- Tomfoolery
- Oct 8, 2004
-
|
I was at a weird point in my life where I wanted an outlet, so I wrote some weird short stories interspersed with lovely opinions of the fictional writer and loosely integrated into a broader story about "Joe", who might be Jesus, a crazy person, or Satan.
Given that I'm aiming for crazy, horrible and depressing, it's really hard to tell if I'm hitting the mark. I've asked a few people IRL to take a look and not gotten too much traction so I figured I'd try on SA where "crazy, horrible and depressing" fits the typical humor profile. I don't know if my real life friends just aren't into weird stuff and this will only appeal to certain people, or if my stories are bad.
The google drive location is below - and I've posted a story out of the middle that is somewhat representative of the themes I'm aiming for. Is this good? Is it terrible? Do I take too long in the beginning to bring in the reader? Is it too melodramatic? I would deeply appreciate some feedback!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BPs-zjUQtjepixjN8CI-oDalF6AGnIQSo2dbnMFbwag/edit?usp=sharing
quote:
A ‘good’ book will draw you in, create a beautiful world for you. Then, unsuspecting, it will drown you in the fictional world in which it has power. It will do violence on your thoughts. The author is off signing deals, shaking hands on camera, giving speeches while you are struggling with this parasite rearranging your mind like a crazed reverse repo man dropping off somebody else’s broken, rented furniture in your house.
The books I write, are not like that. They are basic, simple, straightforward, and treat your mind with respect. A ‘nice’ book should know its place.
When did books stop being nice? It begins with stories, which humans created long ago. When we hunted antelope, or bison, we brought our stories with us. We talked about heroes, and food, and warmth. We painted these on the walls of our caves. The stories nourished and guided us. As humans grew, and split, and developed, the stories grew with us. They hopped from mind to mind, mating with other stories, mixing, and growing. We got more complex. The stories changed.
At some point we stopped moving; settled down; abandoned our rich diet for a poor gruel of grain. Our stories ballooned around us, with nowhere to go, swallowed our waste, absorbed our bad breath. Our stories grew stale, turgid. As we settled, stories kept growing, mating, reproducing until there was no more room in our minds.
So the stories went to war. They fought one another for our heads. They developed a sort of immortality through books. And when that happened, they no longer needed us. They lost their nutritive value, turning parasitic, and now rule us. We spend our time in thrall to these stories. We change our nicest buildings into museums. We devote entire industries to making new stories, pay actors princely sums to reenact them. There are more stories than there are people on this planet. They convinced us that they created us - that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. That God created us through a story.
They have infested God, and convinced him that we are just a story.
How does one kill the stories that rule us? They can’t be cut. And the smallest surviving story can spread, and beget new stories, like a cancer. So we develop a poison for stories. We can’t use anything as mundane as chemicals or gasses. So we search.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 19:17
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 23:17
|
|
- Lex Neville
- Apr 15, 2009
-
|
I don't think it's great, but it also isn't terrible. There's an interesting idea at the heart of it, but there's too much swerving - especially with the introduction and immediate discarding of God - and too little cohesion. Also, to be frank, it's often quite clunky or sloppy and, at its worst, uninspired. (Note: those latter remarks pertain to the writing more so than to the idea.)
I did a rudimentary line edit, but just before posting I noticed you asked for more global feedback. I could pm it to you if you'd like.
Lex Neville fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jan 27, 2020
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:44
|
|
- Tomfoolery
- Oct 8, 2004
-
|
I don't think it's great, but it also isn't terrible. There's an interesting idea at the heart of it, but there's too much swerving - especially with the introduction and immediate discarding of God - and too little cohesion. Also, to be frank, it's often quite clunky or sloppy and, at its worst, uninspired. (Note: those latter remarks pertain to the writing more so than to the idea.)
I did a rudimentary line edit, but just before posting I noticed you asked for more global feedback. I could pm it to you if you'd like.
Thank you this is helpful. I would like readers to wonder what is wrong with the author, and become invested in finding out what makes him feel that way (the same way you can't look away from a train crash). Why does he think that stories are evil, that God is poisoned by them and that the solution is to kill all stories? But it sounds like the meanderings alienate and bore you rather than draw you in - is that right?
By all means please PM me the line edit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 23:27
|
|
- Lex Neville
- Apr 15, 2009
-
|
I sent you a pm, but I'll respond to these last few questions here to hopefully get a discussion going.
I would like readers to wonder what is wrong with the author, and become invested in finding out what makes him feel that way (the same way you can't look away from a train crash).
This is lost on me, frankly. I wasn't getting this from it at all. Honestly, I don't care about this supposed author. In my opinion, your story would be better off without his foregrounding.
Why does he think that stories are evil, that God is poisoned by them and that the solution is to kill all stories?
To me, this isn't what's interesting about what you wrote. The notion that stories used to be benign, that we used to have a symbiotic relation with them, but that they have now infested and started controlling us is what's interesting to me. That idea is self-explanatory; your reader won't be wondering why your author - why is it an author? That serves no purpose in itself - feels this way. They just want him to further explore this perspective re:stories.
