Writing

When you’re trapped between something you must do (like write that blog article) and something you can’t do (like write that blog article, because of a variety of reasons), it causes stress. It feels like any action that you can possibly take is the wrong one; if you do manage to work on your article, you second-guess your work and that feeds right back into the stress.

The mind is tricky and likes to avoid stress when possible. Which is when you find your attention sliding away from your article and back to social media, games, even housework…anything to put off the complex problems ahead of you.

However, this vicious cycle of can’t-do/must-do can usually be stopped.

When reading books or watching movies, it's rare that plot twists or events will catch people by surprise anymore. Almost every plot twist has been done in multiple books or movies. Is there any originality left in the world? What does everyone else think? Has humanity run out of ideas? There are thousands upon thousands of books and movies in circulation, so have we exhausted all possible ideas?

One of the most dramatic but equally difficult acts is to kill off a main character. From a viewer's experience this is traumatic, dramatic and endlessly memorable – I will always remember when Buffy killed Angel at the end of Season 2. However, it is a very difficult task for a writer to engage in, we spend so much time building our character and imbuing them with a level of personality that becomes real to us. Yet it can be such a powerful tool to engage the reader. On the other hand, it can also be detrimental to a reader's engagement, some may check out in frustration, others will become less engaged emotionally with the characters – for example, the developing death-exhaustion of those following 'Game of Thrones.' So what are the pros and cons of killing a main character? Should it be done at the start or end or midway in the book? When is the right time to kill a main character? What are the pros and cons of the "return" (as in Angel coming back in the next season), or leaving it as permanent? So many questions: Discuss.

'The pen is mightier than the sword' was first said by Edward Bulwer-Lytton. This saying sounded strange to me at first until I began to think about some more and realised how true it was because a pen has the ability to murder someone or to save someone, to hate someone or to love someone. Many wars have been started with just a signature so this saying still rings true today. Bringing this saying into the 21st century and we see the true power that written (or typed words) can have on someone.Many people are now basing their whole life around what someone may have or have not typed about them on FaceBook and sometimes the hurt things that are being said are being led to our younger generation having mental health issues and parents having to attend the funerals of their very young children. So even though this saying was written over 150 years ago it is still as relevant in today's climate and I do not think that it will ever loose its meaning because it has just as much value in the fiction world as it does in the non-fiction world.

Pop-culture is infamous for questionable portrayal of romance. What does a healthy relationship look like and what pieces of fiction do a good job at portraying it? A recent good example I can think of is Violet and Tony in The Incredibles 2. While we have yet to see the relationship take off, the fact that he is attracted to her for her confidence sends a positive message. By working on herself first and being strong and independent, Violet was able to attract a nice guy. I think we need more media that sends that message of self-fulfilment being an important ingredient in a healthy relationship.

Traumatic pasts are de rigeur across mediums, perhaps especially books. Many, if not all, of our favorite protagonists have traumatic pasts. They've been orphaned, bullied, imprisoned, raped, or had any number of other tragedies visited upon them (sometimes a combination of many). Trauma is often a good tool in the hands of the writer, as it incites sympathy for characters and explains some motivations.

However, trauma in fiction is often handled poorly. When this happens, you tend to get one of two reactions. The first is what TV Tropes calls "Angst? What Angst," wherein a character seems to function entirely separately of trauma, never mentioning it or letting it influence his or her life. Sometimes, the character suppresses the trauma so much, he or she finally has a melodramatic breakdown, or two or three.

But on the other side of that coin, you have characters defined by trauma. This can be extremely obvious, as in the character who acts like a victim and wallows in self-pity, or it can be a bit more subtle. See, for instance, the abused person who grows up to be an unrepentant abuser, or the military veteran who gives up on life and people after losing a limb or sense.

The question becomes then, how can writers write trauma, and do it justice? What is the best way to write a victim who incites sympathy, yet also incites true likability? How much trauma is too much or too little, and in what situations can/should it play a part? Discuss.

What is it about the use of simple poetic techniques that appeal so much to a reader? Is it the rhythmic simplicity that reminds us of our past oral traditions? It might be as storytellers, bards, and oral lore-keepers often learnt their stories in a ballad/poetic form that helped ensure they remembered the story based not only on narrative progression, but also on the rhythmic systems of the form. Could it then be memory based? Many studies cite the use of mnemonic devices to help memorise details – so are we already pre-designed to engage mentally with rhythmic sounds? Or is it the nostalgic appeal of childhood? A recollection of nursery rhymes and foolish riddles that coloured our childhood books and memories, perhaps?

Alliteration is only one such commonly used poetic device. Many are exercised in today's literature for children and adults alike. We still see the use of imagery, allegories, metaphors, similes, personification, and so much more. So how about a discussion of these simple, yet effective poetic devices and what they can add to a developing writer's repertoire.

Define 'hard' and 'soft' sci-fi. [See for distinction: (link) Why are they distinct? Where are each found (types of books, age/gender-demographics, or region)? Where does 'soft sci-fi' end and fantasy begin? Are they distinguished by authorial background? What trends have been seen in both over time (what are the trends right now?). Most importantly, what are their different narrative functions/potentials (are hard meant for commentary on humanity while soft are just set dressing? Vice versa?)? And why does the distinction matter?

Some examples of 'hard sci-fi': works of Isaac Asimov/H.G. Wells, The Martian, The Diamond Age, Interstellar (arguably)
Some Examples of 'soft sci-fi': Dune, Star Trek, Ender's Game, Slaughterhouse-Five, most dystopians