651

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

vern wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:
vern wrote:

Of course all bets are off if you write romance novels; they're all the same, lol.

No, vern, formula written romances are all the same. So are formula written mysteries. A + B =C. BORING. So, maybe it's sort of been done. Put your own spin on it.

Now, I'm gonna assume you agree with the rest of what I wrote in that post since you only took a stand on the last sentence; so, if that assumption is correct, then surely you must have smiled at least a little with the humor of that last sentence which is obviously diametrically opposed to what came before. Well, I thought it was kinda, sorta, maybe just a teensy bit funny anyway. Come on, work with me here. Take care. Vern

Actually, I did chuckle. And yes, I agree. I was suggesting getting outside the box, especially in those two genres which often get stuck in a rut. Point in case: 50 Shades. Book one was awful. Book two a bit better written, so I had hoped the author learned something. Alas, Book three was so predictable that I could have written it for her (And probably better) Of course, she is now the multimillionaire, so who am I to judge taste or lack thereof?

652

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

vern wrote:

Of course all bets are off if you write romance novels; they're all the same, lol.

No, vern, formula written romances are all the same. So are formula written mysteries. A + B =C. BORING. So, maybe it's sort of been done. Put your own spin on it.

So far, I haven't had to motivate myself. I just do it. I wake in the middle of the night sometimes and write. I can't commit to a NaNo type endeavor b/c I have a full-time job, not to mention all the other hats I wear. One way to keep ideas fresh is to read others & IF possible join a face-to-face writers' group. Talking and reading with others is inspirational. If you don't have a local writers' group, form one. And if you're totally isolated, you're in the best online site there is.

654

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

By no means, Dill, was I commenting on your possible health benefits. It was an observation contrasting the two gender "circumcisions." One does have benefits, though not always. But neither does it harm a man unless it's a botched job, which is rare. The other is completely without benefit except to keep women in line, away from any possibility of unfaithfulness.

655

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:
Jube wrote:

Male circumcision is widely used here in the U.S. …

And female circumcision is common in Africa.

I was making no judgement about the perceived rights and wrongs or pros and cons of mutilating the genitalia of children (for non-medical reasons); my point was only that these practices/customs/rituals/traditions which are part of the ‘normal’ and accepted cultural aspects of one society are completely alien and abhorrent to another culture that has no such practices.

However, upon the subject of circumcision and speaking personally; I am from a society and culture that does circumcise unless there is a specific medical necessity. So if a man came at my son’s penis or my daughters vagina with a knife, be he an official from a religious cult or not, I would defend the child with my life from what I’d perceive to be a maniac, a deprived sexual molester. It is just as unthinkable to me as if someone else cooked our family dog and served her up for a family meal.

Whilst in other cultures such would be normality.

I'm sure you mean a depraved sexual monster. (Though s/he might well be deprived as well.)

On this topic though, male circumcision does offer health benefits, as well as the fact that it is supposed to provided for better sexual relations. On the other hand, female circumcision (which is INDEED mutilation) is for the sole purpose of depriving a woman of sexual arousal and climax. It is to keep her subservient to males in those societies that practice it, much the same as creating eunuchs in ancient cultures so that there could be no possibility of a  relationship between female royalty and male servants.

656

(260 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Elisheva, yes and no. Yes, in regards to length of chapters. Longer ones take more points, but longer ones are 5000+ words. 2000 is average. Actually, poems take a good number of points to post b/c, as I was told, reviewers have to work harder to understand poetry.

657

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill, you're growing on me. That comment was sarcastically humorous, and I, in my emotionally dysfunctional state, laughed.

658

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:

Ancient gender stereotypes?

Of course if we conform to producing politically correct middle ground equality mush we'd be robbed of the power of great stories like 'Thelma and Louise' where real world sexism, machismo and sexist stereotypes deliver a prolific message upon those conditions.

Nowadays it is thought to be expected to produce a mixed gender, mixed sexuality, mixed race group of characters with at least one intelligent dominant alpha female and a slightly insecure yet sensitive metrosexual male.

The modern gender stereotypes are not real; they are the manifestation of liberal dreamers.

The world is a sexist, racist place where discrimination, machismo and feminism are as common place as people themselves. Sorry, but it is as true as human nature and your so called ‘ancient gender stereotypes’ walk amongst us, they work amongst us.

Write according to way it actually is, or the way you wish it to be, the choice is yours but don’t vilify those who write about reality.

Take a trip to the middle-east.

