Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - sceneTK421

Pages: [1] 2
Reading Excuses / Re: Stopping at a Green Light - 01/03/11 - scenetk421
« on: January 09, 2011, 10:23:05 PM »
I just ask what parts of it were excessively or affectedly sentimental because I had a teacher who would say, "Sentimentality, sentimentality, excessively or affectedly sentimental in my sentimentality." The play on the definition has stuck with me ever since.

Actually I didn't find any part affectedly sentimental. The piece as a whole is sentimental because of the relationship between this lonely demented man and his kind neighbors, also because of the theme of self sacrifice.

That is a very interesting perspective. I don't want to flog a dead ox here, but I would love to know what about the relationships make the whole thing sentimental for you. I could see that the comic books and such could be arguably sentimental (the nostalgia), but the other is very interesting to me. Help me understand this.

That clashed with the genuine if somewhat cliche'd emotions of the piece.

What are “cliche'd emotions”? Can you give me examples?

I am trying to get into the nooks and crannies and find out exactly where you're coming from and what exactly you mean, otherwise your critique could mean something completely unintended, ya know? Getting your insight will be a help to me and I appreciate it. Again thank you.

Thank you everyone who has taken the time to comment.

Reading Excuses / Re: Stopping at a Green Light - 01/03/11 - scenetk421
« on: January 08, 2011, 01:58:54 AM »
Thanks for clarifying  :)

Reading Excuses / Re: Stopping at a Green Light - 01/03/11 - scenetk421
« on: January 07, 2011, 10:18:07 PM »
But I also meant that the dry pulp-fiction narrative sort of clashes with the sentimentality of the piece.

Which parts did you find excessively or affectedly sentimental?

Reading Excuses / Re: Stopping at a Green Light - 01/03/11 - scenetk421
« on: January 07, 2011, 06:48:33 AM »
Thanks guys, for taking the time to read and critique my story. I thought everyone could do notes and highlights on pdf, sorry Renoard.

I will keep your comments close at hand when re-writing this piece. I have an urge to explain things in the story or intentions etc. because of some of the reaction to it, but I don't want to defend the thing and if it isn't clear within the writing, well that means I should probably take another look at it.

I wanted to ask though, Renoard, about a couple comments you had, because i didn't quite understand them.

Also the short Jewish narrator with the Brooklyn accent (Rod Serling) does nothing to promote the story.

Are you talking about Edvard or the omniscient POV? If you meant the third omni, are you just using a parallel to the Twilight Zone or you thought the narrator actually was short and Jewish and from Brooklyn?

The oddities of expression seemed odd to me, but I overlooked them as they suggested an obsessive character, or a non native speaker as writing.

Not sure what exactly you were referring to there. Which oddities? Which character is it? They came off as "a non native speaker as writing"?

Oh and fireflyz, I was curious what you meant here:

I'm not much of a comicbook fan, so I don't know if you're being accurate in your descriptions or just making it up.  Either way, I think you went a little overboard.  Especially in the first five pages there are alot of names thrown around.

Were you talking about the descriptions of the comic book that I went overboard on or with the names of the kids and the history of the comic and cards?

And one more fireflyz,

Also, towards the end the writing turned very passive and slowed it down considerably.

Do you mean the sentence structuring or the story structure?

Thanks again guys.  I appreciate all the time you have given.

Movies and TV / Re: Toy Story 3 *Spoilers*
« on: January 05, 2011, 11:26:17 AM »
It should win Best Picture. Not Best Animated Feature, BEST PICTURE.

Well, I guess it would have to win Best Animated Feature too then, huh?

Reading Excuses / Re: Stopping at a Green Light - 01/03/11 - scenetk421
« on: January 05, 2011, 11:17:14 AM »
Thanks akoebel, for reading my story and for your critique of it. Your time and thoughts are much appreciated. I will take everything you say into consideration when I rewrite it again.

Anyway, nice try for a first time, keep practising!

Although I do need to say it is not my first time writing a short story, hahaha, but thanks.

Howard Tayler / Re: Talent? Who needs talent?
« on: January 05, 2011, 10:28:19 AM »
Thanks, that looks like it would be a very helpful.

