They're hardly going to see F1 bombers as angels of mercy.

4. Along with American casualties, hundreds and thousands of Iraqi civilians are more than likely to be killed during the shelling that will take place if we go to war. 2000 civilians die each month because of US-led sanctions. Do we really need to kill more innocents?

5. Our motives are not crystal clear, either. Iraq has enormous oil reserves and our country is decidedly oil-hungry. We need to reevaluate our motives before we decide that a war on Iraq is the morally, socially, and politically correct thing to do.

6. We can't "go to war," by the way. We've already been at war for over two years. It's just that the papers don't like to say.

7. Besides, I thought our president was supposed to "preserve?"



March/April 2003:
If you, too, are against this unjust and illegal war, the best thing you can do is protest. For United States citizens, this means civil disobedience. This means rallies. This means blocking streets, traffic government buildings. This means saying, over and over, until they listen: You will not do this. Not in our name.
Thank you,
A concerned citizen of the world



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE GLOSSARY:

War -
noun, 1 a) armed hostilities between esp. nations; conflict. b) specific instance or period of this. c) suspension of international law etc. during this. 2 hostility or contention between people, groups, etc. 3 (often followed by on ) sustained campaign against crime, poverty, etc.

Peace -
noun, 1 a) quiet; tranquillity. b) mental calm; serenity. 2 a) (often attrib. ) freedom from or the cessation of war. b) treaty of peace between States, etc. at war. 3 freedom from civil disorder.

These two words are mutually exclusive. You cannot get peace through war. It is as simple as that.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

Month's selections removed: April 8, 2003, 5:45 PM (cst)
All apologies.

To celebrate the conclusion of The Creature Feature , this month's challenge is to pick any one of the creatures featured in the last three issues (or one I missed) and provide me either with your own (meaning creative, not necessarily factual) dictionary-style definition of it - or an original passage describing an example (story character) of one of them in some detail.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:


From: T. Blaine Brockman (tblaine@mindless.com)
You were correct on your belief that Trolls were originally Scandinavian is a one history of them.
History of the Nyform trolls
Far to the North where the winter storms whip the weather-beaten coasts, you will find a long and narrow country. Here you see dark forests with moonlit lakes, deep fjords surrounded by mighty snowcapped mountains, and long rivers and cold streams cascading down the mountain sides.
Nowadays this country is covered by snow and ice only six months a year. A long, long time ago, however, there existed a massive glacier that brooded over the entire country for thousands of years.
As the climate gradually warmed and the glacier slowly retreated to the North, Man to the South of the glacier followed in its wake. Looking at this country and finding it to be magnificent, they considered themselves to be its first inhabitants. People settled there and named it Norway. They were themselves called 'nordmenn' (Men of the North).
It did not take them long, however, to realize that on this land there were various other creatures hiding out in the forests and mountain
sides. People did not know what these creatures were, but they were generally believed to have supernatural powers, and they came to be known as trolls.
The trolls would come out of their hiding-places only after sun-set, and they would disappear before the morning sun arose in the East. Direct exposure to the sun could cause them to crack, turn into stone and possibly burst. On occasion the trolls would evidently forget to hide from the sun, and rock formations can today be found in various places with troll-like features. The trolls were mostly seen on bright moonlit nights, or during stormy nights that could frighten about anyone who happened to be outdoors at that time.
The trolls had very distinct features. They had long crooked noses,only four fingers and toes on each limb, and most of them had long bushy tails. Some trolls were giants, and others were small. There were stories of two-headed as well as three-headed trolls, and even a few had only one eye in the middle of their wrinkled foreheads. Others had trees and rough moss-like growth all over their heads and noses.
Although they were shaggy and rough-haired, and most looked frightening, they were also known to be good-natured and naive. So naive in fact that even sly peasant boys could, on occasion, easily trick them. Stories about such encounters are common in the fairy tales. Most trolls lived to be hundreds of years old. However, because of the trolls extremely shy nature, their true origin, their lifestyle or what surprises they might pull has always been a mystery.
The ability to transform themselves counted among the trolls many supernatural skills. The fairy maidens - called "Hulder" - could transform into incredibly attractive young ladies. However, they could not get rid of their tails. Hunters and farmers sons, who were lured to the mountains by these fairies, would usually check for tails on their new-found beauties.
The wrath of the trolls was boundless. It was therefore considered very important not to make them your enemy. If a farmer did provoke a troll, his livestock might be subject to disease or harmful sickness, or worse things could happen. On the other hand, a good relationship with the trolls could be very rewarding.
Now, even in modern times it is well advised to keep a good standing with the trolls, since you never know when you will meet one yourself. The next time you go to the dark forests and the mighty mountains with their deep lakes and roaring waterfalls, just remember, they probably mean no harm. But be aware. In the twilight hours you are no longer alone.
Then it is only you . . . and all the trolls

T. Blaine Brockman,
I'm not going to comment in any sort of detail on this. Thanks for your time and effort. I thought this was interesting reading and decided to post it in the column.
Autumndark



From: Autumn's Fox (Autumnsfox@aol.com)
ok, this is a response to your column dated 2/2/2003.
You mention elves starting out 'small & mischievous', whereas this is completely false. Elves started out in two main places - Appearing in Norse mythology, they are described as: 'Inferior to the gods, but still possessed of great power.' , some being 'Exceedingly fair, more brilliant than the sun.'
Appearing also in Celtic myths - The Tuatha De Danaan (People of Goddess Danu) are said to have arrived in Ireland before humans. Both of these mythical being appear to have been simular in one aspect - they were gifted individuals, and held a place between humans and the Gods. With the arrival of Christianity, these Elves began to shrink (literally as well as figuratively) into the background as this religion did not believe in creatures standing between themselves and God. However, some of the legends lived on, fairies and elves becoming 'house spirits', blamed if a glass was broken or thanked due to some lucky run.
It was, however, Shakespeare that made the idea of 'tiny elves' stick, mentioning them often, most famously in his A Midsummer Night's Dream. Luckily, people like Tolkien amongst many others have brought the original elves back to life in their fantastic stories.
Also, I haven't read the book 'Secret of Platform 13', but fey also has 2 other meanings, besides 'slightly insane',
1. Scottish Clan gift to females ('The Sight', or simular psychic gifts);
and 2. A Faerie.
Lastly, I'd love to join S.P.E.M - sounds like a great idea! :)
seeya,
Autumn'sfox

Autumn's Fox,
A few other people informed me about this. It certainly sounds right. The small and mischevious elves were probably the fault of the British (no offense) - more specifically, people of the Enid Blyton era.
Thanks for your time,
Autumndark



GK:
As a matter of fact, both Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone are correct. I prefer 'Philosopher's Stone' myself, both because it makes more mythological sense (look it up in the dictionary) and because it was the name the author originally gave her work. The title was changed to 'Sorcerer's Stone' in the United States because publishers felt that if kids saw a book with the word 'philosopher' in the title, they would automatically be discouraged from reading it. Both sad and patronizing, I think.
Anyway, I guess quite a few people were not aware of that, so there it is.
Autumndark

I think that about wraps it up for this issue . . . thanks to everyone who expressed interest in SPEM . . . it's still under construction, however. I'll send information out once 'construction' is complete. As I mentioned, it's been . . . um, crunchtime recently.


Autumndark

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE FIVE: YOUR FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD HUMANOIDS

Still going on with the Creature Feature . . . and a little "author's note" before I begin.
I got a considerable amount of email from people who wanted to know what I had against Harry Potter. Actually, nothing. Except hype. Once again, I plead humanity. I like to think of myself as a nonconformist (which I'm absolutely NOT, sadly), and the whole hype just - irritates me. I quite enjoyed the books, but I feel, and I'm sure many of you agree, that a much loved book or movie loses that much magic when everybody's seen it and is constantly talking about it. Get my drift? So I'm not dissing Harry Potter; if I "hated" it, why would I have cited it at all . . . I'm complaining about the fact that it took Harry Potter to get our society reading. Sorry if I offended anyone . . . I seem to do it a lot.
And please, people, don't hate me so much . . . I'm just another person, trying to help you out. I can't help the way I write, and I can't help what I think . . .
I guess I'll get a whole bunch about Disney this time . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

"I think up stories. I invent names and words that don't exist. That kind of thing."
- Bastian Balthazar Bux (The Neverending Story)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:
Noughts and Crosses, Malorie Blackman

- Callum and Sephy are best friends, but they are divided by their class. Sephy is a Cross, the ruling group, with a deputy prime minister father and more money than she needs; Callum is a nought, a second-class citizen whose family live in poverty. When Callum gets the chance to go to Sephy's school, the true complexity of their relationship unfolds against a backdrop of family conflict, corruption and, ultimately, death. . . [Submitted by: Aireruthiel]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:

The Creature Feature, Part Two
Humanoids, Two-Leggers, and Other Things That Walk

I don't think this needs a whole lot of explanation . . . so I'll just start in where I left off last time.

1. Dwarves - very humanoid. So humanoid, in fact, that they should probably, along with giants, be in the next issue. Oh well, I felt like putting them here. Short guys, muscular, like mining - a lot of writers consider dwarf heritage very important to them - they often introduce themselves by naming a whole bunch of ancestors. Fierce - and not normally considered too friendly (although Disney saw fit to modify this). Since they are so humanoid, however, they don't exactly fall into the creature category - they're not the smartest, but they do have brains, and developed personalities, as an author sees fit.
Books: Lord of the Rings (Tolkien), Prince Caspian (Lewis), Dark Lord of Derkholm and Year of the Griffin (Jones) and User Unfriendly (Vande Velde).

2. Giants - I liked the dictionary definition for this one . . . it amused me, don't ask why. Giant - (fem. giantess) imaginary or mythical being of human form but superhuman size. Does anyone else find that funny? I didn't think so. However, that is basically what they are. Often stupid as well . . . the fact that their brains are bigger just seems to be a disadvantage. Of course, there are also the "fee fi fo fum" type, who, while not particularly stupid, enjoy eating humans (specifically Englishmen), which may not necessarily be the brightest thing to do.
Books: Gulliver's Travels (Swift), Searching for Dragons (Wrede), Ella Enchanted (Levine), The Secret of Platform 13 (Ibbotson), Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Rowling), and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Lewis).

3. Elves - looks a bit like "Elvis," written out there, doesn't it? A good place to start defining them is to say that they're completely different. Which is probably a good thing. Imagine a race of pelvis-thrusting singers running around in hundreds of fantasy worlds . . . WAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!! Kinda scary, ain't it? Anyway . . . these guys are a bit hard to define. I tried to find out who invented them originally - and failed, miserably. Some old English guy - that's pretty much all I know. I think they originally started as "small and mischievous" - but as we all know, that kinda changed over time. So it's hard to say. Pointy ears, I think, are a given, and so are crossbows and at least some kind of herblore/healing power. Most author's take a lot of liberty with these, though, so it's really up to you. Just don't make them hundred foot tall rhino-type, perhaps pelvis-thrusting bellowers. And no, I have no idea where that came from.
Books: User Unfriendly (Vande Velde), Lord of the Rings (Tolkien), Talking to Dragons (Wrede), Ella Enchanted (Levine), and Dark Lord of Derkholm, Year of the Griffin (Jones).
Notes: I recently started a very, very small society entitled S.P.E.M. (Society for the Prevention of Elf Misrepresentation). We have a poster so far . . . I drew it! But there's only about three members so far - if you're interested, send me an email, and I'll give you the details.

4. Ogres - the perfect gentlemen, of course. Well, I think these chappies have one transcending characteristic - i.e. they enjoy eating things; specifically, people. And, in return, the people don't like them much. Something like that. They're fairly tall, normally - slightly more than the average human; eight to ten feet, I would guess. And, sorry to say, but I don't think they're the most beautiful either. Although I'd love to see someone write a story about an ogre that was an outcast because it liked humans . . . and not to eat. Whatever.
Books: Puss In Boots (and by God, can you believe that I don't remember who wrote it? Weep for me, good gentles, weep!), Ella Enchanted (Levine), and The Two Princesses of Bamarre (Levine).

5. Trolls - live under bridges, are certainly NOT eye-candy - and that's about all there is in the general consensus on this one. The Oxford dictionary says they're "fabulous beings, esp. a giant or dwarf dwelling in a cave," which doesn't even agree with my idea. So ignore the Oxford dictionary . . . 'swhat I say! The troll myth is, I think, Scandinavian in origin. They live under bridges - said that already, and ask travelers seven questions. If the traveler gets all seven correct, they may pass - if not . . . here it gets a bit equivocal - they either turn into something or get eaten, as the troll sees fit, I assume. Once again, the Harry Potter trolls are a bit different - so are the little doll ones that everyone was buying about ten years ago - Magic Trolls, or something of the kind . . . Disneyesque, I say.
Books: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Rowling), The Three Billy Goats Gruff (Grimm) and there was one episode of So Weird which featured them.

