At 11/8/09 11:38 AM, MattTheParanoidKat wrote: FYI: Please for the love of all that is holy, do not I repeat DO NOT give my story a grade, do not give it a rating between 0-10 or 1-10. It's obscene when reviewers do this, and there is no rational behind this other than if it's a big number it's good, if it's a small number it's bad, if it's neither it's okay. It's also gratuitously obscene when you give ratings with a decimals. It's sickening. Look, when you do that you're not rating the numbers out of ten, in reality you're rating them on a possible 100.

This is partially why I've tried to lower the significance of the number scores in my reviews when I've judged in the past. I do give numbers, and the numbers are pretty indicative of how I felt about the story, but I feel their primary responsibility is to help me in sorting out which entries I put into my top bunch to put up for prize consideration. I wouldn't like just giving a number at all, and as slim as some of my reviews may seem at times, I like to think it's one of those situations where everybody wins in some way.

At 11/8/09 11:55 AM, WritersBlock wrote: I quickly got sick of centering and capitalising the name, then hitting enter then tabbing three times then writing the line then hitting enter twice then centering and capitalising the name then hitting enter again then three tabs again and yadda yadda yadda (pic below).

This is mostly what got me into Celtx, that, and learning about some more of the technicalities of script-writing that I'm still unfamiliar with. Celtx's greatest feature in the writing section is its quick key scheme. If you're writing a scene heading, pressing enter will take you to writing some action. Pressing tab now lets you insert a character name, pressing enter then gives dialogue space, and so on. It's all displayed at the bottom of the screen quite helpfully.

As for whatever bells and whistles that come withi it, I probably wouldn't bother at all. I tried using yWriter quite recently, for the novel I've started writing for NaNoWriMo, but I've found the notepad to be much more convenient for planning and drafts. Simply put, just writing a standard story, something like Microsoft Word or Open Office Writer cover everything I need, and, like I said before, I can set it out exactly as I want it, without anything being hideously in the way.

Yeah, I haven't looked much further than the writing sections on Celtx. Why should I, being honest? I have no need for them. I use notepad/Word for most of my plans and drafts too, as like you say, I've grown accustomed to how they work over several years and I can easily play around with them. As far as Celtx goes, some of its "Master Catalog" elements may or may not be of any use to you. Once you create a character, you're given a screen that's almost set up as a screen you get when you register for website membership, allowing you to put some detail about the character in. Like I say, you might not find that useful - I've not really used it enough yet myself, being honest. I want to meet the challenge of coming up with some script ideas that could possibly be used for Flash. We'll see then, I hope!

And I bet Celtx won't pay up now because of that penultimate remark of mine :(

At 11/8/09 11:22 AM, WritersBlock wrote: I don't really know much about politics and history, so I'd most certainly have a different reading of the story than yourself, however, I always find it interesting to see the various subjective interpretations of a single text, however I feel like you've objectified your ideas on the text really well and provided readers like myself with a lot more to think about when my day comes to read Animal Farm (and to some extent, Nineteen-Eighty Four, too).

Oh yeah, I love discussing subjective interpretations of reading. Despite what I've been saying in this thread, Animal Farm actually does has a couple of characters and events in particular that are more ambiguous, and so are interesting to discuss, without me revealing more to you at this stage. Even some of the political context can be played with a little bit, and like I said, it is quite adaptable as a message, however "outdated" it may seem.

However, I should hope that my ability to analyse texts like this will improve in the future, as I'll be spending the next two years going through Literary and Cultural Studies at university. After one semester, I've found the benefits to be very rewarding, and it's certainly given me a keener eye for classic literature, modern classics, or even the postmodern literary fiction of today.

Definitely. The exact same things have happened to me. I'm partway through my first semester at university. The different ways of analysing texts, while taking their toll on me as theoretical principles at times, are interesting, and it makes you think more about your own writing, like we're both interested in. Like you say, it's all a great motivation to go out and read and watch a variety of different things from different eras and cultures.

