Assignment # | Title |
1 | Sorry Vonnie, I’m just not jiggy with your sense of humor, dude! |
2 | Huh!? Vonnie’s got some nuggets o’ wisdom, you say? |
3 | If you get offended…PUT THE GOSH-DARNED BOOK DOWN!!! |
4 | Let’s do the time warp again!!! |
5 | The concentrated flavors of Jay Maisonville |
6 | I am the eggman, they are the eggmen. I am the Pilgrim, kookoo-kachoo!!! |
7 | This book be gettin’ pretty darn trippy |
8 | Teach me how to Vonnie |
9 | Us and Them |
10 | Bugs Trapped in Amber: Rachel’s Blog |
Monday, 18 April 2011
Recap
Hey Mr. Lynn, you might not be able to figure out right away which post is which, so here's a guide:
Let's Do The Time Warp Again!!!
The following story is true. More or less.
Jay walked into work on Saturday morning like he always did. The sun was beaming through the front windows of the Bulk Barn, casting a pleasant banana-yellow glaze upon the off-white cash desks. Jay looked to the left and saw Josh putting an empty shopping cart back into the cart bay.
"Good morning," said Josh insincerely. He was never sincere. Greeting people was merely an unconscious habit.
"Morning Josh, how are ya?" Jay asked enthusiastically.
"Meh," uttered Josh. "I've had better days. Natasha got mad at me for showing up to work late this morning."
"Um."
"Geez!" Josh shouted angrily as he shuffled out of the cart bay. "It's not my fault my sixteen-year-old car picked this morning to die!"
The old car was dead. So it goes.
Josh recomposed himself and cleared his throat. "Sorry, about that, Jay. You're probably wondering what I want you to do today, eh?"
"Um, yeah."
"Thought so. Natasha said to make sure that you go through the snack shelf this morning. All pretzels and some corn nuts can go out, and most likely the 89's, 50's, 51's, and maybe the corn chips. Last shipment was a big one." Josh yawned. "When you're done that, hop on cash for a bit."
"Kay."
"You really don't waste any words, do you Jay?"
"Not today."
Jay scurried to the stockroom. He always walked quickly at work, in the belief that it made him appear busier and more motivated than he really was. As soon as he closed that door to the stockroom, Jay took a step to the right and picked up the big ladder. Jay was not very strong, and he felt like he was doing some sort of stupid jig as he awkwardly moved the heavy ladder over to the north end of the room. Too tired to unfold it and use it properly, he leaned it up against the snack shelf and began to climb. The ladder was banana-yellow.
Although the snack shelf was only about three metres above the cold, hard floor, one needed to climb almost to the top of the three-and-a-half metre tall ladder to comfortably move boxes. Five steps up the ladder, Jay felt the ladder jiggle. His forehead and brow became cool and moist out of fear. Jay swallowed, looked down, and saw that one of the ladder's rubber feet was sitting on the corner of a crushed brown jujube box. The ladder would surely slip if he climbed any further.
Jay took a deep breath and averted his focus to the step beneath him. He took one cautious step down toward the safety of the ground, and the ladder lurched to the right. Jay's hands and left foot lost contact with the ladder as it cut through the air. By the time the ladder's angle with the ground decreased to sixty degrees, Jay's right foot came off of the ladder. He was falling.
His mind was racing much faster than he was falling. He was preparing himself to land on his back. Preparing himself for physiotherapy and weekly chriropractic treatment. Preparing himself for the possibility of becoming paralyzed and wheelchair-bound for the rest of his life. Preparing himself to hit his head. Preparing himself to lose conscious. Preparing himself to receive a nasty concussion and possibly brain damage. Preparing himself for the possibility of meeting Jesus in a matter of minutes. Preparing himself to look his Lord in the face and witness him say, "So it goes."
Once his mind was prepped and ready after that half a second of worrying, Jay closed his eyes and braced himself for the imminent shock of smashing into the ground. He held his breath and hoped for the best.
He hit the floor, but it gave surprisingly little resistance. So little resistance that it felt like Jay was hitting water. Warm, tropical water. Jay's body hadn't been rendered immobile from falling on his back after all, because he actually was landing in water.
Jay's body went fully under the surface of the water for two seconds before he came up to look around him. He realized that he had just leapt from a boat and was currently treading in the Pacific Ocean off of Floreana Island in the Galapagos archipelago. He had been here before, about eleven months prior to falling off that banana-yellow ladder in the Bulk Barn stockroom. On this day, March 19, 2010, he recalled that he had just finished prepping his mind for getting gobbled up by some horriffic sea monster.
He stopped looking at his surroundings and started seeing his surroundings. There was a white Ecuadorian boat anchored about three metres in front of him. There were fifteen of his schoolmates all around him, wearing their bright yellow flippers and snorkels. They were all having a blast, learning how to breathe under the surface of the salty water. Jay had narrow feet, and was forced to wear a pair of funky snot-green flippers, and quite contrarily to the rest, he was having a dreadful time learning to breathe below the surface. You only live once. May as well make the best of it, Jay thought in regards to his commencing snorkeling experience.
Jay began to kick his flipper-clad feet. He couldn't see his legs, but he envisioned them looking somewhat like a pair of scissors with blades made wholly of floppy rubber. His head was above the surface (out of fear for his snorkel filling up with the briny Pacific water), so he took note of a boy who was swimming rather close to him. A little too close.
The boy accidentally kicked Jay with his yellow flipper. This caused the boy to lift his head. "Sorry, dude," he said to Jay insincerely. Instead of putting his face back in the water, the boy gave Jay a look that seemed to say something along the lines of "you look absolutely hilarious, with your rubber legs, detached snorkel, and slender snot-green flippers."
That was me. I was there. I was that boy.
Slightly intimidated, Jay put the 'J' of his snorkel into his mouth, slid his goggles over his sunburned eyes, and dunked his face in the water. Scared that his snorkel, mouth, and lungs would fill with sea water, he decided that breathing out would keep him safe. Just like blowing bubbles through a straw, he thought.
When Jay lifted his head up, his outside environment seemed darker. He was no longer wearing goggles. He was no longer wearing a snorkel. He was no longer wearing his ridiculous flippers. He was no longer surrounded by his peers. He was no longer in Darwin's world. He was in Water World.
It was no longer 2010. It was 2003. His instructor was congratulating him on finally putting his face underwater for the first time.
Just like those crazy transvestites from Rocky Horror, Jay had done the time warp again.
Jay walked into work on Saturday morning like he always did. The sun was beaming through the front windows of the Bulk Barn, casting a pleasant banana-yellow glaze upon the off-white cash desks. Jay looked to the left and saw Josh putting an empty shopping cart back into the cart bay.
"Good morning," said Josh insincerely. He was never sincere. Greeting people was merely an unconscious habit.
"Morning Josh, how are ya?" Jay asked enthusiastically.
"Meh," uttered Josh. "I've had better days. Natasha got mad at me for showing up to work late this morning."
"Um."