6. Gnomes - right between gneiss and gnomic in the handy ol' pocket dictionary. Gnome - a) dwarfish legendary spirit or goblin living underground. b) figure of this as a garden ornament. Needless to say, b, while amusing, is not exactly what we're looking for. I see a story idea coming on . . . anyway. Dwarfish sounds about right . . . usually have bulbous noses, some warts, stoutish - but generally friendly, albeit secretive. Special powers according to desire of author . . . just please don't make them fly, because that would just look sad. Very Enid Blyton-y.
Books: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Rowling), Ella Enchanted (Levine), The Enchanted Wood (Blyton), The Magic Faraway Tree (Blyton), and The Folk of the Faraway Tree (Blyton).

7. Goblins - much the same as hobgoblins, even though I personally like the word "hobgoblin" better. Yeah . . . um mischievous dwarfish types, thin and nimble - as often as not unfriendly. There seems to be a bit of a prejudice towards green goblins, but that's not a given about them. I've run out of things to say . . .
Books: Lord of the Rings (Tolkien), The Enchanted Wood (Blyton), and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Rowling).

8. Feys - any of the above! Fey - a) strange, other-worldly; whimsical. b) clairvoyant. I actually thought I was going to get a different definition, but apparently that kind of fey is purely Eva Ibbotson's, so I'll leave them to her . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY:

I'll take a break from offending people's sensibilities this month . . . responses to last month are below.
Ha . . . on second thoughts, I'll give you one sentence.
Georgie Porgie, pudding and pie . . .
If anyone gets it, kudos to you.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE GLOSSARY:

Big cheesy grin . . . I don't have anything.
Sorry, folks.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

You terrible, terrible people. I didn't get a single submission. It's entirely your fault. How could you do this? What's up with that?
Hehe. Just kidding. See up top. There's the winning entry, under Book of the Month . . .

I'm in the mood for lots of lists of top ten reasons to hate Valentine's Day . . . anyone oblige?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:


From: Sathanas (Jay Hewton) (lord_blackthorn_2000@yahoo.com)
Greetings,
First off I'd like to say that I've enjoyed reading your creature feature as I have always been interested in mythical creatures. However, I find I have to disagree on your description of a unicorn. While it is common now-a-days to think of a unicorn as a beautiful horse with a single long horn poking out of its forehead, it doesn't fit with earilier descriptions. This is taken from The Age of Fable by Thomas Bulfinch and was published in 1903.
"Pliny, the Roman naturalist, out of whose account of the unicorn most of the modern Unicorns have been descripbed and figured, records it as 'a very ferocious beast, similar in the rest of its body to a horse, with the head of a deer, the feet of an elephant, the tail of a boar, a deep bellowing voice, and a single black horn, two cubits in length, standing out in the middle of its forehead.' He adds that 'it cannot be taken alive;' and some such excuse may have been nescessary in those days for not producing the living animal upon the arena of the amphitheatre."
This is a somewhat different picture if a unicorn than is commonly viewed today. Personally, the animal described here makes me think of a rhinoceros more than a horned horse.
Thank you for your time, and keep up the good work.
Jay Hewton (Sathanas)

Yes, that is indeed somewhat different. Thanks for educating me, Jay (or Sathanas, if you prefer). I hope I don't have any dreams with unicorns in them.
Thanks,
Autumndark



From: Tracie S. Fox (traciesfox@yahoo.com)
Recently I read your article The Creature Feature, Part One. I must say, it was very wonderful and interesting information. In particular I noticed the Chimeras/Chimaeras that you listed. Intrigued by your description, Idid a little bit of extra research to find out about them and this is whatI read:
Originally the Chimera appeared The Illiad Book VI as a creature "of divine race, not of men, in the fore part a lion, in the hinder a serpent, and in the middle a goat, breathing forth in terrible manner the force of blazing fire. And Bellerophon slew her, trusting the signs of the gods."
Later Hesiod described her further in Theogony:
She bore Chimaira, mighty, dreadful, huge,
and fleet-footed, who breathed forth a ceaseless stream of fire.
She had three heads, one of a glowering lion,
another of a goat, and yet another of a savage dragon;
her front was a lion, her back a dragon, and her middle a goat,
and she breathed forth an awesome stream of gleaming fire.
Theogony, Hesiod, lines 319-324.
The story of how Chimera was defeated can be found at Myth Man's Chimaera Page <http://www.thanasis.com/modern/chimaera.htm>. Also there are graphic depictions of what some artists to believe the creature to be like. One of these depictions is actually a bronze statue displayed in Italy.
I hope this information is as interesting and helpful to you as it was to me.
Looking forward to your next article,
Tracie S. Fox

Thanks for your time and trouble, Tracie. I'm very glad I got someone to do research. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy. And I love it when people send in to educate me . . . hopefully my readers do too . . .many thanks,
Autumndark




On a random note, if I really was an HP hater, I wouldn't have called the WW "Care of Magical Creatures," would I?

To Polly the inebriated chicken - you may have been just joshing around, but I found your email more than a little offensive . . . please remember I am not the computer, I am the person behind it. And no, I don't have green hair . . . yet.
To quinn stryker - if that's all you're worried about, no, I'm not technically 'old enough' to run a column, but I started before they put the age limit in. Happy?
And finally, to LilyAyl - actually, it's the other way around. To nitpick, I put that 'as' back in. Don't hate on me. I get enough in school.
And yes, I did forget Nessus. I need to read up on my Greek mythology . . . I kinda slacked off after sixth grade.

That's all, folks!
Hopefully, I didn't miss anything . . . if I did, please complain so that I can fix it.
I should be getting a new computer right about now, which means that I'll probably be making my own website . . . when I do, I'll keep you posted. Meanwhile, you'll have to bear with just my ff.net profile page . . . it shouldn't be too hard . . . most people probably don't want to see more of me.
I'm also hoping to create an official webpage for SPEM (Society for the Prevention of Elf Misrepresentation). Well . . . yeah. Email me if you'd be interested, and I'll give you our details.



Autumndark

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE FOUR: THINGS THAT GO BUMP IN THE NIGHT


Okay, so I think I lost a month somewhere. I'm not entirely sure where, but I'm sorry about that. When I wrote the majority of this issue, I was on some kind of high (meaning I was very happy), but at the moment that's - well, not the case. Happy is such a generic term, anyway . . .
So . . . apologies for the delay, and the missing piece (see below), and I'll fix that ASAP.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

'Cause I'm so happy, how about a little president-baiting?

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
- US President George W. Bush

Yes, you heard right, folks. Sad as it may be, curious George here is actually our 'leader.' Oh dear . . . I've gone and depressed myself.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:

The Riddle-Master of Hed, by Patricia A. McKillip

- The first book of McKillip's that I read was The Book of Atrix Wolfe, which, by the way, I also recommend. Fantasy, of course, and vague, right up until the end. I really enjoyed the world she created. The second book was The Forgotten Beasts of Eld, which somehow, I did not enjoy at all. I was puzzled by this, in fact. It seemed the type of book I would like - but I didn't. If you've got a little time on your hands, read it and tell me what you think. Confused, I put McKillip aside for a bit and went back to Diana Wynne Jones and Robin McKinley. But just before I moved (seventh grade) I spotted the trilogy beginning with this book in my neighborhood bookstore and bought it on a whim. After my first reading of it, I regretted it. Some time later (ninth grade, in fact) I got it out again and enjoyed it immensely. Maybe I just needed to be older to get it . . . whatever. Anyway, I recommend it highly now. One warning - try your library, not your bookstore - I think the whole trilogy is out of print. Oh dear, I still owe you a summary . . . here goes:
Morgon, Prince of Hed, wants only to rule the land of his birth, but the stars imprinted on his forehead have quite a different destiny planned out. When he meets the High One's harpist Deth for the first time, his whole life begins to change - a chain of events set in motion by Morgon himself, months before, when he won a riddle-game he played with a ghost . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:

Geez, this keeps getting split up. Well . . . I have the Creature Feature for you, as promised . . . but it's just part one. I ended up with so many creatures that I had to do a little bit of research (a lot bit, actually) - and then I figured, since I spent so much time on it, why not do the thing properly? So, here's this month's issue of The Writer's Workbench:

The Creature Feature, Part One
Care of Magical Creatures

Today we focus on the more - exotic - creatures of the list I came up with. Humanoid "creatures" are featured next time.
Let's start with one we're all familiar with:

1. Dragons: Well, we all know a bit about these creatures. They breathe fire, have scales, can fly . . . at least, western dragons. Usually, in western fiction, the dragon is not a particularly friendly creature (The Enchanted Forest Chronicles are a notable exception). Mostly, they are used for the purpose of proving a hero's worth (he rescues a princess by killing a dragon), or transportation (the hero manages to strike up some type of bargain with the irate dragon and gets carried around). Perfectly acceptable uses, but a little cliched.
Now, there's another type of dragon. Chinese dragons are a symbol of good luck. A notable use of this type of dragon is in The Neverending Story, by Michael Ende (the English translation calls them "luckdragons"). This type is not too common in western fiction. They don't necessarily breathe fire, and they usually don't have scales.
So . . . the next thing is to consider what kind of qualities you want in your dragon. If it's to be helpful, like Ende's Falkor, you might want to consider the Chinese dragon, to give your story a more original touch. Even if we don’t know the dragon well, give it character - perhaps it could be lazy after eating well, reluctant to help people without personal gain - a bit greedy, maybe, for gold (dragons hoard), easily angered after fire-breathing. Perhaps (e.g. Vande Velde's Dragon's Bait) it could even have a human form that takes on some of these qualities.
Books: Talking to Dragons (Wrede), The Neverending Story (Ende), Dragon's Bait (Vande Velde), The Hero and the Crown (Robin McKinley), The Fires of Merlin (Barron), and The Two Princesses of Bamarre (Levine).

2. Basilisks: Basilisks are not so widely used in fantasy, for some strange reason. Many fantasy readers first discovered them in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, which is both puzzling and sad.
The good side of that, however, is that I don't have to explain a basilisk. "Known also as the King of Serpents . . . may reach gigantic size . . . born from a chicken's egg . . . deadly and venomous fangs . . . all who are fixed with the beam of it's eye shall suffer instant death . . . the crowing of the rooster is fatal to it." This is the commonly accepted definition of a basilisk. There are a few inconsistencies. Some mythology declares the basilisk to be only a foot long, while others say that its breath, not fangs, are deadly. However, most sources agree that it is a snake, hatched from a chicken's egg. All agree that its eyes kill.
Doesn't sound like a particularly friendly creature, does it? If your basilisk is going to be your villian's "warrior," you probably don't need to worry about making it have too much character. Normally, snakes don't talk too much. However, if you choose to depart from the norm and have your basilisk be a friendly, perhaps vocal creature, here are some things you might want to consider:
It should be able to control its deadly features - you don't want the hero dying because he looked his friend in the eye. If you need the basilisk to talk a lot, consider giving it a human form. If it remains in snake form the entire time, it probably isn't too chatty - snakes don't make a whole lot of noise. On the other hand, the human form could be the exact opposite of the snake form - chatty, clumsy, cheerful, etc.
Another way you could use a basilisk is as a guardian. Does your hero/heroine need to collect a valuable object. Instead of a sphinx guardian, which is common, try a basilisk. Play around with prototypes - your creature should be recognizable, but original.
Books: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Rowling), Song for the Basilisk (McKillip - she uses the myth in a novel way), and (I think) The Immortals Quartet (Pierce).

3. Chimeras/Chimaeras: I'm not really sure how I heard about these - I've never read a book with one in it. Logically, I don't know a whole lot. Still, they sound pretty interesting.
As far as I know, they are fire-breathing creatures with the head of a lion, the tail of a serpent, and the body of a goat. Pretty hard to imagine, isn't it? Still, if you try hard enough, and manage it, they look pretty cool. Anybody want to draw me a picture?
I'm not even going to suggest ways of using this creature - whatever you do will have to be original.
Books: none that I'm aware of. If anybody knows of one, please inform me.

4. Hydras: Once again, these aren't used in books too often. I can only find one reference, and I'm not sure how I know about these either. The hydra is a water creature with many heads (a good number is usually ten), which sprout anew when cut off. Slightly formidable, eh?
Suggestions: well, I'd probably let a hydra live in a lake or an ocean, although a river would do well, too. Probably either a guardian or an enemy - while it would make a useful friend, the "good guys" aren't usually this invincible.
Books: The Odyssey (Homer) - one easy translation to read is The Wanderings of Odysseus, by Rosemary Sutcliffe.

