A Flurry of Feathers and Wings

Yes, I know, I can hear everyone staring at their screen going, "Well, d'uh." Shut up, I know, I know. Let me explain (or at least pull my foot out of my mouth).

( Clicky clicky )

Also this-



-is my new background. It is awesome. Done by the amazing Loish over on Deviant. Her gallery as well is full of awesome.

In my attempts to finish up the plot outline for Butterfly Massacre so I can finally start actually writing the damn thing, being spurred on by tangledaxon and her host of posts, I realize I haven't talked much about the characters. Or at least not anyone else besides Angela (I think that names gonna stick). The pretty-boy love interest, who still goes unnamed (I'm open to suggestions), has had a bit of words to his (unknown) name, but as he's not the focus in any respect I don't mind.

But then there's the geneuine love interest, because PRs always have to have love triangles. Dane (pronounced like the dog breed) is the male lead's guardian angel, tasked to protect the dunce for heavenly reasons; reason I still need to figure out. Not everyone has one (else they'd be everywhere) and he'll need to be special in some way to require Dane appearing as often as she does.

I mentioned in my random BM though list that while angels are androgynous, they do have sexual organs in either respect. So Dane is very much "female". I'm still trying to figure out some of her physical characteristics, primarially skin tone, but I get the general sense that she's fairly tall with short, slicked back white-ish/blonde hair. Something reminsient of Tilda Swinton from Constantine, only without the curly hair or the crazy.


^{"How insane are you right now?" Oh, I'm up there.}

Also my angels are described with double sets of wings and more phoenixesque coloring.

I'm also trying to figure out her basic personality as well. Stand-offish isn't the word I want; she's not cold, really, just kinda removed from it all. She's not human, so she doesn't care so much about that aspect of things beyond keeping her ward safe, but she's not a total bitch either to just let things go that don't immediately affect her. As a holy entity, she "loves all" but that doesn't mean she has to particularally has to like them all.

Somewhat according to rote, I think Angela is the one who falls first, and at least she recognizes it's mainly a physical attraction. Dane hits all the right notes for her; independantly strong (strength not tied to anyone expect herself), can handle herself in a fight, not bad looking, and a host of other little intangibles. I do think Angela will be the pursuer in any relationship they have, Dane is both not able to pursue a relationship due to duties and as it isn't love at first sight, won't immediately see Angela as anything more than a demon (admittedly a demon trying to do good).

There's more I may need or want to figure out, like how or if Dane wasn't always an angel, and various other little things that are gonna bug me as I come upon them. But for now, I think I might have enough to keep me going.

And for S&Gs, My Little Quetzalcoat

I'm not late to this party, just fashionably after hours. That, and I needed to figure out what my "rules" were, because it's not something I've thought heavily on before, but it makes sense to find out what they are.

1. While there are few, if any, truly bad ideas, that doesn't mean everything is meant to be written.

2. Know what and why you're writing.

3. Just because others have done it before you doesn't mean you can or should yourself.

4. Keep yourself open to ideas from anywhere, but know when to close yourself off so you don't overload your story.

5. Popular does not equal good. Good can stand on its own.

6. Reason and/or internal logic far outweighs throwing up the horns and screaming "OH YEAH, THAT'S AWESOMESAUCE" while a metal guitar solo plays in the background.

7. Keep a small notebook handy, you never know where that fleeting idea might be able to go.

8. If a story only has so much gas to go so far, don't decide to stop and push it a few miles in the middle to get a little extra distance out of it.

9. Tropes. Trope trope, trope trope trope. Trope-a-lope. Trope-a-nope-a-dope-a-pope.

They have their place, can be fun (for some), and may help when you're stuck; but don't rely on them for all your ideas or as something you have to mimic, replicate, or follow as the rule. Tropes (as tropes) are for after the fact, not to plan for.

When you think about it, writers have the potential to be some of the most evil people you know. Not all are going to, of course, some genres just don't lend themselves to it. But to the ones that do, the good ones, they're the kind that got called into the principal's office because they accidentaly left a notebook in class and a teacher got nosy.

It's part of the process of creating something that people will believe, thinking out the details. Not just for inherient world building or trival facts, but the who, why, and how of the villians/antagonists. You need to know how they'd go about doing whatever it is they do, so you have to think about how they'd go about doing it. You have to think about what they're going to do. You have to think bad.

Right now I've got Scarred taking up time and brain-space. I need to think of the walk-through of how Ryan goes about kidnapping women so he can forcibly cut the majority of their skin as to etch graphic art onto their skin; how does he keep them there; how does he care for them afterwards; what equipment does he use and how does he keep them from ruining the work? Just how insane is he? And going through it all, was I less a decent human being (and less lazy), this would be totally do-able.