"Geez!" Josh shouted angrily as he shuffled out of the cart bay. "It's not my fault my sixteen-year-old car picked this morning to die!"
The old car was dead. So it goes.
Josh recomposed himself and cleared his throat. "Sorry, about that, Jay. You're probably wondering what I want you to do today, eh?"
"Um, yeah."
"Thought so. Natasha said to make sure that you go through the snack shelf this morning. All pretzels and some corn nuts can go out, and most likely the 89's, 50's, 51's, and maybe the corn chips. Last shipment was a big one." Josh yawned. "When you're done that, hop on cash for a bit."
"Kay."
"You really don't waste any words, do you Jay?"
"Not today."
Jay scurried to the stockroom. He always walked quickly at work, in the belief that it made him appear busier and more motivated than he really was. As soon as he closed that door to the stockroom, Jay took a step to the right and picked up the big ladder. Jay was not very strong, and he felt like he was doing some sort of stupid jig as he awkwardly moved the heavy ladder over to the north end of the room. Too tired to unfold it and use it properly, he leaned it up against the snack shelf and began to climb. The ladder was banana-yellow.
Although the snack shelf was only about three metres above the cold, hard floor, one needed to climb almost to the top of the three-and-a-half metre tall ladder to comfortably move boxes. Five steps up the ladder, Jay felt the ladder jiggle. His forehead and brow became cool and moist out of fear. Jay swallowed, looked down, and saw that one of the ladder's rubber feet was sitting on the corner of a crushed brown jujube box. The ladder would surely slip if he climbed any further.
Jay took a deep breath and averted his focus to the step beneath him. He took one cautious step down toward the safety of the ground, and the ladder lurched to the right. Jay's hands and left foot lost contact with the ladder as it cut through the air. By the time the ladder's angle with the ground decreased to sixty degrees, Jay's right foot came off of the ladder. He was falling.
His mind was racing much faster than he was falling. He was preparing himself to land on his back. Preparing himself for physiotherapy and weekly chriropractic treatment. Preparing himself for the possibility of becoming paralyzed and wheelchair-bound for the rest of his life. Preparing himself to hit his head. Preparing himself to lose conscious. Preparing himself to receive a nasty concussion and possibly brain damage. Preparing himself for the possibility of meeting Jesus in a matter of minutes. Preparing himself to look his Lord in the face and witness him say, "So it goes."
Once his mind was prepped and ready after that half a second of worrying, Jay closed his eyes and braced himself for the imminent shock of smashing into the ground. He held his breath and hoped for the best.
He hit the floor, but it gave surprisingly little resistance. So little resistance that it felt like Jay was hitting water. Warm, tropical water. Jay's body hadn't been rendered immobile from falling on his back after all, because he actually was landing in water.
Jay's body went fully under the surface of the water for two seconds before he came up to look around him. He realized that he had just leapt from a boat and was currently treading in the Pacific Ocean off of Floreana Island in the Galapagos archipelago. He had been here before, about eleven months prior to falling off that banana-yellow ladder in the Bulk Barn stockroom. On this day, March 19, 2010, he recalled that he had just finished prepping his mind for getting gobbled up by some horriffic sea monster.
He stopped looking at his surroundings and started seeing his surroundings. There was a white Ecuadorian boat anchored about three metres in front of him. There were fifteen of his schoolmates all around him, wearing their bright yellow flippers and snorkels. They were all having a blast, learning how to breathe under the surface of the salty water. Jay had narrow feet, and was forced to wear a pair of funky snot-green flippers, and quite contrarily to the rest, he was having a dreadful time learning to breathe below the surface. You only live once. May as well make the best of it, Jay thought in regards to his commencing snorkeling experience.
Jay began to kick his flipper-clad feet. He couldn't see his legs, but he envisioned them looking somewhat like a pair of scissors with blades made wholly of floppy rubber. His head was above the surface (out of fear for his snorkel filling up with the briny Pacific water), so he took note of a boy who was swimming rather close to him. A little too close.
The boy accidentally kicked Jay with his yellow flipper. This caused the boy to lift his head. "Sorry, dude," he said to Jay insincerely. Instead of putting his face back in the water, the boy gave Jay a look that seemed to say something along the lines of "you look absolutely hilarious, with your rubber legs, detached snorkel, and slender snot-green flippers."
That was me. I was there. I was that boy.
Slightly intimidated, Jay put the 'J' of his snorkel into his mouth, slid his goggles over his sunburned eyes, and dunked his face in the water. Scared that his snorkel, mouth, and lungs would fill with sea water, he decided that breathing out would keep him safe. Just like blowing bubbles through a straw, he thought.
When Jay lifted his head up, his outside environment seemed darker. He was no longer wearing goggles. He was no longer wearing a snorkel. He was no longer wearing his ridiculous flippers. He was no longer surrounded by his peers. He was no longer in Darwin's world. He was in Water World.
It was no longer 2010. It was 2003. His instructor was congratulating him on finally putting his face underwater for the first time.
Just like those crazy transvestites from Rocky Horror, Jay had done the time warp again.
Us and Them
So I was listening to one of my favorite albums the other day (Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd), and something struck me as being relatable to Slaughterhouse-5: the song called Us and Them. I think it's a very nice song. It's not meant to be crazeh make-your-head-spin progressive/psychedelic RAWK like some other songs on this artful album. I believe it's a softer and sweeter song. The lyrics are as follows:
Here's a link for anyone who chooses to listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6qnMB7pOKA
I recall talking in class about the Germans' sympathy towards the Americans after the bombing, and that's really what this reminds me of. The first and second lines about the (assumed) opponents being just regular men, I like that. American or German, they're ordinary men. I see a connection in the third and fourth lines as well. Regarding Slaughterhouse-5, those lyrics could say something like 'Yeah, there's a war, but we don't necessarily hate our opponents as individuals and we don't necessarily want to hurt them, we're just doing what we're told in order to keep our country safe'.
The fifth to eighth lines, starting with 'forward he cried' has everything to do with the physical battles of WWII in my opinion.
Black and blue / And who knows which is which and who is who. / Up and down. / But in the end it's only round and round. If I connect them to Slaughterhouse-5, these particular lyrics can relate to the chaos Billy had to endure on the battlefield. 'Black and blue' can refer to injuries, and the following line can refer to picking up the bodies after a massacre. The two lines after, starting with 'Up...' and 'But...' can definitely refer to the sheer confusion and fear that soldiers and civillians alike were experiencing in WWII.
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words / The poster bearer cried. I like this line. In relation to Slaughterhouse-5, this could represent the fact that so many lives could have been spared if world leaders could have just played nice in the sandbox like little kids instead of shooting and bombing millions of the enemy country's citizens. War is political (ew).
Listen son, said the man with the gun / There's room for you inside. This is a nice line too. It kinda reminds me of those German folks who took care of the Americans after Dresden was transformed into 'Oz'. Those Germans probably didn't have guns, but they were technically the enemy of the Americans. They did something so nice and allowed the enemy to stay with them. LOVE IT!