5. Griffins: Lotsa spellings for this one. Griffin, griffon, gryfon, gryphon. The conventional griffin has the body of the lion and the head of an eagle, but I personally prefer the other variety - not unlike Rowling's hippogriffs - which has the head, shoulders, talons and wings of an eagle - and the torso, tail and hind legs of a cat or lion. Occasionally the tail is a snake's. Griffins are usually intelligent creatures (although there are exceptions), despite their "birdbrains." Griffins, like sphinxes, are commonly used as guardians, in which case they have a definite air of regal beauty.
Books: The Two Princesses of Bamarre (Levine), The Sword in the Stone (White), Dark Lord of Derkholm (Jones - I really like her griffins!) and Year of the Griffin (Jones).

6. Wyverns/Wiverns: I've heard about these several times - they're fairly well known, but not often used. Because of this, nobody's ever given me a clear picture of what this animal looks like. Still, I looked it up in the dictionary, and came up with this: a fictitious monster, winged and two-legged, allied to the dragon and the griffin, which pretty much fit in with my idea of wyverns as a cross between dragons and griffins. I think they can also breathe fire. My impression is that they tend towards dragon looks a bit, but are griffin-sized (perhaps even smaller). Somebody could be nice and find me a good description of these creatures - otherwise, I would advise not attempting to describe them too carefully. On the other hand, your creatures don't need to be traditional. You could use the name of wyvern but alter a few things - I seriously doubt that anyone would mind. Unless of course, you were calling a chimera a wyvern. Then I would mind . . .
Books: The Sword in the Stone (White). That is honestly the only book I have ever come across them in.

7. Centaurs: I honestly think that everybody knows what a centaur is. Everybody I know does, at least. Once again, this is a creature made famous (unfortunately) by Harry Potter. Head and torso of a man, body of a horse. Centaurs seem, by tradition, to be stargazers. They're usually considered fairly intelligent, although often reluctant to share their wisdom through conventional means. They eat a lot, naturally - it comes of having both the stomach of a man and the stomach of a horse. Centaurs are usually considered very beautiful.
Useful friends, I guess - since they might be able to tell you what's in your future. Personally, I'd like to read a story in which a centaur was on the "bad side." Writers tend to shy away from using them like that - the perception of a centaur seems very noble. Pretty involved creatures - unless you're departing from the norm (Ella Enchanted), don't have your centaur be too lighthearted.
Books: Ella Enchanted (Levine), Deep Secret (Jones), Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Rowling) and Prince Caspian (Lewis - most of the Narnia books have some mention of centaurs).

8. Winged Horses: These are quite common in fantasy. Pretty easy to imagine - just a regular horse - with wings. A fairly well-known one is, of course, Pegasus. The name can also be applied to the species, as no one is sure which came first - Pegasus or the winged horse.
Normally, these are talking creatures, but that doesn't mean they have to be particularly intelligent . . .
Books: The Magician's Nephew (Lewis) and Calling on Dragons (Wrede - sort of). Greek mythology, of course.

9. Unicorns: Another equine type. Regular horse, usually white (which I guess makes them irregular), with one horn in the middle of its forehead. Powers are somewhat sketchy - speech is sometimes given to it. Most sources agree, the unicorn has healing power, though there is some dispute as to whether the power is only in the horn or innate in the unicorn. This creature is said to be partial to young girls (erm, virgins). Their blood is also believed to have special uses, though once again, people disagree on what those are. Generally gentle creatures - very loyal, can be roused to anger when their friends are mistreated.
Books: The Last Battle (Lewis), Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Rowling) and Into the Land of the Unicorns (Coville).

10. Werewolves: Another well-known creature. They seem like normal people . . . but every full moon they turn into wolves. Well, the conventional werewolf, at least. Owing to the slander of the common wolf, werewolves are generally considered denizens of darkness. Now, supposing you created a werewolf that could "morph" at will . . . the possibilities are endless. The "were" prefix has also been used on other animals - the most inventive one I've heard coming from my friend Jenny. She claims to be a weresheep. Still, I suppose it could work . . .
Books: Prince Caspian (Lewis), Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Rowling), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Rowling) and The Neverending Story (Ende).

11. Cyclopes: Another mythological creature. One-eyed giants. Usually considered man-eating, or at least man-hating. I say usually. There are exceptions. I find friendly cyclops very interesting. They're so rare.
Books: The Secret of Platform 13 (Ibbotson), A Wizard Abroad (Duane) and The Wanderings of Odysseus (Sutcliffe).

12. Sphinx: The sphinx comes from Greek mythology - a creature with the head of a woman and the body of a lion, she posed riddles to travelers and supposedly strangled all those who could not solve them. Naturally, she was a bit aloof. Because she was supposed to be of size enormous, most myths did not have her moving around too much. Once again, however, it's your creature. The more original she is, the more we'll enjoy it.
Books: Oedipus Rex (Sophocles) and The Neverending Story (Ende).

13. Harpies: A pseudo-relative of the sphinx. Head of a woman, body of a crow. A very large crow. Sources agree, harpies are envious of beauty, and therefore malignant. Generally said to (for lack of a better word) stink. However, they are quite intelligent beings, and can be reasoned with.
Books: The Amber Spyglass (Pullman), The Secret of Platform 13 (Ibbotson) and Ronia, the Robber's Daughter (Lindgren).

14. Kraken: My brain says these are giant octopus-squid types. To get more information, I looked it up in the omnipotent dictionary, which came up with this: a fabled sea-monster. Which proved nothing. Yes, kraken do live in the sea. That's one of the reasons they're never used as the "good guy." It's just too hard for your hero to strike up a relationship with a big octopus that needs to be underwater most of the time. If anybody can come up with a convincing story in which this occurs, I would LOVE to read it.
Books: Deep Wizardry (Duane) and Which Witch? (Ibbotson).

15. Phoenixes: Of course, another Harry Potterism. The original myth stated that there was only one of these birds. The phoenix was worshipped in Ancient Egypt and was said to burn itself every 500 years or so and rise rejuvenated from its own ashes. This myth has, naturally, been modified somewhat. Feel free to do so yourself.
Books: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Rowling) and The Phoenix and the Carpet (Nesbit).

16. Merfolk: The last for this issue, a genus consisting of mermen and mermaids. Male and female, in that order, in case you hadn't guessed. They live in water . . . human from the waist up, fish from the waist down. Usually naked, of course - though Disney saw fit to 'modify' this (in addition to completely ruining a good story by giving it a happy ending).
Here, at last, you can have some fun . . . wait, I see the kraken story coming on! Merfolk can easily be the main characters in your story - they're close enough to humans to be easily understandable and offer a wide scope for character development.
Books: The Little Mermaid (Andersen), The Secret of Platform 13 (Ibbotson), The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (Lewis), Peter Pan (Barrie) and The Lives of Christopher Chant (Jones).

17. Sirens (new since 11-21-02): Lorelei myth, of course. Same deal as mermaids - except that these are really nearly always female. They sit on rocks and comb their hair and sing to lure sailors to their deaths. Make them happy folks, can't you see?
Books: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (Lewis)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY:

Oh dear, I've been neglecting this section a bit, haven't I? Well, rest assured, I have lots to complain of this month. Can't you just see me rubbing my hands together in glee, wiggling my fingers evilly over the keys of my computer? Oh wait, never mind - you don't know what I look like.

Corporate America . . . you just have to be delighted by it. By delighted, of course, I mean disgusted, but it's okay. I'm sure Enron would understand. Sugarcult got it right . . . stuck in America . . .

Every day, a new company comes up as having "doubtful" accounting practices. For how long? And what happens to the little guy? The government of America is supposed to be "for the people, by the people, of the people." They should have explained that only multi-millionaires and the CEOs of huge corporations count as people. It's gotten to the point where I turn off the car radio every time it comes to news - because I already know what's coming.

"The Dow Jones went down another [insert number here] percent today. Such-and-such a company is being investigated for dubious accounting practices . . ."

Who knew radio could be so depressing?

Isn't it a known fact that insider trading is illegal? But still, our president indulged in it. And according to regulation, he can't be punished for it until he's out of office. Is this any way to run a country? To put a guy in power who's already shown he has no interest in saving anyone but himself? And he says he has to preserve . . .

["This is preservation month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve." Spoken during Perseverance Month.]

Okay, then, since the president's job description has now been changed from presiding to preserving, let's call him the preservant, and make him actually preserve. How about the environment, for starters? Of course, raising gas prices enough to convince people to buy electric cars wouldn't make corporations a lot of money at the moment . . . so let's scrap that.

Actually, none of these "econo-friendly" plans is making corporations much money in the next three years . . . scrap 'em, doesn't matter what they'll do in the long term. And so it goes on.

Our world is being exploited. We won't stand for it much longer.

Corporate America - the hunt is on.

This piece was written a few months prior to release of the column.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE GLOSSARY:

I'm skipping this section today - I've done it every time so far, and it actually takes a bit of research. I used up all my researching power for this issue on the Creature Feature, so you'll have to do without my dictionary aspirations this week. If you really miss this section, then go look up these words:
expletives
euphemism
oxymoron
aspirations
moratorium



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

Responses:



Red On White - Chapter One: Her Pale Yukata
The Rurouni
PG-13

Ten years old.
It was into the Meiji Era already.
But the fighting never stopped. And didn’t seem to want to.
She hugged the pillar.
Crying. Silently
Her pale yukata was stained with blood.
The blood of her mother.
Her mother had shielded her from the assassin’s deadly blow.
With her own body.
The katana had pierced her mother’s body.
As well as scratched her own.
A trickle of fresh blood stained her abdomen.
As the rain fell without ceasing.
She stumbled out into the darkness, her small feet carrying her away.
Away from the bloodied corpses.
Away from the carnage.
Away from home.

Seta Soujiro had fought Himura Kenshin.
Fought, and lost.
Now, he was in search of answers.
Answers to life’s questions.
Which was the best way?
The question he had asked Himura.
The question that had remained unanswered.
He bought some dried octopus from a peasant woman, and ate it as he walked along.
He had a long way to go.
Since he was nowhere near getting his question answered.
But he was happy.
Happier.
At least, now he didn’t have to fight.
And no one would die because of him.

She was tired.
She had just been running for a long way.
Running, for the joy of it.
For the freedom.
She panted. As she wiped the sweat off her brow.
A woman running like that for no reason to behold was not proper.
But she hardly cared.
She never gave a thought to propriety since she began her life as a wanderer.
When she was just ten.
She saw a scene ahead that was not unusual.
For her, at least.
A few men surrounding another figure, whose small build made it difficult to tell from a distance whether the person was male or female.
She ran ahead, hand on sword hilt.

"I don’t wish to fight."
Soujiro’s voice was a calm one amid the loud roars of the agitated robbers.
They jeered at him. Taunted him.
Because they wanted to exert power.
Weaklings.
They wanted him to do the very thing he said he wouldn’t do.
Just because he had said it.
Soujiro’s face remained impassive.
No, not the smiling face he had put on for the sake of himself in the past.
Just expressionless.
Even when someone else came to his defence.

"Move away."
The words were cold. Hard. Unfeeling. Filled with authority.
And they came from a short, lithe figure.
A girl.
A woman.
Whatever.
The robbers hardly gave her a second look.
Even though they saw the sword.
She drew it.
The long, sleek katana.
"Move away."
She didn’t want to kill them. Or hurt them.
Intimidation worked wonders, as she knew from experience.
Unfortunately, it didn’t’ this time.
She lunged.
The robbers scattered.
But the man they were taunting had come forward.
To defend them.
With his own body.
She stopped three inches short of his chest.
The blade was held there.
The man with the boyish face said, "Don’t do anything you would regret later. Even if they were thugs."
She remembered her yukata.
The pale yukata.
Stained with blood.
That would never be washed off.
She shuddered.
And sheathed the katana.




A Girl Named Mary Sue
(This was not named by the author. I mentioned, some time ago, that I would supply titles. This one is a play on "A Boy Named Sue.")
Vioshine
PG

She had silky, thick brown hair, curling softly down her shoulders, and beautiful puppy-dog eyes to match. A face to rival that of Aphrodite’s, with luscious lips and pretty porcelain features. Delicate hands and petit feet, yet quite a well-endowed figure. At least, that’s what she liked to imagine.
In reality, Mary had a rather ordinary face. Nose a bit too big, eyes that you might see everyday on the streets, and eyebrows that looked almost invisible. Her hair was blonde. Not the pretty blonde, Mary thought, but bleached to match the color of corn’s silk. It was thin, and try as she might Mary could never get it past shoulder-length. Her skin was pale, to rival rather than suit her hair, and not at all porcelain. Staring at her reflection in a dim brass pan, she grimaced at the break-out she saw on that face. And those lovely rosy cheeks? Sunburn.