I'm also having to figure out how to start my own criminal mafia empire from scratch when writing the Noir story (hey, remember that one?). How would I rise up, how do I keep my power, what kind of people do I employ? Where do I set up shop, when do I play my hand, when do I fold, how do I much to I tolerate disobediance? It's a very strange mindspace to have to think in terms of doing something unlawful with full intention of getting away with it.

For most, it's not always that big a deal. Their villian is the villian, s/he does villianious things and is defeated. Their actions only need to be vaguely described as to motivate the hero. But when the antagonist is an actual person (in the fleshed out sense), you can't just glance over them. Motives and history need to be explored, however much or little, to make them who they are so the reader can feel the same pity/sympathy/revulsion as you hope to instill.

And it doesn't always have to be a really bad thing either, it could just be a quick scheme. In Neil Gaiman's American Gods, there's an early scene where Mr. Wednesday dresses like a security officer and takes people's money that was meant for the ATM deposit box, under the guise that the machine was broken, helped along with the beginning of a snow storm. He made out with a few thousands dollars. Gaiman came up with this con uniquely for his book, having studied conmen and their ways, and came up with an original work.

Fast forward months after the book comes out; newspapers report a man dressed as bank security waited outside in the snow with a bankbag, taking people's money that was meant for the ATM deposit, and made off with several thousand dollars. Mr. Gaiman in the search for realism had created a crime so real that it could, and was, actually recreated in real life.

There are, I think, other instances of fictional crimes being recreated by real life people morons. I include movies in this circle as well, because at some point somebody did have to write that scene. And there are several accounts of stupid people who have repeated what they've seen in movies, and then tried to claim that it was the movie's fault.

The whole idea that writers go through it all is just kinda strange to think about. Because then your mind starts to wonder about the kind of person who takes the time to think about such things. Is it okay to think to deeply about how to commits horrible acts, even if it's only for a story? Then you wonder if you're kind of an idiot for worrying about something that's only ficitonal.

These are things I think about while trying to decide how one would best go about kidnapping a woman to use as a human etch-a-sketch.

I just realized the other day I was inspired by Hunter S. Thompson long before I even knew who the crazy coot actually was.

And it was only through comics and my love of them that I was introduced to that homage at all itself. Spider Jerusalem is a foulmouthed, anti-social, possibly sociopathic, definitely psychotic, seemingly limited in range but explosive in vocabulary, bald, tattooed journalist of the fantastic Vertigo comic series, Transmetropolitan. His style is written stream-of-consciousness, including whatever foul and disgusting and half-made up terms that happen to slip into his brain, while at the same time still seem thought out to the letter, profanity included.

It wasn't until I learned that Spider was based on an actual human being that I really became interested in things. I'd had a vague notion of who he was - or actually, a vague impression that a man with his name was alive, and was somehow associated with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, a movie I was only aware of on the peripheral of my pop culture conscious. To read his writing is to actually talk to the man, his words are as unfiltered as he can make them and still be allowed for print. He works within the confines of the opinion columnist, because there is really no way his work can be anything but; his opinion is the whole point you read his words to begin with.

Numerous others have been influenced by him, but that is not my point. His work has its impression on mine, but it is far from the only one. His is just foremost in my mind because I just read the entire ten volume series of Transmetropolitan in one day. Sue me.

At the exact moment, I could hardly name a direct other influence on my work and wordage, mainly because I realized something else about both; I can change my style. Not just in the matter of removing bias and opinion from something to make it more like a textbook, but I can emulate different forms of prose.

I can be painted purple, but rarely choose to do so because it rarely needs to be so. Beige is another color of choice, but again is rather lacking in hue. I can be verbose, cynical, empathetic, cold, calculating, angry, vapid, direct, obtuse, my range is both vast and great.

And it's strange to realize I can be so. Most people want to know their voice, know how they write so they can hone their work to a more usable weapon with with to strike with. My voice - blame on which I point at television and growing up with Looney Tunes and such others - does impressions.

Somewhere below is a short story I wrote after letting my hands and brain work long after I should have been in bed; it's direct and to the point, obscenely cold, mentioned to be "hardcore", and genuinely thought to be chilling and frightening - something I never thought I would be elated to hear, let alone accomplish without effort.

This now compared to another work in progress (found right here) where the narrator rambles unending, comes off as quite the dick, someone trying much to hard to be not so smooth, hiding much fear and tension, and plays it all like a giant game of life where he's playing with three different sets of rules for five different games.

My voice changes, and not just from puberty. I hardly think putting those two side by side would make a reader think they were written by the same hand. I could be mistaken, but to me, as the hand that wrote, the two look and sound nothing alike and feel themselves to be of two different people.

I like this.