Howard Tayler / Talent? Who needs talent?
« on: January 05, 2011, 07:19:03 AM »
I came across Howard's lecture titled "Talent? Who needs talent?" on youtube. Just wanted to say that it is awesome. Thank you Howard, I wish I would have heard all this stuff when I was a bit younger, but good to hear now. You should all check it out here:

And, I just started Schlock from the beginning. Wonder how long it is going to take to catch up on 10 or so years of comics  :P

Writing Group / Re: Best. Word. Ever.
« on: January 05, 2011, 06:42:04 AM »
Great word, dhalagirl.

Writing Group / Re: Writing Prompts!
« on: January 05, 2011, 03:45:51 AM »
Writing Prompt 5.18: Start with hard science-fiction, move to werewolf romance.

(Excerpt from the novel)

       Nanotechnology is so clunky. Its true that without nanotech we wouldn't have The Explorers and without The Explorers we wouldn't have had e-nanotech and then we would never have had B. Gregory George Gaines pivotal book “The World Inside the Atom”, but that doesn't make the fact that nanotech is clunky any less true.

   I'll always remember when Gaines' book came out. It was all over the news and the nets with its suggested impossible thought of moving inside an atom. Then R. Portis Einstein actually did it. He keremerged the atom, looked inside it, then actually got inside it. And discovered the truth of the atom. It was a building block, sure, but it was also an entire universe, and it was nothing. It was why each thing was why it was. Which opened up the possibility of manipulating what was inside, to change what was outside. Because that's what we do. Us humans. We manipulate. And thus eatomtechnology was born.

   Of course there were groups that were against it, some religious, some not. Some said it was like dissecting God or it was a slight against him and his masterpiece of life. Some said that it was worse than splitting the darn thing and would destroy the whole world. Some thought it would open a gate to another world. Some thought it would save us all. When they announced that they would be applying it to humans everyone speculated on what this meant for us. How would it change the human? Where would this take us? What would we be like in the future?  It would eliminate disease, some said. It would eliminate obesity. It would make us live forever. It would this. It would that.

   Concerning the elimination of disease, that hope was only half true, but the half truth was better than the hope. It didn't destroy disease, eatomtech used it to make us stronger. The more diseases that you had, the stronger you became. It did eliminate obesity and braindisease. It made us all the best we could be. It opened up parts of our brains that we had never known. It added a hundred years to our lives. And most importantly, it didn't make us lose the individuality that some thought was inevitable.

   No matter how far you went down inside the atomiverse. Whether it be in the ekeyatoms or the lessor. We did not change. Which made a great argument for the evidence of the soul. Which, in turn, made some religious groups press harder with the atomists to delve deeper into the atomiverse and brought the late question of whether an atomiverse was filled with other beings. People predicted a lot of what went on after eatomtech was developed, what seemed like every result possible, but one result they could not predict was the werewolves. And one thing that I could not predict was how deeply I would fall in love with one of them.

I wrote this as 3 paragraphs originally, but it seemed to flow much better as 5

Writing Group / Best. Word. Ever.
« on: January 03, 2011, 10:51:20 PM »
So what is it?

What is your favorite word?

I am doing something interesting with words in a project I'm working on and would like some insight.

To start it off, my brother's favorite: onomatopoeia


Reading Excuses / Stopping at a Green Light - 01/03/11 - scenetk421
« on: January 03, 2011, 11:13:50 AM »
Hello everyone, this is my first short story on here.

Thanks for reading it.


Writing Group / Re: Writing Prompts!
« on: January 03, 2011, 01:20:20 AM »

Oh no, it's something I'm hoping to move into publishable territory. It's been with me a while.

Well, it definitely shows. Luck on that!

Manny- Thanks, I was trying to use my brain-pan.

Reading Excuses / Re: Email List + Submission Dates
« on: January 02, 2011, 07:44:36 AM »
I would like to submit a short story this Monday, is that cool?

Writing Group / Re: Writing Prompts!
« on: January 01, 2011, 01:11:56 AM »
Thanks madelste! I'm glad that you read it and I love that you loved it.  :D

Pages: [1] 2