New Challenge:
My brain's a bit worn out . . . it's almost two now. Let's see . . . ah, yes, a way to save me work . . . don't worry, I won't let it happen too often.
Want your favourite book featured as the Book of the Month? Send me an email with your name (penname, nickname, whatever you'd like me to refer to you as, doesn't need to be real), age, a quick summary (sort of like mine) of the book - author's name, title, all that of course, and if it sounds interesting, I'll use it as next month's Book. I'll also try to read it and give my opinion - but this is not a guarantee. You see, by the time this issue goes up (I think I'm already in October, right?) school will have started, and I will have lotsa other stuff to do. Still, I'm pretty good about trying to do things when I have the time. Except, of course, making coffee. I hate the stuff.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:


From: naavi (naavi@fanfiction.net)
I disapprove on your comment about the US. I am a proud American citizen, and not only is this NOT a political column of any sort, but I dont see why you had to add this in your column anyway. I expected to see a nice column about writing, but instead I find a rude little insert about the US.
I dont expect you to change yoru mind or anything, but I dont think that that was appropriate either. I realize you can say whatever you really want to, considering this IS your column, but perhaps you might want to rethink adding in random bits of condescending opinion like that.
Im sorry if this offended you in any major way, but you offended me as well.

I'm not offended at all, and I'm sorry you were. I'm also an American citizen, for the simple reason that I was born in this country.
You're right, this isn't a political column - and you're right again, I really can say anything I want, so long as it's not potentially harmful to anyone (i.e. racism, or religious bashing, as examples). That's why I've steered clear of my opinions on religion, as this is intended to be a column for everyone.
Now, as to relevance, there is none, but sometimes I get so frustrated with the country I have to live in. You may not agree, but I personally feel that it's my duty to speak out against something that I feel strongly is wrong. I also think it's your duty to do the same for your beliefs. Which, by the way, includes sending your comment to me.
However, as I received a total of two complaints out of more than a hundred and fifty responses to my column, I will not be silent on issues dealing with the United States, and particularly, its foreign policy. If you're referring to the insert I think you're referring too, you'll find that that's just beans to what I can and may say. Judging by your response to that, I suggest you skip over my social commentary from now on.
Hopefully, the "rude little insert" was not so bold and enormous that it hid the rest of the column from your view, a column which I'd very much like to believe was a "nice column about writing." Unless stating my opinion, I'm a fairly unbiased writer - and I fail to see how my views on politics can affect the usefulness of my writing tips. It is to be wished that you can look beyond my shortcomings as a human being, skip the parts which you dislike (or respond with your opinion, which would be wonderful), and still find the rest of the column. It's my sincere hope that there will be something useful printed, sometime, for any given reader.
Thanks for taking the time to respond,
Autumndark



From: Emer (emer3@yahoo.com)
Wow--I've read every book but two on that list. Don't we have good taste?

Yes, I admit it. This is here purely for ego-boosting. Despite the frame of mind I'm currently in, this made me laugh, so I just had to post it. I'm sorry. And yes, we do!
Autumndark



From: Jill (decembersolstice@tconl.com)
Isn't saying that you hate "Friends" fanfiction and that you will burn it shunning out an entire ff.net community? If you want to help fanfiction writers then shouldn't you be all-encompassing? How would you like it if you submitted a story to an editor and he or she replied, "Oh, well, I burned your story because I just don't like fantasy [or whatever genre you submitted]"? If you want to help writers then it is not your place to filter out fanfiction stories simply because you dislike the genre. Regardless of what someone is writing about, you have put yourself in a place to help writers with the content of their stories and the conventions, character development, etc., and you cannot do that if you are so incredibly biased as to throw away a fic just because it's centered around a TV series that you don't like.

Saying that I would burn "Friends" fanfiction was probably the wrong way to put it. As a matter of fact, it was. What I really meant to say was this: I have attempted to watch "Friends" a total of three times, and failed miserably every time. As I've said before, if I don't know anything about a genre, I won't use it, because I don't feel qualified to comment. So, logically, I don’t feel qualified to comment on "Friends" fanfiction. The fact that I dislike it is incidental, and should not have been voiced. I have, as you said, put myself in a position from which I must help writers - however, it's clear that there is no way I could possibly "read up" on all fandoms so as to do this across the board. And I will not subject myself to "Friends" in a futile attempt at this. Honestly, when my pals merely mention the show, I can feel conformity enter the room. It's quite creepy.
Thanks for your time,
Autumndark



And we've done it again. Made it through one more issue (both you and me). Breathe a sigh of relief, congratulate yourself, and go forth in serenity. And don't forget to come back next time.



Autumndark

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
SPECIAL ISSUE: FANFICTION'S PITFALLS


Surprised? You should be. I don't do biweeklies. I just don't have time.
This is a special edition. The only reason it's here is because I didn't write it. Someone sent me a whole chunk of "Writer's Workbench" material, and asked me to post it in a column. It became a special edition for two reasons. One - it was very long. Two - it's fanfiction based, and this is a column for original work. Still, I thought it was worth bringing some of these points to the attention of the fanfiction-writing public.

Disclaimer: No, this is not the usual disclaimer. It will be next time. I would like to take this opportunity to point out, once again, that this is a special edition. I DID NOT WRITE THIS EDITION'S WRITER'S WORKBENCH. Got it? Good. Now, I would also like to add that I do not endorse or own "Friends" in any way - sorry, all die-hard fans, but I can't stand the show. This means, specifically, that if anyone takes this as a signal that I will accept 'Friends' fanfiction, I will burn it. For real.

Other notes: Someone asked me if I would accept Harry Potter fanfiction. I now, reluctantly, say yes. I did not include it in the original list because I was afraid of getting tons and tons of HP fanfiction, which, I feel obliged to say, is not always of the best quality. Face it, folks, a large majority of the Harry Potter fiction out there is crap. It follows, then, that my standards for HP fiction will be sufficiently higher than my standards for other entries. Capiche?



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE HALF-MONTH:


"You have the right to remain silent. You do NOT have the right to sing 99 Bottles of Beer."
- from Bizarro, by Dan Piraro



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE HALF-MONTH:

Dragon's Bait, by Vivian Vande Velde

- When fifteen-year-old Alys is staked out as a witch for the local dragon to eat, she quite reasonably expects the end. She certainly doesn't expect Selendrile, the dragon-youth with the golden eyes, or his offer to help her in her revenge. And she certainly doesn't understand exactly what his help entails, or exactly how bitter revenge can be . . .



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:

This edition of the Writer's Workbench was brought to you by Bets Thompson. Bets has no affiliation with Autumndark, the writer of this column, and they most definitely are NOT the same person.


After years and years of writing and reading, mostly reading, fanfic, fanfiction, fan-fic…however you should choose to label it, I’ve finally broken down and decided to let writers, reviewers, and prospective fans in on a few things I’ve learned about the beautiful and engaging world of the fanfic, (my pet name for the darling).

In this introduction, if you wish to skip my ranting on the “good ol’ days”, please respectively skip to the next indention. For those who wish to reflect, let us begin. I’ve spent hours and hours in front of this sturdy Mac, reading and regretting reading stories about Friends. (Yes, I’m one of those). Starting in about 1998, long before fanfiction.net reached its monopoly over the fanfiction world, I began reading fanfics on WebPages. The pages I most enjoyed, some I remember, The Chandler and Monica Love Haven, Poppy and Cath, The Complete Friends Script Index, and Endless Love to name a few. One day, in my endless readings, a man named Dan Silverstein came along and changed the way I read fanfiction. Those of you who have read him, would agree. Sadly he is off-line now but I miss the nervous breakdown that usually lasted a week to two in waiting for the next edition of “Chandler and Monica”. This nervous breakdown conveniently brings me to my first point.

The cliffhanger. I learned that no matter how much I hated it, and how many hopeless hours I spent on the “Refresh” button, that there was an art to ending fanfics that you intend on continuing, the cliffhanger. Note that a cliffhanger can work in multiple ways. The first is the milked cliffhanger, my least favorite. This cliffhanger is the one where the author tries desperately to ensure their next chapter will be read. (For some reason, fanfic writers usually seem to be fairly insecure, myself included.) The milked cliffhanger usually goes something like this:

Frank: And I never want to see you ever again!

Frank runs out of the door, hoping never to see Jessica again.

Okay! That’s it people! Tell me what you think! And don’t worry, Frank and Jessica will eventually get married…you know I’m a sucker for love stories.

Scary? It really does happen! This is not uncommon! The milked cliffhanger usually stops me dead in my tracks. Sometimes it is a little less obvious, simply telling the reader that it will end happily. While I enjoyed the first chapter, I now have no reason to read the following chapters. Depressing really.

The next type of cliffhanger is getting a little better. This I call the “I am tired” cliffhanger. The “I am tired” cliffhanger is usually unexpected and sometimes in mid-sentence. This is where the author intends on finishing the story but wants to post it now, go to sleep, and still have reviews in the morning. They usually just drop off. “I am tired” sometimes actually follows this poorly received cliffhanger.

Jim: Well I’m going to go take the baby for a walk.

Alice: So that’s it. That’s all you have to say. I tell you that we are having mashed potatoes for dinner and you are taking the baby for a walk?

Well curious readers. That’s the end of this segment because I am tired. Please stay tuned for the next edition of Rural Blues. –With Love, Your Genius Author and Friend, RBlues007, btw...R&R!

This approach is an improvement, because now I don’t know what is going to happen next but, I’m not really intrigued either. I mean if I stumble upon it again, awesome, if not, the story of Jim and Alice in my head, gets buried beneath Monica’s tumor and Buffy’s baby. This approach is disappointing if it’s a good story, I’m bummed at the quick and unexpected ending.

So in ending your fics, take chances. Don’t give clues to the ending, be mysterious and be sneaky. The whole idea of a cliffhanger is to leave the audience wanting more. When done correctly, your cliffhanger will work in your favor.

You are an awesome writer. Yes. And you have great ideas…but, I hate to tell you this, many times people don’t remember your story just from the title. And while you know exactly what is going on in your story, chapter by chapter, others do not. It’s really aggravating going from “Chapter 5” to “Chapter 6” trying to figure out where I last read. With so many stories, many with similar titles, by no fault of your own mind you, it is hard to remember the place I, the reader, stopped indulging your fruitful stories. Along with your catchy title, and tagline, (I cover taglines later), add some catchy Chapter titles. I mean, you do not even have to think hard about them. “Eggs and Chicken”, “Laughter Fills the Submarine”, titles with substance, those are the ones that the reader will remember. The reader can then quickly think, “Oh yeah. I finished ’Smashing Printers’ last week. ‘Broken Hearted Computer’ is new!” This small gesture will make the reader’s read much easier. A quick note on Chapter Names. As usual, don’t give anything away in the titles. Someone may be on Chapter 3, aka, “Tears of Blood”, and while scanning for that title, their eye slips down the list to, “George’s Wedding”, Chapter 8. The worst part is that I didn’t even know George was engaged! Bam! I am discouraged and now crying tears of my own.
Soon after Dan Silverstein ended his series, my haughty hand clicked my way into a new world of fanfiction. Fanfiction.net. With this new world came changes. Many of my favorite WebPages went offline, all fanfiction readers came together, but most importantly, the author could now write their own taglines. Taglines. Say it once with me. Tag-lines. This was new for me as a fanfic reader. Listed on the page with the title and author’s name, it gives the reader an idea of what kind of story to expect. I pretty much accepted anything as a virgin to the tagline experience. “Read this story because it’s good!” pretty much sufficed. Worked for me. But then, pretty soon, as fanfiction became more popular and my time became less available, I started actually paying attention to, (shock shock), and reading the taglines. When the Rating and Genre sorters were not enough, I could now use this as a tool in helping me sift through pages and pages of fanfics to read, (shock!). If you are fanfic writer and you are actually reading this, listen closely. They can work in your favor too! Multiple times a day, your prospective reader will read what your tagline boasts as the completion of your story idea, hopefully the final touch to a process. Now if your goal is for your story to be read, here are some too obvious points. Even when I have all the time in the world, I never ever open the can of worms that is, the self-pitying, no confidence, reaching for good reviews author who in hopes to not build up reader’s expectations too high, they shamelessly tell their prospective reader their beginning status or own feelings of their story in their tagline. This story is my worst or This story is my first so it is probably bad because I’ve never written before or I don’t like it but felt the overwhelming desire to inflict it upon all of you. You had me from I know this sucks. This is a big turn off. If the author doesn’t like the work, I have the sneaking suspicion that I won’t either.

There is another key to writing good, catchy taglines. Write good, catchy taglines. Write something that intrigues the prospective reader but doesn’t give too much away. I hate, hate, hate when writers say, Just read it. I’m convinced! Come on! Give me a reason to take 5 minutes out of my day to read your rendition of Clifford Goes to Town or The Cheers Reunion.