Wow! Finally! Nicely stated without the overtone of being (Even if you aren't) misogynistic. You are absolutely right about the world. We don't have to take a trip outside our living rooms. The reality comes to us via little screens, whether TV or computer or even iphones. So, yes! If you're writing about reality, tell it like it is. And if you're writing fiction or fantasy, do your damnedest to show the world you want to portray.

659

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:
Linda Lee wrote:

Dill's story got me thinking....Three weeks ago I began writing an entry for the superhero contest and grabbed something from my memory banks to depict the action between 2 kids in a warehouse. I'm in the middle of typing away about one of them leaping off a platform and I inexplicably burst into tears. And I don't mean I welled up, I exploded into a deep cry. Not only did it take me by total surprise at first, but it's very uncharacteristic for me.

I lost my brother about 8 months ago. He was still fairly young and it was unexpected. I didn't do a lot of crying. Mostly, I think because I was numb, and very distracted by having to tackle all the immediate concerns of my mother who'd been living with him. A few family members commented on my lack of visible mourning. I shrugged it off. I didn't need nor want to explain it to anyone even if I could.  Then during that writing session a few weeks ago, I came to the realization that the memory I was tapping into to depict those 2 kids in the warehouse was one of my brother and me.

That was the first thing I thought of when Janet first posed the question. I wasn't crying over what was written per say, I cried over a very real mental connection my brain made out of it. This time it happened to be tears, but I've had visceral reactions to writing that has challenged me, or angered me, or made me overly envious too. Sometimes it's fiction, other times not--the mental connection doesn't care, it just happens.

A touching story Linda and I am sorry for your loss. It kind of reminds me of a theory someone put forward on the old tNBW site; in that there is no such thing as pure fiction as we re-wrap our own real feelings and experiences into another guise.

Thank you, Dill, for finally seeing the point.

660

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:
Elisheva Free wrote:

Wow. I had no idea there were so many awesome female inventors out there. Thanks, Janet!

-Elisheva

Five? and one of them a 'world shaping' backless bra?

My God but you lot are clutching at straws.

Actually, it was me who invented the backless bra in haste and by accident during a fumble behind a carnival tent aged 16, inexperienced as I was in respect of the mysteries of lingerie fastening.

You want more? Research it for yourself. I've done enough. Frankly, this has gotten off topic. I believe the topic was about male to female ratios. To that, I say write what feels right.

661

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Elisheva Free wrote:

Wow. I had no idea there were so many awesome female inventors out there. Thanks, Janet!

-Elisheva

You are welcome.

662

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

You've received some good advice.

Thanks!

Someone needs an education:

Here are just FIVE of us useless, irrational, emotionally disturbed FEMALES who invented some very important things.

5 Female Inventors Who Changed Life As We Know It
We all know the names of certain famous male inventors throughout history, from Galileo to Alexander Graham Bell to Steve Jobs, but many women have also contributed groundbreaking ideas to science, technology, and our daily lives. Here are five female inventors whose innovations, both large and small, have improved our world in various ways.

Margaret Knight (1838-1914)
Margaret Knight was nicknamed "the lady Edison for her prolific inventions which included a safety device for textile looms, shoe manufacturing machines, a rotary engine and internal combustion engine, among many others.
Margaret Knight was an exceptionally prolific inventor in the late 19th century; journalists occasionally compared her to her better-known male contemporaryThomas Edison by nicknaming her “the lady Edison” or “a woman Edison.” Knight was born in York, Maine and was still a young girl when she began working in a textile mill in New Hampshire. After seeing a fellow worker injured by a faulty piece of equipment, Knight came up with her first invention: a safety device for textile looms. She was awarded her first patent in 1871, for a machine that cut, folded and glued flat-bottomed paper shopping bags, thus eliminating the need for workers to assemble them slowly by hand. Knight received 27 patents in her lifetime, for inventions including shoe-manufacturing machines, a “dress shield” to protect garments from perspiration stains, a rotary engine and an internal combustion engine.
Margaret Knight's patent for a machine that cut, folded and glued flat-bottomed paper shopping bags, thus eliminating the need for workers to assemble them slowly by hand.

Melitta Bentz (1873-1950)
Melitta Bentz was a German housewife who invented a coffee filter system in 1908 and founded a business that still exists today.
Have you ever wondered who to thank when you’re getting your coffeemaker ready for your first cup of the day? Coffee beans have been made into beverages since the eleventh century, but a German housewife named Melitta Bentz updated brewing for the modern world. At the turn of the 20th century, the usual method was to tie up the coffee grounds in a small cloth bag and place the bag into a pot of boiling water; the result was a bitter, gritty drink. Bentz came up with a new method. She put a piece of thick, absorbent paper into a brass pot with a few holes punched in it and poured the coffee through this two-part contraption, which trapped the grounds and allowed the filtered liquid to seep through and drip into a waiting cup. She received a patent for her coffee filter system in 1908 and founded a business that still exists today.