The next segment of the song, starting with "I mean, it's not gonna kill ya", is spoken by a roadie. He could be blabbering on about anything, but while we're on the topic of Slaughterhouse-5, it could definitely pass as a war story for obvious reasons. Maybe like something that creepy Lazarro fella would say.
The next section is a difficult one for me to relate directly to Slaughterhouse-5 to be honest, but it is clearly about war and its goals.
The last verse, particularly the one about the price of tea and a slice, really speaks to me about the awful conditions and food rations faced by people like Billy, Vonnie, and the fater of the song's bassist and co-writer, THE Roger Waters.
This may sound like some crazy weird conjecture, but hey, I try. A possible connection between a book and a real song must be REALLY awesome for me to notice it! ^__^
Us, and them
And after all were only ordinary men.
Me, and you.
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do.
Forward he cried from the rear
And the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side.
Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who.
Up and down.
But in the end it's only round and round.
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
The poster bearer cried.
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside.
I mean, they're not gunna kill ya, so if you give em a quick short,
Sharp, shock, they wont do it again. dig it? I mean he get off
Lightly, cos I wouldve given him a thrashing - I only hit him once!
It was only a difference of opinion, but really...i mean good manners
Don't cost nothing do they, eh?
Down and out
It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about.
With, without.
And wholl deny it's what the fightings all about?
Out of the way, it's a busy day
Ive got things on my mind.
For the want of the price of tea and a slice
The old man died.
And after all were only ordinary men.
Me, and you.
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do.
Forward he cried from the rear
And the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side.
Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who.
Up and down.
But in the end it's only round and round.
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
The poster bearer cried.
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside.
I mean, they're not gunna kill ya, so if you give em a quick short,
Sharp, shock, they wont do it again. dig it? I mean he get off
Lightly, cos I wouldve given him a thrashing - I only hit him once!
It was only a difference of opinion, but really...i mean good manners
Don't cost nothing do they, eh?
Down and out
It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about.
With, without.
And wholl deny it's what the fightings all about?
Out of the way, it's a busy day
Ive got things on my mind.
For the want of the price of tea and a slice
The old man died.
Here's a link for anyone who chooses to listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6qnMB7pOKA
I recall talking in class about the Germans' sympathy towards the Americans after the bombing, and that's really what this reminds me of. The first and second lines about the (assumed) opponents being just regular men, I like that. American or German, they're ordinary men. I see a connection in the third and fourth lines as well. Regarding Slaughterhouse-5, those lyrics could say something like 'Yeah, there's a war, but we don't necessarily hate our opponents as individuals and we don't necessarily want to hurt them, we're just doing what we're told in order to keep our country safe'.
The fifth to eighth lines, starting with 'forward he cried' has everything to do with the physical battles of WWII in my opinion.
Black and blue / And who knows which is which and who is who. / Up and down. / But in the end it's only round and round. If I connect them to Slaughterhouse-5, these particular lyrics can relate to the chaos Billy had to endure on the battlefield. 'Black and blue' can refer to injuries, and the following line can refer to picking up the bodies after a massacre. The two lines after, starting with 'Up...' and 'But...' can definitely refer to the sheer confusion and fear that soldiers and civillians alike were experiencing in WWII.
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words / The poster bearer cried. I like this line. In relation to Slaughterhouse-5, this could represent the fact that so many lives could have been spared if world leaders could have just played nice in the sandbox like little kids instead of shooting and bombing millions of the enemy country's citizens. War is political (ew).
Listen son, said the man with the gun / There's room for you inside. This is a nice line too. It kinda reminds me of those German folks who took care of the Americans after Dresden was transformed into 'Oz'. Those Germans probably didn't have guns, but they were technically the enemy of the Americans. They did something so nice and allowed the enemy to stay with them. LOVE IT!
The next segment of the song, starting with "I mean, it's not gonna kill ya", is spoken by a roadie. He could be blabbering on about anything, but while we're on the topic of Slaughterhouse-5, it could definitely pass as a war story for obvious reasons. Maybe like something that creepy Lazarro fella would say.
The next section is a difficult one for me to relate directly to Slaughterhouse-5 to be honest, but it is clearly about war and its goals.
The last verse, particularly the one about the price of tea and a slice, really speaks to me about the awful conditions and food rations faced by people like Billy, Vonnie, and the fater of the song's bassist and co-writer, THE Roger Waters.
This may sound like some crazy weird conjecture, but hey, I try. A possible connection between a book and a real song must be REALLY awesome for me to notice it! ^__^
Bugs Trapped In Amber: Rachel's Blog
I chose to check out Rachel E's blog, cuz it's cool. (Sorry Judy, I can't do yours too because I don't have all the time in the world, but Ican see that you have some excellent material, good job mon amie :D)
http://bugs-trapped-in-amber.tumblr.com/rss
The Barking Dog
This is my favorite post on the blog, because I agree with the ideas within and I recall those conversations in class!
Rachel, you mentioned "I remember in class a few different ideas were brought up, one of which was that Vonnegut used it to signal that time still goes on, no matter what is happening."
For me, reading about that barking dog really snapped me into reality. I departed from that story, teleported back to Windsor, and was reminded that life and time and space just keep going on...they don't stop to see if the war victims are okay. Life and time and space, they don't care about you, they just keep going.
You also mentioned "there will always be something going on in another part of the world, and so, the dog will bark. If you are tongue tied because you’re meeting the most beautiful women (or most handsome man) in the world, life around you still continues, and so, a dog will bark."
This is so true, this is absolutely undeniable. All six billion people in the world are doing their own thing. No matter what's goin on with you, you're trying to start a relationship or cut your grass or watching TV or getting shot at in a war, life and time and space don't give a care about you, and neither do 99.9999999% of the other people in this world. EVERYTHING on this planet just goes on and on and on and on, and its not scared to move on without you.
It’s like this imaginary dog that is, as mentioned above, halfway across the world is a guard dog; bred especially for Billy Pilgrim. I think readers can identify with the idea of a guard dog barking, and it seems to be a better idea than a giraffe…well…I’m not even sure what sound giraffes make.
First of all, this is really cute and funny :P. The first sentence is kinda too deep for me, but I really like your thinking. And no, I don't know what sound giraffes make, but I WILL FIND OUT before I die!
Not only is this a very good blog post, but it's inspirational too! GIRAFFE NOISES FTW!
Vonnegut-Proud of Ashamed? Or Somewhere in Between?
I am full aware that I am to use these blog posts as launching pads for my own ideas, and I am free to disagree with them, but I agree with this post too. So I will just build on the ideas instead of contrasting.
In Slaughterhouse Five, I think Vonnegut expresses a positive attitude towards the German people.
Yerp, I like that. Lots of times in the book, the Germans do nice things for the Americans. Like when Dresden gets destroyed and the Americans go to that German Inn and accept the Germans' hospitality. Or when some of the Germans are sociable with the Americans and the Englishmen at the hospital. Or your own great example about when the Germans don't kill Billy and Weary on the spot, even though they could have.