One more time, I don’t want to hear if it ends happily or not.

Love stories. One thing that has become more popular, (thank god), is using the first initials of the characters names, for instance in Friends, C&M or R&R. This does help but be careful. Once again, sometimes you can enter the dreaded land of the Spoiler if it is a story about the two meeting again randomly and falling in love. While it is nice to be able to pick out the stories I’m most interested in, if the story begins with Lori being married to someone other than Ryan, and the tagline had said it was a L&R story, then the first few chapters, I don’t even have to read anymore.

If you want respect as a fanfic writer, please take the time to use spell check and also, please don’t use computer lingo in your stories. Cuz, L8er, Luv, Stoopid. I have stopped reading many stories because of this language. It is so aggravating. I lose my train of thought. Please take time to spell these words out. I personally expect little from stories with this lingo. It will help your image as a writer.

The Author Note. For all of you who add in Author Notes in the middle of your stories, shame on you. Hear me out. You aren’t fooling anyone when you write, (AN: Oh yeah I forgot to tell you, his sister’s name is Caroline.) You are on a computer most likely and can scroll back up and add it in. There is no sense in interrupting a good story for things like that, or things like this. (AN: Sorry I’m making him so mean here, it breaks my heart.) Mine too. I’m out of the moment and its dinner time. Put all notes at the beginning or end for goodness sake.

In addition, oh my GODDD. If I see one more ---- in place of a random person’s name, I’m going to stop reading fanfiction all together. You are a writer with an imagination hopefully, make something up. Writing Dr. ---- because you can’t think of a name is ridiculous. I’m sorry, but that drives me insane.

I could go on forever but thankfully, I have somewhat of a life. I hope I did help someone out there, and maybe just maybe, someone learned a lesson from this rant. Feel free to email me and call me a hypocrite or what have you.

bets_4reel@hotmail.com



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:

At special request, I have a listing here of all the books I have cited so far in this column:

1. Deep Secret, Diana Wynne Jones
2. Spindle's End, Robin McKinley
3. Lord of the Rings, J.R.R Tolkien
4. His Dark Materials, Philip Pullman
5. Dark Lord of Derkholm, Diana Wynne Jones
6. The Hounds of the Morrigan, Pat O'Shea
7. The Ruby in the Smoke, Philip Pullman
8. Shade's Children, Garth Nix
9. The Hero and the Crown, Robin McKinley
10. Alice Through the Looking-Glass, Lewis Carroll
11. Twelve Impossible Things Before Breakfast, Jane Yolen
12. Lirael, Garth Nix
13. The Arkadians, Lloyd Alexander
14. The Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis
15. Sabriel, Garth Nix
16. Hexwood, Diana Wynne Jones
17. Wizard's First Rule, Terry Goodkind

Yep, that's it. If I forget to put the author's names again, someone drop me a line, and I'll add them.

I think that's all I've got for you this week . . . . special edition rights are being cited at the moment.
Have a nice two weeks (or so)!



Autumndark

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE THREE: ROLE CALL


Aaaaaannnd . . . yes, it's a fact, I actually made it to my third issue. Betcha didn’t think I'd do it! I had fun writing this issue - hope you enjoy it!
The response was down quite a bit last time - I had 68 hits and one review on the 1st of September, so thanks to K'Arthur for taking the time to do that.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
- The White Queen, Alice Through the Looking Glass



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:

To go with the quote, this month's book is:

Twelve Impossible Things Before Breakfast, by Jane Yolen

- I don't normally like Yolen's work, but this collection of twelve short stories is great! As she says, six would have been too few, so she doubled the number. A fun read . . . a mixture of fantasy, science fiction, and the supernatural. I would include a slightly more useful summary . . . but I can't because I don't have the book on hand, and I can't remember the whole thing. The Babysitter was my favourite, though!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:

This week we have:: Meet the Cast(Getting to Know Your Characters). For space reasons, the "Creature Feature" was cut from this issue. Look for it next time!

Meet the Cast (Getting to Know Your Characters)

You should know your characters very well. You should know how they would react in any kind of situation - even ones that don't occur in your story. You should know their minds completely, as well as exactly what they look like. Sketching them is a good way to do this.

There are character prototypes for any kind of story, which vary slightly from genre to genre. Since I like fantasy, we'll pick on it today.

There are seven main types of character in most fantasy novels: "good guy/gal" - main character(s), brother/sister figures, mentors, enemies, minions, sidekicks, weapons/tools.

∑ "Good guy/gal" - this is your main character. Usually, there are two of these, one male and one female. The story is usually centered around only one of these, but the counterpart of the opposite gender is important, too. You should know this character (or these characters) VERY well. They should be your best bud(s). Don't make them all-competent, perfect characters, because then there won't be any conflict. They'll probably be smart, if they're running the show - but don't turn them into geniuses - main character mistakes can be very interesting. A common trick to induce some light humour is to have these two in conflict when they first meet.
Example(s) - Rupert Venables and Maree Mallory, Deep Secret.

∑ Sidekicks - this can either be a faithful pet OR the main character's best friend. This character can offer wit - or a little bumbling comic relief. If this is a person, they'll generally have some of the qualities lacking in your main character, and are usually the same sex. For example, if your main character is a bit hot-headed, your sidekick will probably be level-headed and cautious.
Example(s) – Wit: the Disreputable Dog, Lirael; Comic relief: Fronto, The Arkadians; Other: Falkor, The Neverending Story and Throgmorton, The Lives of Christopher Chant

∑ Brother/sister figure - there can be many of these, or none at all. They can be the actual brothers and sisters of your main character, or they can be good friends. Normally, they would be foil characters for one another (see last month's Glossary), but this can be played around with a bit.
Example(s) - Kit, Don, Elda, Callette, Lydda, and Shona, Dark Lord of Derkholm.

∑ Mentor -this is your "mother" or "father" figure. They aren't featured in much of the action, but they appear to give advice or offer words of comfort from time to time. They are normally a good deal older than the main character.
Example(s) - Aslan, The Chronicles of Narnia (although he takes part in the action more than is normal).

∑ Enemy - this is your protagonist (see last month's Glossary). While this is not necessarily a character, it most often is in fantasy. The most important thing about this character is their motivation. They're not just going to be evil because they feel like it. Even if you don't explain much of the motivation, you should know what it is and build your character accordingly. Your main character will probably fight the "final battle" with this character - although in some cases (Lord of the Rings) they never actually come face-to-face.
Example(s)- Sauron, Lord of the Rings

∑ Minions - these, like brother/sister characters, do not always exist. However, there are a variety of ways in which they can be presented. A common trick for humour is to have "bumbling minions" - evil characters serving the enemy who cannot get anything right. Oftentimes, though, these are the characters that the protagonist must fight the hardest. Make sure your minions have motivation, too.
Example(s) - Shadow Hands, Sabriel; Bumbling minions: (yes, this isn’t really fantasy) Hack and Slash, ReBoot

∑ Weapon/tool - yes, I know this is an inanimate object, not a character. Still, this is quite common. Often, an author will center the entire conflict of a novel around one object. This object may or may not have a "personality" - it may change the character of its bearer, or it may just be a powerful object that both the protagonist and antagonist want.
Example(s) – Character: The Bannus, Hexwood; Powerful weapon: Sword of Truth, Wizard’s First Rule



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY:

I don't have much this week--just wishing the U.S. would mind its own business.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE GLOSSARY:

Ooooh, let's play the Name Game!!!!
Since I talked about characters this time, I decided to feature a few "cool" names in this month's Glossary. You'll notice I don't like "old faithfuls."
Alternating girls' and boys' names (starts with girls)


Name: Meaning (Root)

Alaine: A form of Helen or feminine of Alan (Greek)
Brock: The badger (Gaelic)
Callan: To scream (Middle English)
Darian: Wealthy (Persian)
Elita: The chosen one (Old French)
Fabian: Bean farmer (Greek)
Gafna: Vine (Hebrew)
Howell: Alert one (Welsh)
Iona: Purple jewel (Greek)
Jethro: Outstanding or excellent (Hebrew)
Keely: Slender (Celtic)
Lars: Laurel (Latin)
Merle: Blackbird (Latin)
Nevin: Nephew (Old English)
Odetta: Melody (Greek)
Phineas: The oracle (Hebrew)
Querida: Loved one (Spanish)
Raven: Large crow (Old English)
Shaina: Beautiful (Hebrew)
Tor: King (Nigerian)
Una: Unique (Greek)
Vance: Thresher (English)
Wilda: The willow tree (Old English)
Xenos: Foreigner (Greek)
Yetta: Form of Henrietta (Germanic)
Zeke: Sparkling light (Aramaic)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

Do you have a passage in your story that describes one or more of your characters very well? Send it in . . . we'll get to know your character and maybe get interested in your story. I would offer rewards for this section . . . but since it's an internet thing, that's a bit difficult.

The only response to last week's challenge is featured below. Honestly, people, I let you plug! You should have been happy! Whatever . . .

The Phoenix Years
Jillybean (jbean_gotmuse@yahoo.co.uk)
PG-13 - Action/Adventure/Romance - X-Men Evolution
The human race is evolving.
And it does not like the change.
The mutants, as they were known, had one last chance to save themselves. Professor Charles Xavier and his X-Men were to be the saviors of the superior race, but corruption runs free in the world and Charles Xavier sold the hope of thousands for his own safety.
All seemed lost.
But now, a new hope has arrived. Like the legendary bird a new group of mutants is emerging from the X-Men's ashes. They are the Phoenixes. Sam Nitpusar, the telepath; Rowan O'Neill, the shapeshifter; Jim Williams, the warrior. These three will lead a band of mutants in the ultimate fight against discrimination, against poverty, against the government and against their old friends: The X-Men.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:

From: K'Arthur (karthur@karthurville.com)
I don't mean to be rude, but I still don't understand what you are trying to accomplish with your column. Most of the "meat" of it seemed to be comments that were sent in and that were answered. I think comments have their merit, but making an entire column out of them seems pointless. The "thanks" section was also a bit spammy. May I suggest that you thank people with an email rather than a huge list in the column? It is spammy on the eyes :)
The social commentary was interesting, but maybe instead of just copy-pasting emails condense them into debate type sides. Pros and cons, toss a quote or two in, but generally summize the responses rather than just post straight answers from "the horses mouth." That said, let me say that I think this commentary is unique for your column and certainly a very important aspect to be written about.
Also, perhaps consider increasing the amount of "Writer's Workbench" material you put in a column. This information that you provided was excellent, and should get a bit more time in the spotlight.
Anywho, good job so far. I look forward to your next issue! :)
--K

Thanks, K'Arthur. It was shortly after I read your comment that I looked over the column and found I agreed with you. If you take a look at the revised version, which went up a couple days after the original, I think you'll see that I changed a few things. I liked your idea for the Social Commentary - problem is, I'm not as HTML-savvy as some people, and I don't think I can get any neat formatting I do in Microsoft Word to stay when I upload. Still, I'll definitely try that out!
Thanks a lot, you really helped Issue 2 out!
Autumndark



From: fluffer@prodigy.net
Hey, I found http://www.fandomination.net/ because it was plugged on another site and I was wondering what you thought about it and if you thought it would hurt future writers because it claims to only take better writing or if it was good for aspiring writers because they claim they'll tell writers why they are removing their fics if they pull them? Anyway, just wanted to ask.

All right, I checked out www.fandomination.net, signed up, and read the terms of service. As a “researcher” I reserve the rights to do this for purely investigational reasons. The terms of service seem fairly straightforward, and, indeed, if they work the way they sound, I think they would be exceedingly good for any aspiring writer. In fact, I wish www.fanfiction.net would censor a little more. I do realize, that since they run a much more extensive website, the administrators may not have the time to go through each piece of work, but you wouldn’t believe the amount of pointless junk I’ve run across. This is why I strongly encourage people to get editors. Anyway, provided the administrators of fandomination.net alert a rejected author as to the specific reasons for rejection, I think it’s a good way for amateurs (a category which includes myself) t0 learn. However, they are not responsible for letting you know – they are offering a free service. Rules like these are generally to protect the reader from spam, lists, message board type entries, and just plain bad writing – three categories of which fanfiction.net has banned.
That said, fandomination.net did confuse me a little. As an experiment (once again, I’m licensed to do this a researcher – well, not really, but let’s just pretend, OK?) I attempted to upload a piece of fanfiction which was certifiably good. If I succeeded, I was going to upload a very poorly written entry (which of course I would just make up on the spot) and see whether or not I got a response, and if so, what type it was. However, this clever plan was quickly rendered impossible. I went through the posting process and was amazed to see a sign at the end of “Step 6” that told me “congratulations, you have successfully uploaded,” when the process had never given me a chance to upload the actual text of my story. Very confusing.
So perhaps you are better off with fanfiction.net, for the time being, at least. At least I could figure out the uploading process on this site. Still, any diehard fanfic writer should probably give fandomination.net a shot – it might just be my computer fritzing out – it’s not an uncommon occurrence.
Until next time, thanks for reading,
Autumndark



Also, a number of people sent in to tell me that "pulchritude" means physical beauty. Thanks to all of you . . . but now I'm wondering . . . why did someone tell me it was a stupid word?