Caresse Crosby (1891-1970)
Mary Phelps Jacob, who later became known as Caress Crosby, revolutionized women's undergarments with her invention of a "backless brassiere."
Sometimes it takes a woman to know what other women really need. In 1910, Mary Phelps Jacob — later known as Caresse Crosby— was a young, educated socialite living in New York City. One day, feeling frustrated by the bulky and restrictive corset that women customarily wore beneath their clothing, she asked her maid to bring her two handkerchiefs, some ribbons, and a few pins. From these items she fashioned a lighter, more flexible undergarment that she called a “backless brassiere.” In 1914 she received a patent for her idea and a few years later she founded the Fashion Form Brassière Company to manufacture and sell her invention. She eventually sold her patent to Warner Brothers Corset Company, which began producing bras in large quantities. Women have literally breathed easier ever since.
Feeling frustrated by the bulky and restrictive corset that women customarily wore beneath their clothing, Mary Phelps Jacob patented this design for a lighter, more flexible undergarment.

Katharine Burr Blodgett (1898-1979)
Physicist Katharine Blodgett in the General Electric research laboratory in 1938. One of her most influential inventions was non-reflective glass.
Scientist and inventor Katharine Blodgett was educated at Bryn Mawr College and the University of Chicago. Then she became a pioneer in several respects: she was the first woman to receive a Ph.D in physics at England’s Cambridge University and the first woman hired by General Electric. During World War II, Blodgett contributed important research to military needs like gas masks, smoke screens and a new technique for de-icing airplane wings. Her work in chemistry, specifically in surfaces at the molecular level, resulted in her most influential invention: non-reflective glass. Her “invisible” glass was initially used for lenses in cameras and movie projectors; it also had military applications such as wartime submarine periscopes. Today, non-reflective glass is still essential for eyeglasses, car windshields and computer screens.

Stephanie Kwolek (1923-2014)
In 1965, Stephanie Kwolek created an unusually lightweight and durable new fiber which was later developed by DuPont into the synthetic Kevlar, which is used in everything from military helmets and bulletproof vests to work-gloves, sports equipment, fiber-optic cables and building materials .
Shortly after graduating from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Stephanie Kwolek began working at the chemical company DuPont, where she would spend 40 years of her career. She was assigned to work on formulating new synthetic fibers, and in 1965 she made an especially important discovery. While working with a liquid crystal solution of large molecules called polymers, she created an unusually lightweight and durable new fiber. This material was later developed by DuPont into Kevlar, a tough yet versatile synthetic used in everything from military helmets and bulletproof vests to work-gloves, sports equipment, fiber-optic cables and building materials. Kwolek was awarded the National Medal of Technology for her research on synthetic fibers and was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 1994

663

(7 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)

Again, I have to applaud your rant this time. But, of course, I'm not always politically correct.

664

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

j p lundstrom wrote:

Hey Dill, lay off. It's only natural to get so involved in your work it makes you emotional. You have to care about your characters to make them believable.  Then you put the whole thing away for a year or so, until you can be objective about cutting, changing and deleting stuff you once thought was golden. If you're still crying, put it away again.  JP

If you still cry, it's touched a real nerve. If the writer can't elicit emotion from the reader, then it's trash. Whether that emotion is grief, as in the excerpt I shared, or laughter or anger, doesn't matter. When I writer can feel the emotion of the character, that character becomes real. It's not mental illness--It's empathy. Get real! If you write a rape scene, and don't feel anger at even the fictitious villain, you need to re-examine yourself. If you write a scene in which your character has just made a crowd roar with laughter, and you don't think it's funny--It's not.

A writer is much like an actor. We get into character, often multiple characters. But when we walk away, we don't have multiple personalities. But while in the scene, we MUST feel the emotion we wish to convey. I'm proud to say that I've made myself cry, laugh, scream, sigh. So, if you think I'm crazy, just call me Sybil.

665

(7 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

I’m “exceptional”- a democratic term used to avoid the damning labels of “gifted” and “deprived” (which used to mean “bright” and “retarded”) and as soon as “exceptional” begins to mean anything to anyone they’ll change it. The idea seems to be: use an expression as long as it doesn’t mean anything to anybody.   -- Daniel Keyes, Flowers for Algernon

Oh, this time, Charles, I'm doing the happy dance about this post. I could not have said it better! I had a high school mate "unfriend" me on Facebook b/c I used the word retarded.