I don’t think he makes them seem like horrible war fiends.
In my own very recent post, called Us and Them, I mention similar ideas. Ahahaha I love this line! The Germans aren't evil, Rachel, and they don't necessarily wanna kill and maim and shoot the individual American soldiers. They're just protecting their country and their leader's ideas :D. I agree with ya 100%.
I always felt like the American soldiers were the “bad guys” in the novel.
Yayuhhh. Especially when they party with the Englishmen at their shack, and they Englishmen aren't very pleased with the Americans' behaviour.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say the German’s are sympathetic, after all, it is a war, but they show a slight level of compassion.
I think I understand your thinking, but I actually have a slightly different opinion. I think the Germans really are sympathetic at times. They feel bad for the Americans, and they sometimes seemed to know and respect that these young men have dreams and lives and families back home.
Assimilation seems pointless to me, with assimilation, everyone seems to turn into carbon copies of one another
What a grand way to sum up assimilation. I never wouldda thought of something that great, 'carbon copies'. It's true!
Everybody Gets A Little Something...
When I first saw this title and read the first little bit, I was like, 'NO WAY!' but your ideas are presented in such a way that expresses an optimistic part of war, that it might actually have a function.
On the surface, like you say, war is just disgusting. The dirt and the blood and the bombings and the TERROR, ew, that's really scary!
Soldiers are educated about war in general, and about war techniques.
Yeah, that's true, but that wouldn't be important if there was just peace on earth. But yeah, optimistically, they can take these war skills to other wars.
Families are educated about the consequences of war.
I'm thinking they learn about terrible economy and they learn about survival skills. Tru dat, Rachel, and that is beneficial. Economy, in my opinion, is gross, and its more complicated than brain surgery and rocket science put together...(kinda like politics!!! -__-) and extra knowledge about this complex thing called economy could be beneficial to anybody! :D. And I'm sure that, during war, there are bomb drills and air raid drills and whatnot, those are useful too. I'd rather KNOW what do to in case of an air raid than NOT know what to do in case of an air raid!
And the government learns what to do, and what not to do when in a war.
Yes, they can learn from their own mistakes, and the mistakes of other g-g-ggovernments (GAH i hate that word!) Not even just about war, but they can take the lessons learned from war and apply them to other non-war political situations.
Then, when the war is over, prisioners of war recieve freedom.
Yeah, if they last that long (y). But if they don't, then they get death. A little something for everybody could be death! An end to suffering and fear!
Jobs are created because we need weapons and clothing and prepackaged food to send to the soliders who are fighting.
Yuppp, but when that war is over, we don't need to keep cranking out supplies and weaponry. But hey, a job is a job, temporary or not!
And, as evident by the baby boom after the second world war, war starts families!
LOL that's cute, love it Rachel.
Great post, great blog! :) (y)
http://bugs-trapped-in-amber.tumblr.com/rss
The Barking Dog
This is my favorite post on the blog, because I agree with the ideas within and I recall those conversations in class!
Rachel, you mentioned "I remember in class a few different ideas were brought up, one of which was that Vonnegut used it to signal that time still goes on, no matter what is happening."
For me, reading about that barking dog really snapped me into reality. I departed from that story, teleported back to Windsor, and was reminded that life and time and space just keep going on...they don't stop to see if the war victims are okay. Life and time and space, they don't care about you, they just keep going.
You also mentioned "there will always be something going on in another part of the world, and so, the dog will bark. If you are tongue tied because you’re meeting the most beautiful women (or most handsome man) in the world, life around you still continues, and so, a dog will bark."
This is so true, this is absolutely undeniable. All six billion people in the world are doing their own thing. No matter what's goin on with you, you're trying to start a relationship or cut your grass or watching TV or getting shot at in a war, life and time and space don't give a care about you, and neither do 99.9999999% of the other people in this world. EVERYTHING on this planet just goes on and on and on and on, and its not scared to move on without you.
It’s like this imaginary dog that is, as mentioned above, halfway across the world is a guard dog; bred especially for Billy Pilgrim. I think readers can identify with the idea of a guard dog barking, and it seems to be a better idea than a giraffe…well…I’m not even sure what sound giraffes make.
First of all, this is really cute and funny :P. The first sentence is kinda too deep for me, but I really like your thinking. And no, I don't know what sound giraffes make, but I WILL FIND OUT before I die!
Not only is this a very good blog post, but it's inspirational too! GIRAFFE NOISES FTW!
Vonnegut-Proud of Ashamed? Or Somewhere in Between?
I am full aware that I am to use these blog posts as launching pads for my own ideas, and I am free to disagree with them, but I agree with this post too. So I will just build on the ideas instead of contrasting.
In Slaughterhouse Five, I think Vonnegut expresses a positive attitude towards the German people.
Yerp, I like that. Lots of times in the book, the Germans do nice things for the Americans. Like when Dresden gets destroyed and the Americans go to that German Inn and accept the Germans' hospitality. Or when some of the Germans are sociable with the Americans and the Englishmen at the hospital. Or your own great example about when the Germans don't kill Billy and Weary on the spot, even though they could have.
I don’t think he makes them seem like horrible war fiends.
In my own very recent post, called Us and Them, I mention similar ideas. Ahahaha I love this line! The Germans aren't evil, Rachel, and they don't necessarily wanna kill and maim and shoot the individual American soldiers. They're just protecting their country and their leader's ideas :D. I agree with ya 100%.
I always felt like the American soldiers were the “bad guys” in the novel.
Yayuhhh. Especially when they party with the Englishmen at their shack, and they Englishmen aren't very pleased with the Americans' behaviour.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say the German’s are sympathetic, after all, it is a war, but they show a slight level of compassion.
I think I understand your thinking, but I actually have a slightly different opinion. I think the Germans really are sympathetic at times. They feel bad for the Americans, and they sometimes seemed to know and respect that these young men have dreams and lives and families back home.
Assimilation seems pointless to me, with assimilation, everyone seems to turn into carbon copies of one another
What a grand way to sum up assimilation. I never wouldda thought of something that great, 'carbon copies'. It's true!
Everybody Gets A Little Something...
When I first saw this title and read the first little bit, I was like, 'NO WAY!' but your ideas are presented in such a way that expresses an optimistic part of war, that it might actually have a function.
On the surface, like you say, war is just disgusting. The dirt and the blood and the bombings and the TERROR, ew, that's really scary!
Soldiers are educated about war in general, and about war techniques.
Yeah, that's true, but that wouldn't be important if there was just peace on earth. But yeah, optimistically, they can take these war skills to other wars.
Families are educated about the consequences of war.
I'm thinking they learn about terrible economy and they learn about survival skills. Tru dat, Rachel, and that is beneficial. Economy, in my opinion, is gross, and its more complicated than brain surgery and rocket science put together...(kinda like politics!!! -__-) and extra knowledge about this complex thing called economy could be beneficial to anybody! :D. And I'm sure that, during war, there are bomb drills and air raid drills and whatnot, those are useful too. I'd rather KNOW what do to in case of an air raid than NOT know what to do in case of an air raid!