09-19-02:
In light of some of the recent policy changes on fanfiction.net, and the email that has been whizzing around between the columnists, I felt a small update to address this issue was necessary.
As a mainly original writer, I can't help but be pleased about the new importance given to original work. I hope everyone else is as happy as I am. If you're not, that's tough. I'm sorry for you. However, no one seems to be complaining about that.
As I understand it, the two main changes have been the banning of RPS stories (yes, I know that's redundant) and of NC-17 stories. I think we can all see how RPS stories could lead to legal problems for the site - plus, the majority of them tend to be disrespectful. I mean, there is something to be said for privacy, even for celebrities, right? I think the most outrageous example I've heard of (mentioned in one of those columnist emails) was a piece of Elijah Woods/Dan Radcliffe slash, which completely disregards the fact that both are living, breathing people, and could quite possibly be offended by it. So . . . in case anyone wants my views, I agree completely with the banning of RPS stories.
Now, the main concern seems to be the banning of NC-17 stories. I've heard a lot of complaints about "censorship," "stifling certain people," and I've even been requested to discontinue my membership with fanfiction.net, hinting that if I didn't, I was aiding and abetting in the suppressing of others. This annoyed me slightly. As you can see from Fluffer's letter (above), fanfiction.net is clearly not the only fanfiction website on the internet. Plus, it's a free service unless you choose to pay, which makes all the claims of censorship and oppression seem a bit ridiculous. They're not stopping you from writing and/or posting, they're stopping you from posting on their site. Once again, legal reasons apply. Needless to say, I definitely do not plan to stop using fanfiction.net.
That said, I do agree that the NC-17 ban may have been a tad on the overkill side. It will only stop the writer's with morals from posting on the site - those who write the kind of NC-17 fanfic that it has been banned for will probably continue to post, and just rate their stories at the R level. It's a bit sad, but you can't make people act properly.
Fanfiction.net is a free service, and those who choose to use it are doing it at their own risk and of their own free will. The terms of service, which you should have read when you signed up, clearly state that the administrators have every legal right to change policies at any point in time. We cannot judge or condemn fanfiction.net for its policy changes - the site belongs to the administrators, not to us, and it's really their choice where they want it to go.
Now, I'd like to address a related, but slightly more serious issue (concerning me, and the other columnists). A number of people seem to feel that we are to blame for these changes, and more than one of us have received email saying so. This is unacceptable. We applied for columns because we wanted to help you - we ARE NOT affiliated with the site, it’s policies, or it's administrators. We simply use it both as a place to post our writing, and as a place to share our advice. I hope that this clears the minds of those who would like to blame us. We are not the administrators, and we do not influence their decisions. My email, and the email addresses of my fellow columnists are not meant for hate mail. Hate mail, threats, etc, can be reported to the police - they are against the law, and I hope that they are discontinued.
Sincerely,
Autumndark



Hey oh, oh hey! Look, three issues already . . . hmm, this is fun. Strange, isn’t it? Maybe I won't be a writer when I grow up . . . this column thing is a blast . . . yeah, anyway, congrats on making it through this issue. I'll be back. And before you run away screaming at that thought, please remember to send in your stuff!



Autumndark

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE TWO: PATHFINDING



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

"Society is a mule, not a car . . . if pressed too hard, it will kick and throw its rider off."
- Issawi, on the Pace of Progress



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:

Spindle's End, by Robin McKinley

- A spirited retelling of the classic tale of "Sleeping Beauty." There's not much I can explain about the plot - it's fairly straightforward, just bulked out a lot. The "three fairies" aren't plump and jolly - they're actually two fairies and a wheelwright's apprentice - Aunt, Katriona, and Barder. Then there's Rosie's friendship with the farrier and her lookalike the wainwright's niece Peony to complicate matters . . . and just when you think you know the end of the story, McKinley adds in a twist, and off you go again . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:

This month's topic: Planning Ahead, Part One.

This issue discusses two of the main elements of any story - Plot and Setting. Next time we'll feature Planning Ahead, Part Two, which discusses Characters (and possibly Creatures).


I. Finding the Path (Plot)

Normally, this is the most important part of your story. As always, there are exceptions, but most stories, whether short or long, have a plot. So . . . this might be a good place to start.

I'm not going to offer advice on coming up with a plot, because that would be fairly pointless. Plots are things that just happen by themselves (for me, at least). Still, once you have a plot, getting started can still be a problem.
If you're writing a story with multiple chapters and are stumped on how to start , try writing out a sort of "game plan." Basically, take a clean sheet of paper, and write down "Chapter One" on the first line. Then plan out (use bullet points or something) the events that you want to take place in that chapter. When this is done, you can either keep going and plan out the events of each chapter - or you can get started on writing your chapter. This process helps you to organize your thoughts and the sequence in which you want your events to take place.



II. Looking Around (Setting)

This is another important element of your story. If you want your story to take place in Glasgow, you should know something about the city. If you're setting your story in our world, then do some research on the area.
The easiest way out is to create your own setting - which is generally a good idea for fantasy. There are several things any country - imaginary or otherwise - needs, however.

∑ Name - every country should have a name. You may not actually use this name in the course of your story (see Dark Lord of Derkholm, by D. W. Jones), but it's always a good idea to have one.

∑ People - unless your story is taking place in a barren wasteland, chances are you'll have people living in your country. Think of several different groups of people - maybe even invent creatures (see later issues). If your main characters are going on a journey across the country, they'll probably meet some of its inhabitants. You should plan your people well, so that you know how they live and interact.
Tidbit - Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings as a place to put the whole rich culture and languange he had created. You don't need to be this obsessed, obviously.

∑ Government - most places have some form of government: empire, monarchy, regency, democracy - you get the point. This can be made up, too - but at least have it make some kind of sense. Of course, your country could be in a state of anarchy, but some explanation of how it got there could come in handy.

∑ History - You should know a little bit about the history of your country - maybe two or three centuries before the time you're writing. In case it comes up, you can then explain things and . . . not have to well, make it up on the spot, which can get very strange.

∑ Customs - there should be some things that are known, if not practiced, the whole country over. A religion is a good way to get around this, but it's not a must-have.

∑ Geography - you should have some idea of what your country looks like. A good way to achieve this is to draw it. You could even trace your character's path on a map. Drawing skills are not necessary. I have an example map, but since I don't have my own website yet, you'll have to email me if you want to see it. General features include - rivers, mountains, lakes, perhaps a desert (probably near the middle of your continent), forests, marshes, towns, islands . . .

∑ Time frame - If the people in your world fight with swords and drink from wells, you don't want to have them going to the movies. While it is your story, things like that will discourage a reader. We're all human, and we like to see things done the human way. If you take things from a certain Earth era, stick to other characteristics of that time period as well. Anachronisms are one of the most jarring things known in story-writing, even fantasy. Unless, of course, you're doing something like Diana Wynne Jones's A Tale of Time City, in which the whole problem is that time is jumping around.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY:

Comments on last month's topic:

From: Idseigus (tyr831@hotmail.com)
Hi Autumn, I read your column, and I must say I enjoyed it thoroughly. Even though I disagreed with parts, I would deem it a good read. You asked for a commentary on your own commentary; and wanting to repay you for an enjoyed 15 minutes, I'm here to do just that.
Before you read on, however, please let me give you a fair warning. I am terrible at not adding "I think" in my replies, online and off. Just bear in mind I am using my own views and pointless rhetoric; not actually replying to your statements.
"I resent the sexism present in everyday life - i.e. clothing."
Clothing has, and always will be, a sexual article. If not to mute it, to emphasize it. The point is, no person is EXPECTED to wear certain clothes based on sex, but they usually DO wear certain clothing based on sex.
"Why should we have to sell our bodies like this?"
No woman is expected, nor encouraged to 'sell' her body. The reason that wearing those types of clothing is considering selling is, I firmly believe, the fault of those wearing it. The clothes are meant as fashion originally, and the wearer decides "Hmm... which will show off the most of my body?" When these soliciting clothes become fasion, and those in charge of making clothes fashionable realize this, an ugly circle develops.
"If girls have to "show off" their bodies, why don't guys?"
Again, girls are neither expected nor encouraged to show off their bodies. Of course, that is my view, because clothing doesn't, for me, at least, attract me to a woman. In fact, when girls wear very revealing clothes, it can be almost a turnoff. Modesty is sexy. :)
"We should worry about how we look, because that's all anybody notices?"
In that mindset, you're completely wrong. Even the most shallow of my masculine counterparts can realize that beauty does not neccessarily equal greatness.
"Face it - people are rarely asked out because "they're beautiful inside."
I digress. I've asked plenty of "modest", "plain" (AND I emphasize) girls for courtship, because they were amazing personalities that made me feel comfortable and content. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
"Wait a minute? Do any of those apply to guys? I didn't think so. They don’t even have the courtesy to tell them to pull up their damn pants . . . Guys, you may think it's cool, but not every girl wants to know what kind of boxers you."
Where do you live? Liberal Central? They enforce a very strict dress code here, for both sexes. We aren't allowed to let underwear show, period.
Believe me, Autumn, not all people, men and women alike, think that women should sexually solicit themselves. Some guys actually dig the modesty - I know that wearing pounds of cosmetics is for me, disgusting. Just keep your chin up; someday you'll meet someone who doesn't tag worth to appearance.


I guess I should have made it clear that I was speaking from my own personal experience.
While I don't exactly live in "Liberal Central," I've seen enough boxers to get on my nerves . . .
Also, I know that, socially speaking, no girl is forced to wear anything - however, I'm in high school, and while I pride myself on NOT being conformist, peer pressure does tend to apply more to fashions than to drugs. At least, in my circles.
When I said "how we look is all anybody notices," I was, actually, speaking sarcastically, because, while that's the impression that a lot of companies try to give female consumers, most of us know that's not necessarily true. I agree - those who fall for it are doing themselves in.
" I've asked plenty of "modest", "plain" (AND I emphasize)
girls for courtship, because they were amazing personalities that made me feel comfortable and content"
You don't know how glad I am to hear that . . . we need a few more people like you around where I am. Unfortunately, the closest any guys I know have come to this is saying that they don't like it when girls wear tons of makeup.
I suppose what it boils down to is this: some people are going to be mindless and foolish, and the rest of us will just have to mature at our own pace and come to these realizations in time.
I just wish everybody was as enlightened as you seem to be . . . I'm glad to have made your "acquaintance."
Thanks for your insights, Idseigus - it's nice to have a guy respond to this - most of the other comments were from females.
"Autumn"



From: Conscious Collective (conscious_collective@yahoo.com)
Sure, there's still the group of girls that walk around school with zippers on the butt of their too-tight jeans and the guys whose pants are falling down. But you've just taken society and made it into one big stereotype. What about the subcultures? They're so much more interesting and controversial than the 'main scene', anyway.
These subcultures are taking over. In fact, Hot Topic (I'm sure you've heard of it) is the new 'thing'. Girls are taking an interest in those huge pants that you thought guys were only interested in, and everyone is wearing tees that advertise slogans like ,'popularity is a social disease'. The sad thing is, the girls that wear these shirts and think they're tough-ass punks are actually pretty popular. But I could go on with that forever...mostly girls are the only ones that overdose in the punk culture, but I've seen some guys sporting multiple piercings, leather pants, etc that weren't a month ago.

>>>>> I know I generalized, and I really was talking about popular culture/fashions. I'm pretty well aware of the punk culture. I have to be, because I'm occasionally part of it. On the other hand, I'm not part of it because "I think it's cool," I'm part of it because I like baggy pants and smart-alec slogans ("You're depriving some poor village of it's idiot," and "I live in my own little world, but it's okay . . . they know me here."), and just like hipster pants and bell-bottoms (the back-pocketed, not-so-tight ones) I liked them before they were in, and I'll continue to like them after they go out again.<<<<<

Then there is the skating sub-culture, which is connected to the punk culture but itsn't exactly the same thing. Guys like to wear shorter pants because they're easier to skate in, but basically baggy rules all. Girls do the baggy pants tight shirt look, which I adore (okay, I'm succumbing to society, but who cares? I like my guys' pants. And my skateboard). The surfing culture is starting to take over again, and California is the place to be.