I certainly look forward to the day where we can openly discuss this sort of thing in a writing/literature forum, as per the quite recent news announcement.

Again, I know exactly what you mean. Honestly, I do get quite excited about it! I want to challenge myself a bit with it too, and I think discussion's great for that. Example, I was reading about Russian Formalism and I was thinking a bit cautiously about it, downright negatively almost. After speaking to someone, I began to realise that the concept of the "genreless" has a great dollop of Russian Formalism right in the middle of it. Then you appreciate the theories on a different level, not just the creative works!

I know, I need to lie down for a minute or two ;)

Shit, sorry about the delays in my judging. I've been fairly busy with assignments and everything, but that can't account for everything, so apoligies to all. As always, I'm going to try and give some feedback to everyone with my scores once the winners are announced, so that's something to look forward to. I'd hate having to cut my feedback down as a result of time, but it's not fair to keep everyone waiting as a result of laziness. I'll get down to some now.

I planned out a story for this contest that I might very well develop in the future, with some compulsory elements toned down a little. That's something I've directly gotten out of this contest, it's all good. As ever, reading to write here, so I'll get myself stuck in now.

Just as a final note, I'm also looking forward to the collaborative contests featuring writing segments, very much so. These contests are great tools for everyone here, at least I like to think as much.

I've posted this link before I think, but I'll flag it up now for anyone interested: Celtx. It's a free software that works for different methods of pre-production (writing, storyborards, etc.). It's assisted me with script formatting quite greatly actually. While formatting's probably not the most important thing on Earth at this sort of stage, it might help you flex your muscles in regards to script writing. It might take a while to get the hang of, but I've been using it for random drafts for a couple of weeks, and you might find yourself slipping into it quite easily. I'm still starting out though! I believe it's quite easy to share with others using Celtx too.

(Hope the example comes out okay - I literally wrote this off the top of my head!).

What was I doing? Oh yeah, entry reading.

At 11/7/09 08:02 PM, knightsofthecircle wrote: The way I see it, Animal Farm's main point was this: No one person or persons should have the sole power of a government, whether it be a Monarchist, Communist or Dictatorshipist sense. In a way, I think Orwell had the same viewpoint as the Founding Fathers did during the American Revolution. That all power(s) dealing with local, state and federal government should be dealt with the general public.

That's an interesting point of view, and it obviously fits in with what Orwell saw as a socialist and as a British writer in WW2. Who the corruption and autocracy correlates with (like I say, I'm maintaining the view for now that Animal Farm is a satire whose message isn't easily applicable across such a varied field of socio-political theory) I'm not always sure, with reference to what people have read as the Tehran conference scene at the end. Obviously there's Napoleon, but I think naming the other humans as either Nazis or Churchill/Roosevelt, is a tricky one... a consideration that questions the view I've backed! From what I know, Orwell was a critical theorist at heart, so it could've really been all of the above, with the "WW2 sequence" (where the farmers try to invade Animal Farm) aside for now.

Also, I think he also meant that if people feel oppresed long enough in a government, they will rebel against their leaders once the time is right. That's what happened to the British government, that's what happen to the U.S.S.R and that's what's going to happen to North Korea.

Yeah, that's a good point too, and that falls in line with some forms of critical theory, primarily the more traditional forms of Marxism. It's a message he probably would've actively injected from the very beginning. It's interesting you bring up North Korea, because as a country using an offshoot of Stalinism as its principle political ideology. In particular, this brief article sounds far too eerily familiar to moments in Animal Farm. As interested as I am in North Korea, I'm not entirely sure whether a reversal on the specifics will take place in the near future, but maybe I've not seen all the facts?

At 11/7/09 08:07 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Wow dude, where have you been?

While the themes of the story are pretty straightforward, my main reason for making this thread was a discussion about possible left-based responses to the situations we have today and receiving that line in response. I'm interested in seeing whether others believe that to be relevant... or a silly way of steering the discussion.