And the government learns what to do, and what not to do when in a war.
Yes, they can learn from their own mistakes, and the mistakes of other g-g-ggovernments (GAH i hate that word!) Not even just about war, but they can take the lessons learned from war and apply them to other non-war political situations.
Then, when the war is over, prisioners of war recieve freedom.
Yeah, if they last that long (y). But if they don't, then they get death. A little something for everybody could be death! An end to suffering and fear!
Jobs are created because we need weapons and clothing and prepackaged food to send to the soliders who are fighting.
Yuppp, but when that war is over, we don't need to keep cranking out supplies and weaponry. But hey, a job is a job, temporary or not!
And, as evident by the baby boom after the second world war, war starts families!
LOL that's cute, love it Rachel.
Great post, great blog! :) (y)
Sunday, 17 April 2011
Teach me how to Vonnie
So, as we know, Vonnie has his eight writing rules. I agree with some, and I disagree with some. If I were writing a novel and someone wanted to "teach me how to Vonnie" and they reccommended that I use Vonnie's rules of writing, I would follow most of them. In this post, I will also speak of some authors who do and don't know how to Vonnie. I dislike Vonnie's writing style, but his rules do offer some good ideas.
Note: For those who don't know, "Teach me how to Vonnie" is a play on a song and dance move called "Teach me how to Douggie". When I say for example, "Steinbeck knows how to Vonnie", I mean that Steinbeck knew how to follow Vonnie's rule.
1. Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
I'll give Vonnie this one. I absolutely DETEST boring books where nothing happens. Thomas Hardy, the writer of Mayor of Casterbridge, and William Shakespeare, the writer of a whole slew of awful works, are notable wasters of my time. I wanna write a story where stuff HAPPENS, and where much of that stuff is INTERESTING or entertaining, where I don't spend pages and pages describing the most insignificant things like Hardy does, or where I don't spend pages and pages detailing things like moronic characters prancing around in the bush naked like Shakespeare does. We're all entitled to our own likes and dislikes, even when it comes to stories. Mayor of Casterbridge, Much Ado about Nothing, and Midsummer Night Dream all had awful and slow storylines. I want to create something with a heck of a lot more cowbell. And I definitely respect that books have to have slower or boring parts, but when the WHOLE book is slow and boring, that's not cool. If Vonnie were here today, I betcha he would agree with me. In Slaughterhouse-5, HE knew how to make stuff happen!
Rule #1: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Steinbeck, Lee, Huxley, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Shakespeare, Hardy, Orwell, Chandler
2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, could have definitely benefited from this rule, because all of his characters sucked in my opinion. It's always nice to have a relatable character that you can feel for and that you can hope for. If I were to write a novel or a short story, I would definitely use some of these root-able characters. As a reader, I have encountered characters who go through similar experiences that I do and who have similar ideas as I do. I also can appreciate and follow this rule because characters are the only reason why I read books; I didn't know books could have themes or ideas until the very end of grade 9, and even so, I can never see them, understand them, or agree with them, and I read too slowly and infrequently to understand any plots, so I GOTTA make some fun characters that deserve to be rooted for! As for Vonnie, I guess Billy was a root-able character for the times in the book where he looked just so pathetic, like his funny boots and his ripped coat and his 'muff'.
Rule #2: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Orwell, Steinbeck, Lee, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Huxley, Hardy, Chandler
3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.
Every character SHOULD want something. Nuff said, amigos. It makes dem characters more real if they want something.
Rule #3: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Huxley, Steinbeck, Shakespeare
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Lee, Chandler, Hardy
4. Every sentence must do one of two things -- reveal character or advance the action.
Nope, nope, and nope. I'm not jiggy with this one. What about setting and other little sentences to make the book more realistic? Vonnie himself breaks this rule nicely in Slaughterhouse-5. I clearly remember a few sentences at the end of a paragraph about a bottle of pop on the windowsill, and he spend two or three sentences describing it. Not champagne who was dead (so it goes) but a bottle of pop who did nothing for character or action. It was a nice homey setting sentence. In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley must have thought like I did here. Huxley didn't know how to Vonnie. There are other ways to make a fun story and show your style than just making every single thing totally related to character and action. Example, I would argue that Vonnie's catchy little "So it goes" does not forward either action or character.
Rule#4: DENIED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Steinbeck, Chandler, Lee
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Huxley, Vonnie, Hardy, Vonnie
5. Start as close to the end as possible.
Naw. I always like to know lots of character backstory, and I always like to watch plot(s) unfold slowly and carefully. I like plots and characters that make you wonder, and I think you need a nice long story to do this. (By long, I mean it has enough meat and potatoes in it, and is lengthy enough to enjoy carefully placed twists, deviations, etc). This is a difficult idea for me to explain, my apologies. As for good ol' Vonnie, he started so close to the end that he actually started AT the end itself! It's good to see he knows how to Vonnie and he knows how to follow his own rule.
RULE #5: DENIED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Steinbeck, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Lee, Huxley, Orwell, Hardy
6. Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them -- in order that the reader may see what they are made of.
I like this one, I really do. As a kinda-writer, it's definitely fun to do terrible things to characters, especially those you don't like. Sadism makes the characters come alive; doing terrible things to them allows them to change, and characters who change are potentially the funnest characters! Huxley was outright abusive to his characters, like John's sticky predicament, Bernard's unpopularity and birth defects, the DHC's secret exposed, Lenina getting turned down violently by John, Linda living on the Reserve...the list goes on and on. Orwell was quite a sadist too, with all the torture Winston endured at the end of the book, and all the health problems and stupid rules Winston had to put up with. Steinbeck made George make a very difficult decision...actually, one could say George had an extremely difficult life in general. And look at Lenny, being mentally challenged and always getting into all sorts of trouble! Now Vonnie? His scenes with crazy Lazarro were DEFINITELY showing his usage of this rule. Also, Billy has had his fair share of hard luck too, with being in a long, bloody, dirty war, and being in a plane crash, and all the time spent in the hospitals, and his conversations with Lazarro and the Professor...that poor guy.
Rule #6: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Huxley, Orwell, Steinbeck, Hardy, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Lee
7. Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.
My probably incorrect interpretation of this rule is that an author should know that the whole world isn't going to love their book, and many will hate it and scrutinize it and maybe even try to ban it. It is difficult to judge authors' following of this rule, but my knowledge of some of the authors we study have given me a decent understanding of who knows how to Vonnie for this one. My thoughts? I totally agree. If I were to write a book, I know it would be only for my own amusement, to put a creative spin on my thoughts, fears, ideas, hopes, experiences, and dreams. The one person I would aim to please would be Jay Pencaps. If some other bizarre soul would happen to like my book, then hey, bonus!
RULE #7: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Lee, Huxley, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: ???
8a. Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible.