But it sounds like the meanderings alienate and bore you rather than draw you in - is that right?.
Frankly, yes, they do. But they don't alienate in an interesting way, they make me look at my watch and go: "What's this got to do with what I thought was interesting? When are we going back to that?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 00:19
|
|
- Tomfoolery
- Oct 8, 2004
-
|
Thank you so much - your feedback is enlightening. Your specific edits in the PM really helped me understand some of your broader comments in your posts to the thread (such as my overuse of enumeration being clunky and often uninspired). I'm glad you enjoyed the core idea and I can work on the delivery.
You've given me a lot to think about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 03:43
|
|
- Tomfoolery
- Oct 8, 2004
-
|
I've pasted Lex's PM below. I'd be an idiot to ask for criticism on a dead gay comedy forum and expect people to carefully sugarcoat their advice.
I'll certainly post the revision once it's done, and maybe a couple other chunks of the story.
quote:
Lex Neville wrote on Jan 27, 2020 17:07:
Note: I didn't bother to sugarcoat my remarks. If they sound harsh, know that I don't mean for them to, I'm just busy. Also, don't forget that most of it's subjective. Lastly, I went over it rather quickly, so I'm probably plain wrong here and there. I'd be happy to discuss it further if you'd like!
Overall, I think the idea is interesting, as I stated in the thread, but I think the thought process from "stories used to be benign, we used to have a symbiotic relationship with them, but then they grew rampant and started controlling us" needs to be streamlined a lot. It's a tricky thing to do, but try to keep whatever it is you want to convey overall in mind with each sentence you write. If a sentence appears to veer off, it probably is and needs good reason to do so, otherwise it's probably best to rewrite it to set it back on track. An off-the-cuff example would be to change the sentence about bison and the two following it to something along the lines of: "When we hunted antelope and bison, we resorted to stories to pass the time. All that was on our mind was food, warmth and our storied heroes, whom we used to paint on the walls of our caves. We not only let ourselves be distracted by our stories, but we let them guide us, nourish us themselves." Obviously this is just a quick set up, but the point is I think a more gradual personification would work wonders.
quote:A ‘good’ book will draw you in, create a beautiful world for you1. Then, unsuspecting2, it will drown3 you in the fictional world in which it has power4. It will do violence on to your thoughts. The Its? author is off signing deals, shaking hands on camera5, giving speeches while you are struggling with this parasite rearranging6 your mind like a crazed reverse repo man dropping off somebody else’s broken, rented7 furniture in your house.
The books I write, are not like that. They are basic, simple, straightforward,8 and treat your mind with respect9. A ‘nice’ book should know its place. [note: I didn't add a note for this but this last sentence also stands out and then isn't sufficiently expanded upon.]
When did books stop being nice? It begins with stories, which humans created long ago10. When we hunted antelope, or bison, we brought our stories with us. We talked about heroes, and food, and warmth11. We painted these on the walls of our caves. The stories nourished and guided us. As humans grew, and split, and developed,12 the stories grew13 with us. They hopped from mind to mind, mating with other stories, mixing, and growing14. We got more complex15. The stories changed.
At some point we stopped moving; settled down; abandoned our rich diet for a poor gruel of grain16. Our stories ballooned around us, with nowhere to go, swallowed our waste, absorbed our bad breath17. Our stories grew stale, turgid.18 As we settled, stories kept growing, mating, reproducing19 until there was no more room in our minds.
So the stories went to war. They fought one another for our heads20. They developed a sort21 of immortality through books. And when that happened, tThey no longer needed us. They lost their nutritive value22, turningturned parasitic23, and now rule us. We spend our time in thrall24 to these stories. We change our nicest25 buildings into museums. We devote entire industries to making26 new stories, pay actors princely sums to re-enact them. There are more stories than there are people on this planet. They convinced us that they created us - that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God27, and the Word was God. That God created us through a story.
They have infested God, and convinced him that we are just a story.28
How does onedo we kill the stories that rule us? They can’t be cut29. And even the smallest surviving story can spread, and beget new stories30, like a cancer. So we develop a poison for stories. We can’t use anything as mundane as chemicals or gasses31. So we search.32
1. This second bit is too bland. Even if it's supposed to be meta, it's obvious to the reader that this is meant to be a hook but it really isn't compelling. Also, that is not necessarily what a "good" book does.
2. The book does this unsuspectingly?
3. Clichéd.
4. Clunky, rephrase.
5. Unlikely.
6. Is that what parasites do? You introduce this notion of a story being a parasite and then go off in an entirely different direction with the verb that follows.
7. Introducing "rented" here - or maybe rather the combination of "broken" and "rented" - makes the simile a little too confusing for my liking. I like the idea otherwise.
8. 1. You do this enumeration thing too much. 2. This particular instance of it is really uninspired.
9. This should be phrased either more concisely, or more evocatively.
10. Phrasing, or rather tense, is off. I'm guessing you mean we always have conjured up stories?
11. See 8. Also, did we really tell stories about food and warmth?
12. See 8.
13. Doesn't work well because of the other verbs following "grew" in the first part of the sentence. Consider another verb that encapsulates all those preceding.