However, if you're speaking to me directly, I've not used the politics forum extensively in some time, though I should get into it again. I enjoy it ;)

Wait, who am I again? Ah, well...

At 11/7/09 08:10 PM, ripoffhitman wrote: I read it a year ago, thought it was ok. It's just explaining that even though people hated the government they had, they simply gave all their power to certain people to make a new one, which gave them the same exact problems they had before. Instead of a shitty monarchy, they had a shitty communist government.

This intrigues me. I believe Orwell specifically has the undertones of Animal Farm taken into the foreground (for the reader) once Napoleon takes power for himself. While the rest of the animals certainly fought to defend the farm under Snowball's command (Russian civil war), I'm not sure they give Napoleon the power to makes his own style of rule. With the dogs, terror is brought in forcefully. I think it's purposefully detatched from the concept of "power-from-below", or whatever the actual correct term is, once again given Orwell's disillusioned stance.

I also believe that Animal Farm, falling in line with the specific correlations again, doesn't do so "shitty" as far as output is concerned, using the windmill (cities like Gorky at the time?) and the absurd amount of economic strength built up by the first five-year plans under Stalin. But yeah, obviously quite shitty on the humanist side of things where Orwell lived.

***

Most of this post is probably very obvious to anyone who's read the book (and yes, I'm aware I'm a moron), but again, the reason why I bring it up is because more than a few people have tried to peel it off from its stickiness in history and apply it elsewhere. Then you open the book and well, for me, the words are all in the wrong place and the characters are different, non-sensical. It's not how I read everything, but Animal Farm is a classic example of a book I think it's neccessary to have this context majig about.

At 11/7/09 07:29 PM, Mikay wrote: Snowball didnt deserve the way they treated him.

It's funny that you should say that, because given Orwell's own shaping as a moderate socialist (from what I gather), it's probably something he wanted us to at least be wary about, never mind feel sorry for as the story progresses. Snowball has quite often been displayed somewhat as a mean-spirited character in versions I've glimpsed at, but with that aside, it's always been maintained that he's more intellectually constructive, if less bureaucratically able and charismatic than Napoleon. Can you imagine Animal Farm with portraits of Snowball dotted around the place? Maybe you can, I don't know, but it's a thought that should be pushed a little more, at least from my biased point of view. This backs up my point really. It might be altogether inaccurate to simply place Trotsky and Stalin in place of Snowball and Napoleon respectively within the story, but the obvious references are there, and Orwell's doing that for a reason, from his own ideological position.

Again, I've seen many discussions around on the principles of socialism that just end in that Animal Farm quote. Putting this sort of thinking in to mind, I just don't think it's all that relevant to say the least. The rest is all above.

In typing out this thread, I considered whether or not it belonged in the Politics forum. I decided against posting there, as most of the material covered there is either of a contemporary (often American) nature, or discussing abstract ideas in practice. This is supposed to be a brief discussion on a piece of fictional literature, and although this particular story, as I'm about to argue, is specifically and politically tied, it's just not Politics material. Sorry guys, but I think it's a popular enough story to have some thought here. Background stuff on the story can be found on the net if it's at all important to you.

I first read Animal Farm, a couple of weeks ago, after it had been sitting on my "must-read list" for some time. My main motivations for reading it included the usual lust for just getting to grips with various examples of modern classic literature, but I had some other reasons to read this story too - in particular, my own socio-political interests of the past few years, and because of my Mum. My Mum loves the phrase "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Back at home, we've had some political discussions before over dinner. My Dad's brought up his sort of thinking at my age before, and I've brought up my own, and I personally don't think the sort of things I think of in terms of progression could be termed as "communist", though I think that's the same for a vast amount of kidders, haha.