As a SUPER literal/linear thinking reader, I NEED as much info as possible ASAP. I sometimes get lost when authors do this...but I usually get hopelessly lost when they don't. Steinbeck knows how to Vonnie here; in Mice and Men, he really told it like it was. Huxley actually knows how to Vonnie with this rule too, because he spent the first few chapters telling his story in such a way that taught the reader all about the world that the characters are living in. Orwell didn't know how to Vonnie with this rule, especially during the middle/end of the novel. I had no idea what was going on at almost any given time. Shakespeare's a big offender of this rule too. The language he uses is just beyond repulsive, and even aside from the stuffy language, I also have absolutely no idea what's going on at any given time, even when normal-talking people explain things to me. Hardy didn't follow this rule either. I didn't know that books could get sooooo boring, drawn out (and bad in general) until I read Mayor of Casterbridge. Chandler's another big offender, but I'll cut him some slack because The Big Sleep was a mystery novel. Now let's talk about Vonnie. I think he gave his reader TOO much information too soon. Like, starting with the end of the book and all that :(. He follows the rule, but not well.
RULE #8A: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Steinbeck, Huxley, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Orwell, Shakespeare, Chandler, Hardy
8b. To heck with suspense.
Nooooooo! I got a fevah, and the only prescription is more suspense! It's fun when books leave you waiting and wondering, it forces you to keep reading past your bedtime :P! Books with suspense make your heart beat faster when you read them because they're so interesting. Books without that suspense like Slaughterhouse-5, Mayor of Casterbridge, Midsummer Night Dream, and Much Ado About Nothing, and books with poorly executed suspense like Big Sleep and Brave New World didn't give me that quickened heartrate, they didn't make me wanna keep reading. When books are 100% predictable, they get boring. Why bother reading a book if you always know exactly what's going to happen next? Vonnie clearly doesn't believe in suspense, as demonstrated with his reference to Edgar Derby's death about a hundred times in the book, even at the very beginning.
RULE #8B: DENIED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Chandler, Hardy, Shakespeare, Huxley, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Orwell, Steinbeck, Lee
8c. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.
This is a toughie. I like suspense and unpredictability, but when it comes down to those crucial last few pages and the action is over, I can maybe do without those last few pages. And as soon as I typed that out, red sirens went off in my mind as I immediately thought of Huxley and Orwell. If you even removed the last paragraph of either 1984 or Brave New World, you'd be screwed. The last few pages of Slaughterhouse-5 were nothing new. Vonnie, I believe, followed this rule well because his story kinda never terminates. If you took the last few pages out of that infernal Mayor of Casterbridge, you'd be okay. And Shakespeare? Heh, the characters just all get married at the end anyways, anyone couldda told you that! The end of Mockingbird comes to mind for this one, ahh, the ending is just sooo cute, but I think one could do without it if talking about the overall story.
RULE #8C: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Hardy, Shakespeare, Lee, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Orwell, Huxley
Note: For those who don't know, "Teach me how to Vonnie" is a play on a song and dance move called "Teach me how to Douggie". When I say for example, "Steinbeck knows how to Vonnie", I mean that Steinbeck knew how to follow Vonnie's rule.
1. Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
I'll give Vonnie this one. I absolutely DETEST boring books where nothing happens. Thomas Hardy, the writer of Mayor of Casterbridge, and William Shakespeare, the writer of a whole slew of awful works, are notable wasters of my time. I wanna write a story where stuff HAPPENS, and where much of that stuff is INTERESTING or entertaining, where I don't spend pages and pages describing the most insignificant things like Hardy does, or where I don't spend pages and pages detailing things like moronic characters prancing around in the bush naked like Shakespeare does. We're all entitled to our own likes and dislikes, even when it comes to stories. Mayor of Casterbridge, Much Ado about Nothing, and Midsummer Night Dream all had awful and slow storylines. I want to create something with a heck of a lot more cowbell. And I definitely respect that books have to have slower or boring parts, but when the WHOLE book is slow and boring, that's not cool. If Vonnie were here today, I betcha he would agree with me. In Slaughterhouse-5, HE knew how to make stuff happen!
Rule #1: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Steinbeck, Lee, Huxley, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Shakespeare, Hardy, Orwell, Chandler
2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, could have definitely benefited from this rule, because all of his characters sucked in my opinion. It's always nice to have a relatable character that you can feel for and that you can hope for. If I were to write a novel or a short story, I would definitely use some of these root-able characters. As a reader, I have encountered characters who go through similar experiences that I do and who have similar ideas as I do. I also can appreciate and follow this rule because characters are the only reason why I read books; I didn't know books could have themes or ideas until the very end of grade 9, and even so, I can never see them, understand them, or agree with them, and I read too slowly and infrequently to understand any plots, so I GOTTA make some fun characters that deserve to be rooted for! As for Vonnie, I guess Billy was a root-able character for the times in the book where he looked just so pathetic, like his funny boots and his ripped coat and his 'muff'.
Rule #2: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Orwell, Steinbeck, Lee, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Huxley, Hardy, Chandler
3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.
Every character SHOULD want something. Nuff said, amigos. It makes dem characters more real if they want something.
Rule #3: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Huxley, Steinbeck, Shakespeare
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Lee, Chandler, Hardy
4. Every sentence must do one of two things -- reveal character or advance the action.
Nope, nope, and nope. I'm not jiggy with this one. What about setting and other little sentences to make the book more realistic? Vonnie himself breaks this rule nicely in Slaughterhouse-5. I clearly remember a few sentences at the end of a paragraph about a bottle of pop on the windowsill, and he spend two or three sentences describing it. Not champagne who was dead (so it goes) but a bottle of pop who did nothing for character or action. It was a nice homey setting sentence. In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley must have thought like I did here. Huxley didn't know how to Vonnie. There are other ways to make a fun story and show your style than just making every single thing totally related to character and action. Example, I would argue that Vonnie's catchy little "So it goes" does not forward either action or character.
Rule#4: DENIED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Steinbeck, Chandler, Lee
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Huxley, Vonnie, Hardy, Vonnie
5. Start as close to the end as possible.
Naw. I always like to know lots of character backstory, and I always like to watch plot(s) unfold slowly and carefully. I like plots and characters that make you wonder, and I think you need a nice long story to do this. (By long, I mean it has enough meat and potatoes in it, and is lengthy enough to enjoy carefully placed twists, deviations, etc). This is a difficult idea for me to explain, my apologies. As for good ol' Vonnie, he started so close to the end that he actually started AT the end itself! It's good to see he knows how to Vonnie and he knows how to follow his own rule.
RULE #5: DENIED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Steinbeck, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Lee, Huxley, Orwell, Hardy
6. Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them -- in order that the reader may see what they are made of.