One reason I enjoy writing, and one day hope to be paid embarrassingly large sums of money to do, is that I can indulge in changing the costume and accent of my self when I create. I may enjoy a genre, and then by my own characters immensely, but can feel free to change my hat and be somebody else at the drop of the old hat. From space western to mafia drama to fantasy horror, whatever idea strolls across my brain I can tackle and hogtie and later dissect, like a lab frog to find out what it's on about, and from there create new worlds that have nothing to do with anything else. Because a cowboy hat, while fitting on the same head, has an entirely different purpose from a plastic green visor that hides one eyes.

I writing more and more, which is encouraging, whether or not it's actually in story form; I'm actually being asked by others for my opinions on writing, mine and theirs, which is something I am overjoyed to be able to do so without having previously solicited myself in cheap clothing and cheaper makeup. And while I must tailor my voice to mimic theirs, I feel able to do so, because I grew up on television that taught me how to do so.

Bugs Bunny and friends may have taught me to speak with the voice and tone of the smart aleck, the slowness of George Lenny (long before I'd even heard of Of Mice and Men), Al Capone impersonators, slobbering cats, and horny skunks; Thompson, through the ink and primary colors of Jerusalem, taught me how to say "fuck" with them.

At some point I'm going to remember that I started this so that I could get my thoughts down, not to bottle them up and think about them in my head, then come online and just stare at a blank screen. Why is it you can seem to have the most profound thought going through your head at one moment, then when you come to the process of recording it you've got nothing?

I often wonder what I want to do with my life. Not just in the near future, but what to actually accomplish. I've thought about being a writer (and have gotten encouragement to do so), as well as an artist (same as before but with more people; this is more because the art is more seen, and my writing I've only let those I truly trust see) and on Tuesday decide I'll run for a government office. I have no consistency. I'm deluded to the point that nothing I think is long term.

Maybe my interests are too varied. I like a lot of things, and could easily do them longer then I may give my self credit for; the problem is the amount of my interest waxes and wanes more then the moon. If my interest falters, then I'm thinking about doing something else. Lather, rinse, repeat.

At various points in my random thought process, I usually end up circling back to either art or writing; or to be even more obtuse, creative ventures in whole. The rationale being, through more creative means I can express my ideas on those subjects that may interest me, and so change my style to what purpose I have need to adhere to. And lately I've been trying harder to accomplish that, mainly through writing. My art, while specialized and accredited as 'good' ("You should be a graphic artist") is not mainstream and would most likely be a more gallery type style. This being if I ever did anything of actual scale.

Writing...I know a few writers. Or wannabe writers anyway. Few have anything in print, half that do have it mainly on the internet, and only half of those are not on blogs. So many good ideas are out there but more and more don't think what they have is good enough. Worse, someone with no talent is used as a springboard for ideas, and that moron will relentless say that either 'That's stupid' or 'That's already been done'. Then no matter what you try to dissuade them against they remain stalwart in their opinion as not to be wrong. Both argument are becoming more and more pointless, it's-been-done even more so. Hollywood has reduced itself to either formula movies, sequels, or movies based on books. Too often all three are lumped together.

And I don't mean that to sound bad; I enjoy most of those movies, books ones often to see what the story looks like in moving media. What I wish to more of is original screenplays, something fresh; these are more and more being saved mainly for the big name directors to showcase an idea they've been holding one to.

I'm steering away from what I talking about before; writing, or more specifically, my lack of. I have the ideas in my head. I have the character; lord, I can go off on characters and create a more rich back history of a single person then the entirety of whatever I wanted to write about. My problem seems to lie in the manifestation of what I want to say. And this seems to be the base of the problem for most, in that what they want to say is more encompassing then the medium they chose to try to explain it upon.

A recent idea, for an example, is centered around military intelligence (don't worry, all the jokes have been used) and an off-shoot department I made up. I have a character I want to base the story around; I have a multitude of minor characters to use; what I need is a) a name for my main man, something I haven't been able to figure out for several months and b) a solid story line to plant and see grow. I've read of several authors who base their entire careers upon just coming up with a character, the basic first scene, then just making it up as they go; oh, sorry, 'seeing where the character takes them'. I could do this, but there are problems, one of which is I have several individual scenes already planned or in my head and not clue one as to how to string them all together. Second, more simple but just as derailing, it's just not how I work. I like having a plan, or at least a base line I can work off of. Just jumping into the story with little to no clue as how to swim is not my idea of fun

If I choose to overthink it, it could be said that it may be the best way currently; I'm having problems otherwise, how will doing what I don't normally do change the norm? I don't know the answer, but then maybe I just don't feel like coming up with one. I like how I work and doing something different may just throw me off.

....or instead I could be applying all this wordage above into actual story writing.