666

(342 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Ha! Just came up

667

(342 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

I know this has been asked before, but how dang long does it take from the time you publish a chapter until it shows up on the homepage? I know it's been over half an hour. Am I just impatient?

668

(9 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Do you honestly think there is something wrong in not getting an emotional response from some readers who do not emotionally respond to things as the author does?  For example, the author is an alcoholic and lover of matchbox cars, and his MC is an alcoholic and lover of matchbox cars. His careless daughter, who is spoiled by his wife, accidently destroys one of his cars, and  he is enraged -- the author shows us this by the MC's  words and actions -- terrifying the girl.  Just whose emotional response is the reader supposed to respond to; the alcoholic or the girl? Why is it not reasonable not to be responsive to either?

You just proved my point. Though you strive to be the ultimate stoic, you did respond.

Well, I probably annoy 90% of readers who begin to read my stuff, but I don't strive for that emotion. Of course, then there's cause to please no one to prove a point some truths don't please anyone.  Still, I have been disappointed in sharing the grief over a loss of a dog, a particular dog, only to find most just say get another dog.

Pets become like family. The loss of one is traumatic. Anyone who has ever had that kind of attachment won't say, "Just get another." Let's face it--Not everyone is capable of feeling any depth of emotion.

669

(9 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

I'd have to say the writer has written on level to elicit an emotional response--in this case, grief. At other times, I would hope to tug other emotions to the surface--joy, anger. If your writing doesn't get some sort of response from your reader, you need to go back to the first word and start over.

Do you honestly think there is something wrong in not getting an emotional response from some readers who do not emotionally respond to things as the author does?  For example, the author is an alcoholic and lover of matchbox cars, and his MC is an alcoholic and lover of matchbox cars. His careless daughter, who is spoiled by his wife, accidently destroys one of his cars, and  he is enraged -- the author shows us this by the MC's  words and actions -- terrifying the girl.  Just whose emotional response is the reader supposed to respond to; the alcoholic or the girl? Why is it not reasonable not to be responsive to either?

You just proved my point. Though you strive to be the ultimate stoic, you did respond.

670

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Tom Oldman wrote:

I think you mean "elicit an emotional response", although an illicit one would be interesting also. As I've gotten older, my illicit resonses have diminished quite a bit. smile

~Tom

Fixed

671

(9 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)

I'd have to say the writer has written on level to elicit an emotional response--in this case, grief. At other times, I would hope to tug other emotions to the surface--joy, anger. If your writing doesn't get some sort of response from your reader, you need to go back to the first word and start over.

672

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

What does it mean as a writer when you're proofing and start to cry over a scene you wrote?

I should think it differs dependant upon the circumstance. If it were memoir or non-fiction then I'd think it could be natural. If it is over a fictional scene they'd just invented then I'd say that the writer is emotionally dysfunctional

I'd have to say the writer has written on level to elicit an emotional response--in this case, grief. At other times, I would hope to tug other emotions to the surface--joy, anger. If your writing doesn't get some sort of response from your reader, you need to go back to the first word and start over.

673

(1 replies, posted in Writing Tips & Site Help)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … mp;theater

674

(2 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

It's worked pretty well in the past. Let's hope it does again.

675

(5 replies, posted in Romance Inc.)

SEX AND GOOD GRAMMAR                             

On his 70th birthday, a man was given a gift certificate from his wife.
The certificate was for consultation with an Indian medicine man living on a nearby
reservation who  was rumored to have a simple cure for   erectile dysfunction.
  The husband went to the reservation and saw the medicine man.
  The old Indian gave him a potion and, with a
grip on his shoulder, warned ‘This is a powerful medicine. 
You take only a teaspoonful, and then say:  '1-2-3.'   When you do, you will become more manly than you have ever been in your life, and you can perform for as long as you want."
The man thanked the old Indian, and as he walked away, he turned and asked :  “How do I stop the medicine from working?"
"Your partner must say ‘1-2-3-4,' he responded, "but when she does, the medicine will not work again until the next full moon." 
He was very eager to see if it worked so he went home, showered, shaved, took a spoonful of the medicine, and then invited his wife to join him in the bedroom.
When she came in, he took off his clothes and said:  "1-2-3!"
    Immediately, he was the manliest of men. 
His wife was excited and began throwing off her clothes, and asked:  "What was the 1-2-3 for?" 
And that, boys and girls, is why we should never end our sentences with a preposition, because we could end up with a dangling participle.