My point? Is Animal Farm a one-size-fits-all criticism of socialist idealism, never mind what we tend to refer to as communism? I personally don't think that's the case at all, and while I'm following the conclusions of a fair amount of readers of the story, it seems that this is the way many people have read the story. I have two reasons for this: Animal Farm's allegories are specific, its characters and events corresponding to moments in Russian history, from the civil war, to the conflict between Trotsky and Stalin in the '20s, from the show trails, to World War II and the Tehran conference at the very end. My second reason is what Orwell himself wanted to point out with the story, as far as I've been able to drag out from a bit of reading on the outside: to make it clear to British (and other western) intellectuals that totalitarianism isn't acceptable, even when it is done "in the name of socialism". Simply put, he was a disilluisioned guy, disillusioned with different parts of the idea: this story attacked more than a few of those points. It's quite a simple point today in some way, where we have easy access to different piece of historical evidence, but given WW2, people were anxious to admit to this... or maybe they were too idealistic, to the extent they were hurting themselves?

And Animal Farm, with all its rich English iconography slotted in for the sake of its allegory and convenience to the western reader, could probably be an adequate interpretation of the offsprings of Stalinism still known to us today, including Maoism (however much this has been derailed within China since 1976, or much earlier for that matter) and juche. On this level, it doesn't work as an overall criticism of moderate-to-extreme leftist ideals though, despite how its been used over the years. What Animal Farm might do is discuss what sort of issues a nation might face when working off a near-immediate transition, like the Bolsheviks were doing in 1917. Is that relevant as a way of looking forward and seeing how moderate change could be implemented? Historical study is important, but it also can't accont for everything as a result of differing contexts. Bringing Trotsky back into the frame briefly, I was talking to an online associate once about this sort of thing, and he joked that if you were to have lunch with Trotsky tomorrow, and you told him "Oh sir, I use your work to form my thoughts in the United Kingdom in the year 2009" (he understands English in this fantasy), he'd most likely laugh in your face. His works addressed Russia in the first half of the twentieth century... just like Animal Farm.

Put briefly anyway, as a way of getting this little thing off my chest. I also just watched the animated Animal Farm, and just like 443548 critics before me, I give the different ending away to a special someone's death during production. Not sure about that entirely, but I'd say it was some motivation at least.

TL:DR? Erm, George Orwell's Animal Farm is an allegory for the Russian Revolution and the development of Stalinism. Is it useful to use it as a way of explaining other lieftist theories, even the most moderate?

Personally, I've found living in halls to be much more pleasant than I imagined before coming here. My housemates are all cool, we all do our fair share of housework, and not everyone hates each other yet, which in one of my darker moods would be way more than I would've expected. I do see some similarities between our experiences in that a few of us struggle to sleep on account of others being loud. It usually comes down to drunkenness, or our Chinese resident speaking on the phone, but I've never heard him being too loud (although, I do live on the opposite side to him, which might explain that). Unfortunately, I've kept people awake numerous times, but I'm working on keeping qiet. I'd hate to be that resident.

I'm living in what's designated the "quiet zone" though, and it really is quiet most of the time. The central area of this student village gets noisier in the evenings, and I've heard a couple of examples of sleeplessness and drama about from other people. This is a small university though, I don't think it's that bad.

If it sucks that bad though, try to nudge your housemates a little, or something. It worked for me... as in me keeping everyone awake. I don't know.

At 11/7/09 11:00 AM, cast wrote: This has been another look inside Scarabs mind.

Haha, some day we'll have a BBS populated entirely by stream-of-consciousness topics about boredom, written by people who are bored or pretending to be bored. Differentiating between those two topics of user will become a key dicussion in this alternative world, this paradise.

It's the Scarabian vision!

8/10

Thanlks. I'll have to do better in order to beat Aylesford next week though.

At 11/7/09 11:01 AM, Lost-Chances wrote: I was meant to be writing about 1,500 words a day for a novel. I haven't been doing it for the past two or three days.

You'll know it already, but if you want the exercise to benefit you in its best ways, you should try to do it calmly, maybe try to be a little bit spontaneous with the schedule, but obviously not letting things pile up is a bigger motivation at this point. Keeping a rhythm going in writing for that particular project is something that scared me off, admittedly. I'm not good for rhythm at the moment, and it's something I need to pick up on if I want ot take writing further. Good luck as always however.