I like this one, I really do. As a kinda-writer, it's definitely fun to do terrible things to characters, especially those you don't like. Sadism makes the characters come alive; doing terrible things to them allows them to change, and characters who change are potentially the funnest characters! Huxley was outright abusive to his characters, like John's sticky predicament, Bernard's unpopularity and birth defects, the DHC's secret exposed, Lenina getting turned down violently by John, Linda living on the Reserve...the list goes on and on. Orwell was quite a sadist too, with all the torture Winston endured at the end of the book, and all the health problems and stupid rules Winston had to put up with. Steinbeck made George make a very difficult decision...actually, one could say George had an extremely difficult life in general. And look at Lenny, being mentally challenged and always getting into all sorts of trouble! Now Vonnie? His scenes with crazy Lazarro were DEFINITELY showing his usage of this rule. Also, Billy has had his fair share of hard luck too, with being in a long, bloody, dirty war, and being in a plane crash, and all the time spent in the hospitals, and his conversations with Lazarro and the Professor...that poor guy.
Rule #6: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Huxley, Orwell, Steinbeck, Hardy, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Lee
7. Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.
My probably incorrect interpretation of this rule is that an author should know that the whole world isn't going to love their book, and many will hate it and scrutinize it and maybe even try to ban it. It is difficult to judge authors' following of this rule, but my knowledge of some of the authors we study have given me a decent understanding of who knows how to Vonnie for this one. My thoughts? I totally agree. If I were to write a book, I know it would be only for my own amusement, to put a creative spin on my thoughts, fears, ideas, hopes, experiences, and dreams. The one person I would aim to please would be Jay Pencaps. If some other bizarre soul would happen to like my book, then hey, bonus!
RULE #7: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Lee, Huxley, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: ???
8a. Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible.
As a SUPER literal/linear thinking reader, I NEED as much info as possible ASAP. I sometimes get lost when authors do this...but I usually get hopelessly lost when they don't. Steinbeck knows how to Vonnie here; in Mice and Men, he really told it like it was. Huxley actually knows how to Vonnie with this rule too, because he spent the first few chapters telling his story in such a way that taught the reader all about the world that the characters are living in. Orwell didn't know how to Vonnie with this rule, especially during the middle/end of the novel. I had no idea what was going on at almost any given time. Shakespeare's a big offender of this rule too. The language he uses is just beyond repulsive, and even aside from the stuffy language, I also have absolutely no idea what's going on at any given time, even when normal-talking people explain things to me. Hardy didn't follow this rule either. I didn't know that books could get sooooo boring, drawn out (and bad in general) until I read Mayor of Casterbridge. Chandler's another big offender, but I'll cut him some slack because The Big Sleep was a mystery novel. Now let's talk about Vonnie. I think he gave his reader TOO much information too soon. Like, starting with the end of the book and all that :(. He follows the rule, but not well.
RULE #8A: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Steinbeck, Huxley, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Orwell, Shakespeare, Chandler, Hardy
8b. To heck with suspense.
Nooooooo! I got a fevah, and the only prescription is more suspense! It's fun when books leave you waiting and wondering, it forces you to keep reading past your bedtime :P! Books with suspense make your heart beat faster when you read them because they're so interesting. Books without that suspense like Slaughterhouse-5, Mayor of Casterbridge, Midsummer Night Dream, and Much Ado About Nothing, and books with poorly executed suspense like Big Sleep and Brave New World didn't give me that quickened heartrate, they didn't make me wanna keep reading. When books are 100% predictable, they get boring. Why bother reading a book if you always know exactly what's going to happen next? Vonnie clearly doesn't believe in suspense, as demonstrated with his reference to Edgar Derby's death about a hundred times in the book, even at the very beginning.
RULE #8B: DENIED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Chandler, Hardy, Shakespeare, Huxley, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Orwell, Steinbeck, Lee
8c. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.
This is a toughie. I like suspense and unpredictability, but when it comes down to those crucial last few pages and the action is over, I can maybe do without those last few pages. And as soon as I typed that out, red sirens went off in my mind as I immediately thought of Huxley and Orwell. If you even removed the last paragraph of either 1984 or Brave New World, you'd be screwed. The last few pages of Slaughterhouse-5 were nothing new. Vonnie, I believe, followed this rule well because his story kinda never terminates. If you took the last few pages out of that infernal Mayor of Casterbridge, you'd be okay. And Shakespeare? Heh, the characters just all get married at the end anyways, anyone couldda told you that! The end of Mockingbird comes to mind for this one, ahh, the ending is just sooo cute, but I think one could do without it if talking about the overall story.
RULE #8C: APPROVED
Authors who know how to Vonnie: Hardy, Shakespeare, Lee, Vonnie
Authors who don't know how to Vonnie: Orwell, Huxley
Thursday, 14 April 2011
The Concentrated Flavors of Jay Pencaps
Genre
If I were to write a novel, it would definitely be science-fiction. I don't read often, but when I do, it's usually science-fiction. First of all, it is a very tolerable genre in my opinion. I've never seen a single one of those annoying little 'symbols' or 'themes' in science-fiction. If they are actually there, they play very nicely and stay hidden from me and possibly other very literal people. So if I wrote a sci-fi, I wouldn't have to bend over backwards thinking about 'symbolism' or 'theme' :D. (And if anyone dares to think that my novel would suck without this, I wouldn't write it for popularity or fame and fortune, I would write it for my own amusement.)
Also with sci-fi, I can create my own world. Design EVERYTHING from the weather patterns to the level of technological advancement to the government system to the culture to the social norms to the native species. And I can do it all by Jay-self, it's all up to ME!
Characters
My novel would contain all kinds of different characters. Each would have a concentrated element of Jay Pencaps. For example, I can think of an antagonist I've used in another story who I can bring over to this story. She's very disrespectful, apathetic, does WHATEVER she wants no matter the cost, and some people mistakenly figure she's a psychopath. She always feels the need to do the opposite of what is she is told to do, and trusts nobody's logic but her own. Now I certainly hope nobody will EVER perceive me as this kind of person, but this is actually a very concentrated flavor of Jay Pencaps. That is what I feel like on rare occasions, and in writing about it, I get to see how it would work. Like Vonnie said, I have to be a sadist and do terrible things to characters...characters like this one I am describing can really help out with the sadism. An example of this character in action is when she tells of a childhood experience, a school trip to the municipalLeadership Palace Leadership Palace
Another example of a character I have used before is a guy who's a huge fan of progressive music that I have called 'rough music'. He lives as an exile from his home continent in a small village on a neighboring continent with his two drug-addicted friends, but he doesn't do drugs himself. He definitely embodies a concentrated flavor of Jay Pencaps. I LOVE old progressive rock like Rush, Pink Floyd, E.L.P. and so on, and I also feel like a freak sometimes because I stay away from all drugs and alcohol.
And another character I've liked that I would use is a chick that’s head of a very unfair factory. She experiences a messy emotional breakdown after a stranger does something nice for her. This dynamic character eventually goes on to resign from her position. She embodies a concentrated flavor of Jay Pencaps because, just like myself, she has unfortunately become so used to people being so stupid and mean.
So enough about my characters, I could speak volumes about all the characters I could use. Once again, all concentrated flavors of moi.