>>>>> I wouldn't know much about this - I live a bit far from any sensible skateboarders. I realized this after I saw a guy in my grade, who, by the way, was holding up his pants, try to skateboard on our ice rink. <<<<<

There's a lot more, but those are the one's that are dominating where I live. It's weird, because anti-fashion is the fashion nowadays. Only 'preps' wear plaid. I think all of the categorizing is ridiculous, and we should all just go wear what we want and not have to risk being put in a group. I'm sure there are a lot of people like me.
I'm sure there are. I'm one of them, partly. I agree that no one should care about what people think about what they wear, but on the realistic side, everyone does care about what they look like, to some extent. Just out of curiosity, aren't you categorizing with the "preps" remark? And, sorry to say, but I completely disagree with you on the "anti-fashion is fashion" side. Sure, a lot more people are "goth" and "punk" than before, but the "popular" groups don't seem to be able to get rid of their second-skin clothes yet.

>>>>> To restate, I was not ignoring your "subcultures," I was just discussing my views on mainstream culture. Which I don't like too much.
Thanks for your input, Conscious Collective
Autumndark



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE GLOSSARY:

You can blame my English teacher for this month's edition of The Glossary. Since I cut character types from this month's The Writer's Workbench, I figured I'd go over the "technical terms" here.

1. Antagonist - the adversary in conflict with the protagonist. The antagonist may be another character in the work, the forces of nature, fate,chance, or a combination of these. (Cite Sauron, from The Lord of the Rings)

2. Dynamic character - one who grows and changes during the course of a story, novel, or play. E.g. Lyra, His Dark Materials.

3. Flat character - a character who is not fully drawn; usually used for a minor role in a literary work. E.g. Susan Sleightholm, Dark Lord of Derkholm

4. Foil - a person or thing that sets off or enhances another by contrast. E.g. Pidge and Brigit, The Hounds of the Morrigan.

5. Protagonist - the main or central character in a short story, novel, or play. E.g. Sally Lockhart, The Ruby in the Smoke.

6. Round character - one who seems believable and whole with a realistic, varied personality. E.g. Ella, Shade's Children

7. Static character - one who does not develop or change. E.g. Tor, The Hero and the Crown.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

Aha! You get to plug this week! I talked about plot . . . so I guess it's okay.
Write a short summary of your work that would grab a potential reader's interest (you know, like on the back of books). I'll post up some of the most interesting ones, and if you send me a link, you might just get some more readers!
Another option: If you've created a country for a story you're writing, you could type up a short history of it - describing the things I mentioned above. Whatever you do, have fun!

A few of the responses to last month's challenge are featured below:


From: Jillybean
Sitting quiet for twenty minutes isn't my cup of tea, I'd always much rather have music playing in the background or my mind working on some story.
When I was little I used to think I had mental problems because I thought I was so good at everything. Now I realise that both my stepmother and my mother's boyfriend had problems and put me down in order to cope with it. But when you are six years old you don't think that way. I used to wonder why I thought I was so good, and resultingly I told myself I wasn't. How could I be? I wanted to be the hero. I wanted to be Elspeth from 'Flash the Sheepdog'.
I never did become the hero in real life, I was unpopular and reclusive. I was Elspeth in my mind, at recess I wandered around a corner of the playground, being Elspeth, saving lives and being better than everyone else, because I knew I never could be in real life.
About three years ago I discovered fan fiction; I could hardly believe that my escape from my life was shared by so many others. I could hardly understand that I wasn't alone, I wasn't a freak by escaping like this. I was in High School by then and boys had started paying attention to me in ways I had no idea how to reciprocate. I owe a lot to a certain one; he's no longer at my school but he gave me so much confidence, him and the ramblings I poured into the fan fic world.
I started to listen to what people had been trying to tell me for a very long time, I was liked. I wasn't the ugly, spoilt child I believed I was. People actively sought my friendship out, even popular people who shouldn't have liked me.
I used to think my heart was black. A terrible thing for a growing girl to think. Now I believe I am real, I'm not crazy or stupid. People are like me, there hasn't been a problem that I've had that someone else hasn't gone through. That realization has helped me in so many ways. I have so much more confidence, so much more belief. I might never forget that my heart was black, but at least I can be assured it isn't now.



From: Sangwaelen
I wish that he would reply. I hate trying to talk to people online that take forever to reply. I have better things to do. Well, actually I don't, but I'd rather spend my online time having meaningless conversation than just meaningless...being. That made no sense, but I'm used to that, I suppose. My mind jumps around like a kangaroo on coffee. Hmm...that's an interesting image.
Why do I have so much trouble sticking with something? More specifically, when I'm writing? I can never finish anything, I always get stuck somewhere, or I jump around to other things, like reading a book, drawing, or just idling around. Bah, I'm so bored. I actually want school to start. So what if I'm weird? Band camp starts soon. Oooh, sexy burgers...wait, we aren't going there this year. Inside jokes are fun, especially odd ones like "Sexy Burger" that make people look at you like you should be locked up in a room with padded walls (which is yet
another inside joke). Whoa...padded walls reminds me of eighth grade. The only year in junior high I stomached okay. It's funny, I was comfortable with myself in eighth grade, and then decided to change for high school. How stupid is that? Ninth grade was the worst year of my life.
Now I'm going to be a junior. Jeez. A junior. That's how old my best friend was when I met her, and I, just a lowly freshman. Hard to imagine that she's graduated and I never talk to her anymore.
I actually don't have any 'best friends', or rather, I have too many. I've grown so far apart from some of them though, I can't even hold a five minute conversation with them. Saying 'hello' is awkward. Is it wrong to not be able to greet someone you've known your entire life, but be able to tickle, punch and tease someone you used to be in love with? Ah, infatuation, the reason I hated junior high. And now, we've come full circle, because I began talking about him and ended talking about him.


This last one was my favourite, especially as I already had the subject in mind for a future column. It was entered with a title, which I deleted, and then reinstated: "Writing vs. Typing."


From: Kits
I’m a regular teenager — my main worries in life concern how to explain several noticeably absent homework assignments; I’m slightly insane; and I just realized that maybe I’m not that normal at all. In any case, the main difference between the rest of the fanfic community and I lay in the method in which our ideas process themselves. Me? I prefer the old-fashioned way.
Now, you ask, what do I mean by old-fashioned? Well, I put my ideas (i.e. scribblings, scrawlings, strands of seemingly unrelated words that make sense only to the Creator) on paper.
There is something wonderfully quaint about curling up in a chair by your computer — while it takes an hour to load one page — and placing a pen to one’s notebook. In fact, the scene is only broken by screams of frustration when one of two things inevitably happens —
1. My computer (laughing malevolently inside despite my threats, bargaining, and outright pleas) refuses to access a much-needed website, saying I need some doo-hickey I’m pretty sure doesn’t exist, or…
2. My pen runs out of ink.
Though the latter may pale in comparison to the horrors of the first, rest assured that when faced with it, the second irritation holds its own quite well.
I often face other petty annoyance such as Mom interrupting my writing sessions with mundane things such as “chores”, my cat suddenly finding my favorite poem so interesting she feels the need to shred it, or the world ending. How is the average writer to face such tribulations? Why, I ask, why does anyone need to add to these troubles by writing with pen and paper?
My personal preference for the conservative method has no reasoning (logical, anyway) behind it; truthfully, it goes against any rational pattern of thinking.
I have no idea how fast I can write, but I’m fairly certain that my typing (somewhere from 80-90 words per minute) passes my shorthand any day. So, the logical thing to do would be to type my theories on the world and whatnot, but when I attempt to do so, I am more often than not faced with a blank screen.
Nobody ever accused me of being logical.
When I revert to my preferred method, however, it much resembles a bottle of cheap wine being uncorked—some unidentifiable substance splashes out; in this case, blots of ink (the unidentifiable holds true in both cases). As you read this, I am probably poring over one of my
half-finished stories, trying to fathom what the devil “hjiembo” is.
With all my suffering and ranting over this old-fashioned notion, why do I continue to do so? Some would say because I am an idiot without a lick of common sense, which might very well be true, but I much prefer a well-known quote to answer the present query:
The world may never know.
So there you have it. I originally wrote this on two pieces of paper, filling both sides of the first, and the front of the second, essentially answering nothing, whereas typing it only took up one page, again, essentially answering nothing, but I still haven’t deserted my pen and paper. The reasoning behind this still eludes me.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:

Please visit last month's Microphone to view all comments.


From: Guardian (alaiguardian@yahoo.co.uk)
Nice column! Just grabbing on to your 'irregardless' comment - it may be admittedly a blunder, as dictionary.com tells us, but the fact that it's set in dictionaries shoves it wholly into the English language. You can be a stickler all you want for grammar, but it's not a mistake to consider it colloquial language in the use of someone's dialogue. You might want to mention that that makes it pretty much one of those rare abominations of English language that you can use freely... irregardless.
(Try smacking down on the REALLY stupid words. Like 'pulchreditude'.)

If I find out what that word means, I will most certainly attack it. "Irregardless" is colloquial, I admit. I picked on it . . . well, because it annoys me . . . Still, you only hear it used in America . . . I contend that it is in fact NOT part of the English language - it's part of the American language. So . . . anyone who wants to use it is free to - it's just that a lot of people don't even know . . .
Thanks for your input, Guardian
Autumndark



From: Teya (teya1020@yahoo.com)
Great first column! I enjoyed.
A couple of issues, though... I'm a middle-aged professional writer; I'm cantankerous and always have issues.
Divine Revelation? No such thing. First drafts are first drafts and should *always* be revised. Even poetry. While it may be hard to believe this now, wait a few years and then read back what you once thought was absolutely perfect. You'll be amazed at how incredibly trite or awkward or gloppily sentimental you could be.
I recently pulled out an old poem I'd written during my freshman year of college. It wasn't bad, but it certainly didn't sing the way I'd once thought it did. However, I did really like the first image, even if I didn't like the way it was worded:
dark dark indigo fades to morning
dawn caresses his back, sets fire to his hair...
I rewrote it as:
darkest indigo fades to morning
dawn brushes the curve of his spine
i want to watch awhile longer..
And I was off! Twenty minutes of scribbling and a few days revision later, I had a brand new poem--one far more powerful than what I'd begun with.
I firmly believe that editing is real writing. A first draft just gets it out. Editing is where the details come in, where you make things concrete. And I'm a firm believer in spending at least one rewrite reading aloud. It's the easiest way to catch clunkers and cliches.
Writer's block. I'm a professional writer, the daughter of a professional writer. We get blocks, too. Everyone does, no matter what creative field you're in. Anyone who tells you otherwise is in complete denial or outright lying. What pros know is that the block will pass. So we continue to sit at the computer pounding the keys. Or we take a vacation or a walk. Or we rent a movie that inspires us. Or we go to the gym and work out. Seriously. Regular exercise keeps the brain functional.
I loved your suggestion to write fanfiction. Although, I do have a warning. It may become an obsession. I was going through a block a few months back. The screenplay I was working on at the time had me stymied. I decided to take myself clear out of the 16th century and head to the 24th--I wrote a couple of Star Trek fanfic pieces. And then I found I was more interested in that than I was in the screenplay. So I set the screenplay aside for a time. The interesting thing was that I found the two lead characters I was writing turned out to have a lot in common. Writing my 24th century character gave me insights into the 16th century character.
Which is, I suppose, the point I'm getting to. Professional writers get blocks. We just know that it doesn't matter so long as you write *something*.
Keep up the good work and... keep writing.
Teya

Well, to a reasonable extent, a lot of the statements I make are sarcastic. It's really the way I am - e.g. I don't completely subscribe to the Divine Revelation Theory, or I wouldn't offer to edit poetry . . .
Still, I suppose that I should have made clear that I'm no point-blank authority (I added a disclaimer, see top) on the writing world - I'm just one member of it, and I'd like to share some ideas with the rest.
So . . . you may well have been more helpful than I was, Teya, but thanks for the positive comments!
Autumndark


I did originally include a section here to thank the people who sent me comments and material - but . . . I sorta realized that it took up more than three pages . . . so never mind. Thanks to all of you.


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand . . . you made it through Issue #2! Hope you enjoyed it. Come back soon, and PLEASE send your stuff in!



Autumndark

THE WRITER'S ATTIC
ISSUE ONE: DIVINE REVELATIONS


Welcome to THE WRITER'S ATTIC. . .

Writer, in this case, refers to professional. Attic refers to a place where a writer would keep all the junk they don't need anymore.