Procrastination is a word we tend to throw around quite a lot, and I know what you're thinking: it's one of those processes that's about as exciting to discuss as it is to actually procrastinate actively. Still, with winter starting to set in and assignment deadlines rearing their ugly heads through my open door, peering in at this messy room that desperately needs a clean in light of inspections this next week, it's all nagging at me today.

Seriously, I've got stories and articles to read (some of which are on Newgrounds!), essays to write (or, erm, plan) floors to hoover, a sink to clean and all that jazz. I've only been doing this quasi-independent living thing for about two months, so strangely enough, I don't particularly dislike doing all of these things yet. Hell, I love reading around my studies and getting work done, or at least I assure myself of that in the more frustrating cases (ugh, semiotics). It's just that I have no particular motivation to do so, thinking "oh, my washing's drying off, I need to collect it in half an hour, might as well not bother getting started yet". The more sensible side of my brain yells, "WHAT A SHITTY EXCUSE YOU LAZY BASTARD."

So yeah, if I feel like getting sensitive with a bit of imagery, and I do, I remember a week or two ago, the tree outside my window had a good deal of healthily coloured leaves decorating it. Now it's moving on. Time goes soooo fast, alalalalala.

So how often do you find yourself doing this, and how does it make you feel? I think procrastination is something that some people have a real flair for; it need no neccessarily be a grinding process that reminds you how silly you're being, especially if the alternatives are extremely comforting or extremely discomforting. If you're just putting things off today, what are you putting off, and why do you think you're doing that?

Honestly, I'm interested, but if you can guess another purpose of this thread, you get nothing. I think it's obvious on that front :)

At 11/6/09 07:59 PM, cool154 wrote: So basically, you're saying the media sucks ball and loves being sexist?

Haha, well, I wouldn't think of it as black and white as that, as much as my previous post may have made it out that way. It's not really enough to say that certain types of media "love being sexist": they have their own motivations for that, which I won't bring in due to a fear of running off on my own kind of ideology and detracting from the actual subject matter of this thread. What I want to convey is that even though we live in an era that's been called the "age of information", it's really more accurate to call it an age of convenience as a result of aggressive ideological transfer via equally aggressive media control.

I don't really know how to put it any better, due to my poor writing ability and the fact that I was in a more knowledgeable state when I wrote my earlier post, but I believe it's not a case of sexism if you look at crime on the whole, but it's something to throw when something else in particular feels threatened. As I mentioned before, crime statistics do not show an equal divide between offenders in regards to sexism, and that's just not a case of "political correctness at work". You can't blame an abstract thought for a problem in society every time, it's, quite frankly, illogical if we take every other factor away. You can't even give political correctness a voice amongst the majority, because the majority would feel the same (other) way regardless, you know, if it weren't for media glamourisation under privately owned media outlets.

But you know, I have no sources, and many opinions aegue against this. It's just how I feel right now, looking at what we can do and how we seem to be... "informed", shall we say. My main point? Blaming every single woman on Earth for the way a society reacts to how an absolute extreme minority of women is treated by an institution (the media, above all an outlet's owners and their ideas) they're not actively part of doesn't make any sense. That's not how everyone here will see, maybe not even the majority, but it certainly seems that way at times.

Or something.

At 11/6/09 12:35 PM, quagmire690 wrote: thus those studies would never happen because we dont want them to happen... thus we can not hold judgements either way ... we just leave it to the fact that it is a problemthe people invite apon them selves when they partake when the go ahead and preditor someone...

Or rather, studies have probably already been carried out, but because this is actually a very specific sort of crime, it's hard to tackle in a very off-hand way. I disagree with the majority "not wanting" the sort of study carried out, and at least the directors of this sort of thing tend to be the most critical of them all, throwing that assumption out of the window almost. The way crime statistics are made out make it hard to study that way, because they tend to be more general, and hence any data spurring from those numbers is bound to be incomplete. A further independant investigation would be costly, and ethical issues would splurge out of the author's ass. If the study were successful, the author could probably wipe the mess up with one of their dollar bills, and they'd have a cinsiderable amount of dollar bills to choose from by then. Forming the investigation itself would be a complicated matter of methodology, though "closer" studies have proved possible and beneficial before... but even after that, how much time would be the media give to that, leading on to the next point below.