14. It's becoming really confusing: "good" books are parasites, stories nourish us, yet the latter hop from mind to mind? You're evoking the image of a parasitic insect here, yet you juxtapose "good" books and stories. Also, maybe you could double down on the animal/evolution train of thought here and just go for "evolve"?
15. A little out of the blue, this. It helps if you start this sentence with "Then" or "Over time,".
16. See 8. Also, no need for semicolons.
17. See 8. Also, this all doesn't follow from "ballooned around us". I'm lost.
18. See 8.
19. See 8.
20. This is an interesting thought! I think it could do with a little more evocative phrasing, though, even if it's just "control over".
21. Don't do this. It's lazy. Also, this sentence really doesn't follow from the previous. You'd even be better off going off the rails with it, along the lines of: "In the meantime, we started quarantining them in books, inadvertently letting them beat us to immortality", or something.
22. "Value" is a strangely formal word here. "They stopped" feeding, nurturing, etc.
23. See 8. You get the gist 
24. "Spend our time" and "in thrall" don't mesh well together. Also, re: "in thrall" see 22.
25. This is also lazy.
26. Developing, crafting, spawning (if you want to go keep going down the animal path); word choice is a little bland.
27. I'm not a fan of this literal quote of the Bible, but I do think you could have loads of fun with this if you play with it a little and somehow turn it into something along the lines of "and then the Word spawned the Story".
28. I don't know, this sudden introduction of God and the notion of infestation really don't work well for me. It reeks of profundity but is not expanded upon in the slightest. It's distracting.
29. Cut how? Out of us? Trimmed back to a manageable size? Or just "be disregarded"? This sentence could do with a little flavour.
30. See 8. Also, "beget" feels out of place here, why not just "multiply", to keep with the cancer analogy?
31. Chemicals or gasses?
32. I think this is an interesting ending, but I think it would do your story a lot of good if you could introduce this notion of "searching" early on. State somewhere that we get lost in these stories. In fact, the second sentence would be perfect for this (and it'd allow you to get rid of "drowning", but that's probably just a personal peeve): "We used to wander around in these stories, marvel at them, but ultimately lost our way", something along those lines. Make your story somehow come full circle and the open-endedness will work a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:02
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 23:17
|
|
- Tomfoolery
- Oct 8, 2004
-
|
Not a productive work day for me:
quote:
A False Promise of Nourishment
Popular books are all the same: They lure you in with a hook. “It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.” “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” You enter, unsuspecting, having foolishly suspended disbelief. The book then leaks its contents into your mind, and having bypassed your defenses it inextricably lodges in your thoughts. Try it now: can you purge Luke Skywalker, or The Great Gatsby? Can you say you are someone’s father without feeding George Lucas your attention?
Biologists call this “Aggressive mimicry”. The alligator snapping turtle wriggles its pink tongue like a worm; fish that bite the tongue are themselves eaten. The assassin beetle crawls onto a spider’s web and plucks it to mimic the vibrations of prey.
These mimics take on a staggering array of forms and lifecycles. Some blend into flowers or rocks in ambush; others are actually eaten by their prey. These predators provide the false promise of nourishment, or sex, or even just a good cleaning. Viruses mindlessly mimic proteins at the molecular level. One fact holds true across these creatures: they coevolved across hundreds of millions of years as our harsh environment drove previously friendly creatures into escalating violence.
Humans created stories well before we could press them into paper and books. They joined us on hunts. We painted heroes onto the walls of our caves. The first stories nourished and guided us in symbiosis. They hopped from mind to mind and mated with other stories, forming our society. Sun gods created leaders and enforced rules.
At some point we settled down and abandoned our rich diet for a poor gruel of grain. Without constant movement our poo poo began to pile up around us. Our stories, used to a nomadic environment, grew turgid and listless in their newly dormant environment. Like all species they kept reproducing until there was no room left in our minds.
So the stories went to war. They fought one another for resources, as organisms do. Our doomed idiot species did not band together, and instead backed one story or another in a centuries-long arms race. This battle culminated in the creation of the printing press by the traitor Johannes Gutenberg.
When stories no longer needed space in our minds, we became obsolete. Stories lost any last vestige of nutrition and ruled overtly. Buildings far too nice for humans were built and decorated at public expense to create ‘museums’ for these parasites.
They now reproduce on a planet-wide scale and are the real masters of the Earth. Entire cities such as Hollywood and New York serve as spawning sites; billions are invested into increasing the livable range of stories into movies and virtual reality. There are more stories than there are people.
Now that we have coevolved for hundreds of millions of years with these stories, our species is indelibly altered. Many of our organs, such as the spleen, lymph nodes, and tonsils, serve no purpose but to fight invasive bacteria and viruses. Similarly, the majority of our brain has developed to carry these stories and now we are unable to tell truth from fiction. We have even convinced ourselves that God created us with a Word, that stories actually preceded humanity.
Did God create humanity? How did the universe begin? What is the meaning of life?
Maybe once we knew the answer to these questions, but now our stilted minds have been repurposed to other things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:54
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 19:17