Ideas
If I could go on a radio show today, I would put a death grip on that mic and scream at the top of my lungs "I LOVE LIFE! I HATE SHAKESPEARE! I HATE POLITICS! WOMEN are equal to MEN, GAY are equal to STRAIGHT, OLD are equal to YOUNG! I HATE POLITICS! PEOPLE ARE MEAN AND STUPID! AND I HATE POLITICS!" with a nice assortment of colorful swear words and other ideas that I choose not to mention in this blog post. But instead, I'll just write a novel and stick these messages in it :).
(Note: the following has absolutely no connection to Brave New World, it's an idea of my own I generated last summer.) The society in my world isn't totally lawless, there are some loose municipal 'Leaderships' who deal with taxes, major crimes, and stuff, but the world is lacking a government. In fact, the word 'government' is extremely offensive, and a popular inappropriate insult is to call someone a 'politician'. Even this idea is a concentrated flavor of Jay's mind. I hate politics.
My novel would be written from the perspectives of a few different characters, possibly including some non-heterosexual people, some women, some old people, some children, some folks of minority races...Though I don't belong to any of those demographic groups, I feel that on earth, all those demographic groups get discriminated against at times and it would be fun to write about their perspectives in a world where discrimination against them isn't so much of a problem.
If I were to write a novel, it would definitely be science-fiction. I don't read often, but when I do, it's usually science-fiction. First of all, it is a very tolerable genre in my opinion. I've never seen a single one of those annoying little 'symbols' or 'themes' in science-fiction. If they are actually there, they play very nicely and stay hidden from me and possibly other very literal people. So if I wrote a sci-fi, I wouldn't have to bend over backwards thinking about 'symbolism' or 'theme' :D. (And if anyone dares to think that my novel would suck without this, I wouldn't write it for popularity or fame and fortune, I would write it for my own amusement.)
Also with sci-fi, I can create my own world. Design EVERYTHING from the weather patterns to the level of technological advancement to the government system to the culture to the social norms to the native species. And I can do it all by Jay-self, it's all up to ME!
Characters
My novel would contain all kinds of different characters. Each would have a concentrated element of Jay Pencaps. For example, I can think of an antagonist I've used in another story who I can bring over to this story. She's very disrespectful, apathetic, does WHATEVER she wants no matter the cost, and some people mistakenly figure she's a psychopath. She always feels the need to do the opposite of what is she is told to do, and trusts nobody's logic but her own. Now I certainly hope nobody will EVER perceive me as this kind of person, but this is actually a very concentrated flavor of Jay Pencaps. That is what I feel like on rare occasions, and in writing about it, I get to see how it would work. Like Vonnie said, I have to be a sadist and do terrible things to characters...characters like this one I am describing can really help out with the sadism. An example of this character in action is when she tells of a childhood experience, a school trip to the municipal
Another example of a character I have used before is a guy who's a huge fan of progressive music that I have called 'rough music'. He lives as an exile from his home continent in a small village on a neighboring continent with his two drug-addicted friends, but he doesn't do drugs himself. He definitely embodies a concentrated flavor of Jay Pencaps. I LOVE old progressive rock like Rush, Pink Floyd, E.L.P. and so on, and I also feel like a freak sometimes because I stay away from all drugs and alcohol.
And another character I've liked that I would use is a chick that’s head of a very unfair factory. She experiences a messy emotional breakdown after a stranger does something nice for her. This dynamic character eventually goes on to resign from her position. She embodies a concentrated flavor of Jay Pencaps because, just like myself, she has unfortunately become so used to people being so stupid and mean.
So enough about my characters, I could speak volumes about all the characters I could use. Once again, all concentrated flavors of moi.
Ideas
If I could go on a radio show today, I would put a death grip on that mic and scream at the top of my lungs "I LOVE LIFE! I HATE SHAKESPEARE! I HATE POLITICS! WOMEN are equal to MEN, GAY are equal to STRAIGHT, OLD are equal to YOUNG! I HATE POLITICS! PEOPLE ARE MEAN AND STUPID! AND I HATE POLITICS!" with a nice assortment of colorful swear words and other ideas that I choose not to mention in this blog post. But instead, I'll just write a novel and stick these messages in it :).
(Note: the following has absolutely no connection to Brave New World, it's an idea of my own I generated last summer.) The society in my world isn't totally lawless, there are some loose municipal 'Leaderships' who deal with taxes, major crimes, and stuff, but the world is lacking a government. In fact, the word 'government' is extremely offensive, and a popular inappropriate insult is to call someone a 'politician'. Even this idea is a concentrated flavor of Jay's mind. I hate politics.
My novel would be written from the perspectives of a few different characters, possibly including some non-heterosexual people, some women, some old people, some children, some folks of minority races...Though I don't belong to any of those demographic groups, I feel that on earth, all those demographic groups get discriminated against at times and it would be fun to write about their perspectives in a world where discrimination against them isn't so much of a problem.
What the Public Should Learn
Something the public could learn about my novel is how meaningful a random act of kindness can be. I know it sounds cheesy, but teaching the public is not a great goal of the novel I’d write, ok? Maybe something else the public can learn is how fun it can be to tinker with a world where there is no strong government systems. Maybe something else I can put out for the public is trying to erase those stupid functionless rules such as ‘no hats in school’ and ‘put your knife and fork at on your plate when you’re done’ and ‘don’t walk on the grass’ and such.
Most of all, the public can learn about my interesting life’s experiences, because like Vonnie’s book, most of my novel will be true…more or less :P.
Friday, 11 March 2011
If you get offended...PUT THE GOSH-DARNED BOOK DOWN!!!
Can you write an awesome book without swearing or sexual content? I sure think so.
Though bad words and taboo thingies like sex and drugs can add to a story in my opinion, I'm fine without them, as are many other folks in Canada and Amurica. Some books like SH5 have been banned because of swearing and sex. I don't think that any book should be banned for any reason. If you happen to get offended by it, then DON'T READ IT. And don't try to get it banned...what's that gonna do, besides deny people a unique reading experience? It's not like anyone hasn't sworn or talked about sex before, why is it so different when you see it in print?
Regarding Vonnie's seemingly anti-Amurican-ness...I don't really have an opinion on that. He had freedom of speech, eh? Like I said, if someone gets 0ffended...put the gosh-darned book down!!!
Though bad words and taboo thingies like sex and drugs can add to a story in my opinion, I'm fine without them, as are many other folks in Canada and Amurica. Some books like SH5 have been banned because of swearing and sex. I don't think that any book should be banned for any reason. If you happen to get offended by it, then DON'T READ IT. And don't try to get it banned...what's that gonna do, besides deny people a unique reading experience? It's not like anyone hasn't sworn or talked about sex before, why is it so different when you see it in print?
Regarding Vonnie's seemingly anti-Amurican-ness...I don't really have an opinion on that. He had freedom of speech, eh? Like I said, if someone gets 0ffended...put the gosh-darned book down!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)