About me: I'm Autumndark, from fictionpress.com; my personal livejournal can be found at http://www.livejournal.com/~autumndark, and some selected writings can be found at http://www.fictionpress.com/~autumndark.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

White’s Statement:
Don't lose heart . . .
Owen's Commentary on White's Statement:
. . . they might want to cut it out . . .
Byrd's Addition to Owen's Commentary on White's Statement:
. . . and they want to avoid a lengthy search.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BOOK OF THE MONTH:

Deep Secret, by Diana Wynne Jones

- True Diana Wynne Jones - high fantasy, with a touch of science fiction. Written in first person, which is fairly unusual for fantasy. Not for the easily confused, but otherwise a fantastic read. Her best yet, in my opinion.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE WRITER'S WORKBENCH:

Today's topic doesn't really have an all-encompassing title, because I took a couple things I meant to talk about and mushed them together. Thus, we have three subsections today.



I. The Ever-Dreaded English Class

Originally, I planned to make this issue about writing for school. That was before I realized two things. One, this issue would then be spectacularly boring, and Two, I have absolutely no authority on this subject. All I can say is - don't use me as your role model.

So, instead I fell back on the "ever-dreaded" English lesson as a good place to start. Let me explain.

While I utterly love and adore English class, I hate being given very specific guidelines. "Five hundred words or less" is one of my pet peeves. Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever said anything particularly useful in five hundred words or less. I also hate being given a specific topic to write about (e.g. "Compare Macbeth and Macduff as foil characters"). I understand that this is necessary training for later life, but it just irks me. I love writing as a creative process - where you can create a whole world, or just a dusty little attic corner - an entire society, or the mind of a madman. Yeah, you get the point.

This isn't really helping anyone yet, is it?

My point is that you should never be afraid to step outside the guidelines. By the end of last school year, I was so fed up with assigned writing that I took all the guidelines for the last essay we were given, put them in the blender, and flushed them down the toilet. I.e. - I ignored them. The result was the best essay I'd written all year.

While your English teacher may stress the point, you don't HAVE to write a five paragraph essay - and you don't HAVE to have three pieces of evidence per paragraph. While these are good if you're struggling a little, for the writer who knows what he/she wants to say, they can be hellishly frustrating. So . . . ditch them. Think outside the box. If your teacher objects, he/she probably isn't that great anyway. Sometimes, it's not the grade that matters, but the writing and the thought.



II. The Divine Revelation Theories and Its Fallacies

Apart from the too-many-essays problem, I had a reasonably good English year. It was during the poetry unit that I first found out about the Divine Revelation Theory.

The theory states that any piece of original, fictional work (poem, story, etc.) that you put down on paper is perfect in its first form. I am a firm believer in some aspects of this theory.

Poetry -
I wholeheartedly support the Divine Revelation Theory for poetry, which is the context it was first applied in. I cringe at editing my poetry - while I probably can make it better, the first draft feels somehow sacred to me.

Stories -
The Divine Revelation Theory, however, does not apply to prose. At least for most prose. Personally, I have three or four short stories that were revealed to me in perfection. However, anyone who read the first draft of Games of the Knife (now up in edited form) knows that it was absolute crap. So here's the scoop:

While not everything needs revising, everything can use revisiting. If editing's not your cup of tea, here are some options:

1. If you have a fanfiction.net profile, put up a note for an editor. Chances are, you'll get one.

2. If you have the English teacher who doesn't mind you bending the rules a little, he/she would be a good person to ask for feedback.

3. Have a parent edit—or a friend. I know that personally I’m a little reluctant to show my writing to my parents. I get the opinions of friends a lot. Friends—if someone gives you their work to read, don’t just tell them “it’s good.” Tell them honestly what works, what doesn’t, and what you would do differently. They won’t hate you for it—and if they do, it’s their problem anyway.

4. This one is my favourite! Send it to The Writer's Attic, a.k.a. me! While not everything will get included in the column (see The Editor's File Cabinet, below), I'll try to at least give feedback, if not thorough editing, to whatever I get.

So . . . in short, my advice is: don't overuse the Divine Revelation Theory. Often, reluctance to edit can be mistaken for a Divine Revelation. Don't be fooled. Keep on your toes. However, bear in mind that there are, occasionally, Divine Revelations. You must learn to spot them.



III. Writer’s Block

Ah, the dreaded Writer's Block. After careful investigation and meticulous research, I have discovered that there is no such thing as Writer's Block. It simply doesn't exist.

WHAT?

For professional (published) writers, of course. Writer's Block is a disease of the amateur. I should know. I'm suffering from it at the moment.

A little background history, which no one will be interested in (skip right ahead, if you wish): I've always wanted to be a writer. I didn't start telling people until last year, but it's the truth. Lately, however, my dream seems to be paling. Up until sixth grade, I was constantly getting new ideas for stories, short and long. But recently . . . my ideas have become few and far between, as though my brain is slowing down and preparing to shut off completely. You could say it worries me a little. My theory is that too much schoolwork is stifling my creative processes. Scary, isn't it? Let's face it - I may be a good student, but I've never been particularly ambitious. Naturally, I'd like to change the world for the better, but all I need is to be able to do that while working in a coffee shop somewhere and writing in my free time. I've become terrified, lately, that that just isn't going to cut it. The idea of actually having to work in a real job is frightening. Basically, my point is that I'm terrified. And it's all because of that sneaky, resourceful little disease called Writer's Block.

I envy those of you who don't have this particular albatross around your neck. Anyway, for the readers who do, a few of the tricks that seem to send it into remission (for a time, at least) follow:

1. Read anything you can get your hands on. Absolutely anything, as long as it doesn't bore you so much that your brain shuts off permanently. Don't be afraid to borrow ideas from other writers - those ideas will help you build your own style, eventually.

2. Take out a pen and paper and write down whatever pops into your head. Don't describe anything around you - just write down your thoughts. This will get your ideas flowing - and oddly enough, it may give you an idea for a new story.

3. Do you write fanfiction? Take one of your favourite fanfics (written by you, of course) and turn it into an original story. This may involve simply changing a few names - it may include changing motives, jobs, creatures . . . have fun with it. You may just create something great.

4. If you don’t write fanfiction, try it for a change. It gives your brain a rest, since you don’t have to create character, relationships and settings—merely situations and plots.

5. Go to a mall and do some peoplewatching. If you're going to follow somebody around, don’t make yourself too obvious. Pick one person that strikes you as interesting, and then decide what their name should be, what they do for a living, what motivates them, how old they are - anything you can think of. Next, go to the food court and take a seat. Listen carefully to the conversation of the people next to you, and write down anything they say that seems odd, out of place, funny, cool, or totally random. Anything that catches your interest. Next, try to imagine a situation where the character you created earlier says one or more of those things. Guess what? You just imagined your first scene. Now just keep on going. This type of non-planned fiction can turn out - well, pretty cool!


Okay, now that we've established that there's no particular point to this column, let's get on to the fun stuff. I'm aware this issue's Writer's Workbench was a little boring - it won't be so bad next time . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY:

This month's topic: The Fashion Scene

As a girl in today's society, I resent the sexism present in everyday life - i.e. clothing. I mean, I don't consider myself fat (most of the time), and I never felt like I was until I started doing my own clothes shopping. Honestly, who the heck are those "smalls" for? The two percent of the population who are thinner than my locker? (Just for the record, that's really narrow.) The answer is - no. They're for me. And that, in itself - is a scary thought.

The fashion for girls these days is anything tight. Jeans as tight as possible (they’ve even eliminated back pockets for this purpose), short shirts, strapless tops, halters, tanks, backless tops . . . what is this? Why should we have to sell our bodies like this?

The fashions for guys these days - baggy pants, loose, long shirts, usually long plaid overshirts . . . apart from the fact that I'm getting sick (and actually, as my friend Sam would know, a bit scared) of plaid, anyone notice a trend? If girls have to "show off" their bodies, why don't guys? Only girls should have to sell themselves short? We should worry about how we look, because that's all anybody notices? And nobody realizes how sexist the whole thing it. It drives me mad. And if you don't wear the tight crap, people think you're fat or something.

Who really cares anyway? Why do people bother spouting all the "it's what's inside that counts" stuff if they're not prepared to follow it. Face it - people are rarely asked out because "they're beautiful inside."

Adults don't do anything about it either. Take a look at your school's dress code sometime soon. Typical rules - no bra straps showing, no halters, no backless tops, no shirts that bare your midriff, etc, etc, etc. Wait a minute? Do any of those apply to guys? I didn't think so. They don’t even have the courtesy to tell them to pull up their damn pants . . . Guys, you may think it's cool, but not every girl wants to know what kind of boxers you wear.

As you might have guessed, I could go on about this for hours. However, it's getting kind of late, so I'll move on.

If you wish to share your views on this topic, please email your comments - I'll include them in next month's issue.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE GLOSSARY:

I was going to type up a list of character prototypes for fiction, but then I decided this was already too boring an issue, so I'm going to go for one of my pet peeves - certain Americanisms . . .

"Why, in America they haven't used it in years!" - Henry Higgins, on the subject of the English language (My Fair Lady)

I'll go after two commonly used phrases today . . . these little beauties always get my back up.


1. "I didn't used to do it!"

This phrase, quite simply, is not English. God, it jars . . . yeesh. Since I'm not a grammarian, I can't explain why it doesn’t work in technical terms, but that's okay, because most people probably wouldn't get it then anyway. Basically, the problem is that the verb "did" (in this case, with the helper "not") is not compatible with the verb "used." I.e. - they cannot modify one another. It's just not allowed. So, unless you're writing a typical American character, don't have them use this phrase. Alternatives? There are several.

"I used not to do it."
"I never did it before."
"I didn't do it before."

I bet you can come up with a few more. Stay away from putting "did" and "used" next to each other, that's all.


2. "Irregardless of that . . . "

"Irregardless" is not a word. The word you are looking for is plain old "regardless." The saddest thing is that my spellchecker, set to "English (US)" doesn’t catch that.
The root word of this abomination is "regard," which is defined in the following ways:

1.To look at attentively; observe closely. She regarded him seriously.
2.To look upon or consider in a particular way: I regard him as a fool.
3.To hold in esteem or respect: She regards her teachers highly.
4.To relate or refer to; concern: This item regards their liability.

When people use "irregardless," they’re usually trying to say "In spite of . . . "

Here's the deal. You only need one of the little "oppositing" prefixes. In this case, it happens to be a "postfix." Just like you would say "bloodless" to show a lack of blood, you would use "regardless" to show a lack of regard. If you put the additional "ir" in front of the work, you're using a double negative . . . which means that there actually IS regard. Oh, dear!


As you might have guessed by now, I'm a bit of a grammar freak. I'm the only person I know who actually speaks English (not American). I get teased for saying "can't" with an "ah" instead of an "aa", and for spelling "colour" and "favourite" the way I do. Still, somebody's gotta do things the English way, and I'm quite willing for it to be me! So next time you almost let "I didn’t used to . . ." or "Irregardless . . ." pop out of your mouth, think of me, think of me fondly (another bad one!) and don’t do it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



INSOMNIACS CENTRAL:

Aha! I actually have a challenge for this week . . .
Sit down somewhere where you can be quiet for twenty minutes or so, and write down whatever pops into your head. Not only is this a good way to get your ideas flowing, this kind of exercise can often end up somewhat amusing. To whit - my example:

You get a couple dozen kids in a room, and you think you have chaos. Uh-uh. I know chaos. Chaos is what goes on inside my mind. Chaos is my life.
Yeah, right.
Actually, my life is just as mundane as the next person's. More so, probably. Seems that way to me, at least. My only claim to fame - or unordinariness, if you will, is the fact that I have all nine alleged symptoms for BPD. Don't ask what is stands for. It's more impressive when you don't know. It's one of those mental things, you know . . .
Okay, so probably most of the people I know think I'm crazy. Hey, Rapunzel is dead! I mean, that whole witch thing couldn't have happened that recently. So - it's not my fault you think I'm crazy. At least, I don't think it is. Sure, I have my share of foul-ups - more than my share of tumbles, definitely, but that's just the way I make up for actually being a very boring person.
I am boring. I should know. I know me better than anyone else. I'm always tagging around after myself. I somehow just can't seem to get rid of me. It's like this weird shadow, or something. Is it my fault the only really interesting things in my life are things I probably shouldn't - well, never mind.
They say children laugh four hundred times a day. It just has to be more. And adults? They say ten, but that can't be right either. I've only heard my father laugh about ten times in my whole lifetime, and I know he's normal. Right?



And then I went on to talk about an ill-fated shoe-kicking contest . . . which I'm sure nobody wants to hear about.
So, if you feel like it, send something in. I'll post three or four of the best ones next time . . . .aaaaaaaaaand . . . I think that wraps it up for this section.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE MICROPHONE:

Come one, come all! Send in your questions, comments, and suggestions on this first issue of the column. As long as they're constructive, they'll appear in this section in next month's issue. And as this has now become an exceedingly long column issue, I'll wrap it up for now.

Hey! You made it! Come back next time.



Autumndark