Writers' Bloc - Creative Writing Off Topic Thread

Kinski

It is an adjective, but I think you could allow yourself some creative license and use it as a noun. I presume that 'psychic' was just an adjective before it also became a noun denoting someone with purported psychic powers. As Toasterspark says, it sounds better.

pickarooney

In my day it was plain old telekinesis

Antilles

pickarooney wrote: »

In my day it was plain old telekinesis

Well is Bob teleniketic or a teleniketic then?

pickarooney

"A telekinetic" seems a bit reductive to me, as though it was the defining characteristic of Bob, who no doubt has other qualities. You might compare to 'a psychic' but that tends to refer to someone who uses this power for money, sort of a job title.

Well is Bob teleniketic or a teleniketic then?

Did you move the n and k around with your mind?

Kinski

Telekinesis is so much harder to fake though, so it wouldn't make for such a great job. Like you can call a psyhic hotline and they can bs you about your future, but what would happen if you rang Telekineticists Online and said you had some furniture that needs shifting? What are they gonna do?

coffee_cake

Kinski wrote: »

Telekinesis is so much harder to fake though, so it wouldn't make for such a great job. Like you can call a psyhic hotline and they can bs you about your future, but what would happen if you rang Telekineticists Online and said you had some furniture that needs shifting? What are they gonna do?

hire some movers

Kinski

No, I want to see it float!

coffee_cake

cart it off to the sea then :pac::pac:

pickarooney

Or put it on the stock exchange

Blush_01

Kinski wrote: »

Telekinesis is so much harder to fake though, so it wouldn't make for such a great job. Like you can call a psyhic hotline and they can bs you about your future, but what would happen if you rang Telekineticists Online and said you had some furniture that needs shifting? What are they gonna do?

Call Ghostbusters? Maybe they could move it around with their beam thing or something.

Kinski

I'd hire Ghostbusters just to get Bill Murray to call round...

FewFew

Kinski wrote: »

I'd hire Ghostbusters just to get Bill Murray to call round...

And Slimer? What would you do with Slimer? He's like a sidekick... but made of slime (hence the name.)

Antilles

Kinski wrote: »

Telekinesis is so much harder to fake though, so it wouldn't make for such a great job. Like you can call a psyhic hotline and they can bs you about your future, but what would happen if you rang Telekineticists Online and said you had some furniture that needs shifting? What are they gonna do?

I'm stealing this for a short story idea and there's nothing you can do to stop me!

Antilles

I'm in Dublin Airport. My flight's gate was supposed to close at 20:10 and now it's 20:13 and we haven't even been called yet. Grr!

pickarooney

Antilles wrote: »

I'm in Dublin Airport. My flight's gate was supposed to close at 20:10 and now it's 20:13 and we haven't even been called yet. Grr!

So your flight time was...


...mysteriously moved?

FewFew

pickarooney wrote: »

So your flight time was...


...mysteriously moved?

Human error does not compute

pickarooney

Just completed revision 10.0. Time to start working through some sort of editing checklist...

I gave Slaughterhouse 3/5 in the end. It picked up a bit around halfway through but was still a bit meh. Got around one-third way through DOTW so might finish that this week.

Kinski

Minor rant:

Here's a line people often trot out about the creative arts which annoys me: "Comedy is actually the hardest genre to do."

Really? So making people laugh is harder to do than making them think? Or moving them emotionally? In your day-to-day experience, which of the following do you do most easily: 1) making someone laugh by saying something funny; 2) making someone think by saying something original, insightful, and stimulating; 3) moving someone emotionally by making them fall in love with you.

Come on! It's much harder to get an audience to care about a character, or about an idea, than it is to get them to laugh at one.

Rant over/

Antilles

Kinski wrote: »

Come on! It's much harder to get an audience to care about a character, or about an idea, than it is to get them to laugh at one.

Neither is particularly easy, but I find it simpler to make a reader care about a character than to make the same reader laugh at a joke.

Maybe I'm just not very funny, but I do think there's a qualitative difference between cracking a joke in real life and writing comedy.

Kinski

Antilles wrote: »

I do think there's a qualitative difference between cracking a joke in real life and writing comedy.

That's true, and I wouldn't suggest that writing comedy is easy. But I also know that I found Kingpin hilarious, and I don't consider that a great film, or even a particularly good one. On the other hand, Billy Wilder's The Apartment made me laugh, and made me care about the characters, so that I do consider a great film.

Prose fiction almost never makes me laugh out loud. Though Lolita did. Nabokov's Humbert Humbert was so much funnier than his filmic representations.

JaneHudson

I noticed at the Listowel writers festival they had a prize for humorous essays, the one that won was pretty damn funny. I think it's particularly difficult to do it and keep it clean.

Blush_01

I think it's oversimplification to say that any of them are more difficult than the other. Everyone has their strengths, and everyone has their own perspective on things. I personally find writing anything vaguely humorous torturous, because I don't believe I'm funny. I find it much easier to "move" people than to make them laugh. I know someone else who posts here and his stuff is hilarious, and I have yet to read or hear him read something that doesn't have a strong vein of humour in it. Now, that doesn't mean his writing isn't moving in its own way, but his strength is comic.

Just my 2c.

I don't even like fudge, but I'm having ridiculous cravings.:o

Kinski

I suppose the point I'm making is this: it's easier to play for cheap laughs and succeed than it is to go for cheap sentiment and get away with it. Readers may tolerate, or even get a guilty kick from the former, but will probably be completely turned off by the latter. In that limited sense, comedy is easier.

FewFew

Kinski wrote: »

I suppose the point I'm making is this: it's easier to play for cheap laughs and succeed than it is to go for cheap sentiment and get away with it. Readers may tolerate, or even get a guilty kick from the former, but will probably be completely turned off by the latter. In that limited sense, comedy is easier.

I'd reckon the opposite, it's hard to get a cheap laugh in print, easy to get cheap sentiment. On screen or in real life I'd say the opposite, the emotion is too nuanced to be done by a crap actor, but even a mediocre comedian can get a laugh with a one liner.

Blush_01

Any advice on the fudge situation? Barr eating the stuff I don't think I'm getting away from it, and frankly I can't stand it. Ick.

coffee_cake

eat a bit and realise you hate it then youll stop wanting it?
or eat something else sugary

pickarooney

Do you have spare fudge? I like fudge and can't buy it here.

FewFew

Blush_01 wrote: »

Any advice on the fudge situation? Barr eating the stuff I don't think I'm getting away from it, and frankly I can't stand it. Ick.

Maybe turn it into something wonderful?

Blush_01

Picka, PM me your address and I'll send you some. It'll be the weekend before I get to post it though, just warning you.

I don't have any on me at the moment, but I'd eat it 'til I sickened myself if I did.

I think the only thing that will fix it is getting really horrifically drunk and honest. Maybe just eating some damned fudge would be better.

coffee_cake

i'm old today! yay!