If I find any studies that are relevant, I'll link them, but the meat of this sort of thing can't usually be found online, erm, easily, at least from past experiences.

At 11/6/09 12:21 PM, MrFinland wrote: Man gets punished for this = Justice
Woman gets punished for this = Sexism

The way you worded that makes it seem as if you believe any positive media coverage and general public bias about the female offenders in this case is the fault of the offenders themselves, which I disagree with. I don't even think it's the fault of "political correctness", which although is an abstract thought I've criticised before for allowing extreme minority thinking to enter what some believe is a mainstream idea (and giving people the impression that the best way to fight a minority thought is to promptly eject all related thought, extreme or not).

***

In the eyes of the media, it's simply easier to glamourise female offenders like myths of many centuries ago. A passive majority of women are probably not too keen on that really (I don't know for sure, it's hard getting them on the phone), never mind non-radical feminists, which you know, comprise most of the postmodern feminist base... you know, apart from... media exaggerations. I think I just found a cycle. I don't know.

Ironically, the one(s) that usually suffers most as a result of this air-time is the offender(s) herself/themselves. Aileen Wuornos is a famous example. On the topic of violent crime here, contrast with Henry Lee Lucas, another popular romantic of the American non-fiction murder scene. It's a typical comparison, I know, but it fits here, as much as Lucas' stories are hugely artificial themselves at times. I don't think my words here prove MrFinland's post, because I don't think I'm using the "popular" form of sexism - I think there's a great deal of background to it, but I don't know, hmm?

Related: try to watch Nick Broomfield's 1994 documentary on Aileen Wuornos. It's not a nice film, but it's put together brilliantly, and it makes you think about this issue.

I won't argue that small pieces of evidence has been found that supports the chivalry thesis:

"Finally, the chivalry thesis suggests that in response to the women's movement, the criminal justice system has lessened their leniency (chivalry) towards women who commit crimes, "creating the 'if it's equality they want, it's equality they'll get' mentality (Simon & Landis, 1991, p. 12).""

That author then says however,

"However, Simon and Landis point out there is little evidence of chivalry in the court system, and that any favors granted are probably granted to white, upper-class women. Since the typical female offender is not a white, upper-class woman, chivalry probably does not have any great impact on the crime rate among women."

Anyway, most examinations show that the chivalry thesis is largely not observable if you look at the numbers (enter alternative debate!). Any other assumptions we make is, like the linked article fom the OP says, men generally commit more crimes than women, not just in this specialist case. Most study time has focused on male motivation: subculture and/or masculinities, the role of a responsible man in a failing economy, and so on. When the popular media has a pretty much insatiable appetite for something different, there's bound to be a bit of glamourising... and you know, making it the norm for everyone. It's just an unfortunate gift of the time, if I'm making sense. We have the information, but pegging abstract, unproven thought is more convenient. Then the information turned weird so to speak.

Right, I've gone on far too long, and apoligies to the OP for not really directly tackling your point, but maybe there's something, I don't really know anymore. I would go further with my media related rambling, but I'm either lazy, tired, or self-conscious. hmmhmm.

I started shaving at sixteen, but there were lads shaving younger than that in my school. Some people just end up with odd facial hair growing patterns, so an early shave is pretty much required, not only for social purposes (super important, like!), but for tactile ones. I remember when I was sixteen, I found my new found life buddies to be uncomfortable, and I'd be picking at them all day. Actually, I still do that.

I should've started shaving earlier, because a mark on my face (from chicken pox I think) makes some hairs grow far quicker than others. As a result, I end up with a collection of annoyingly long streaks, and in high school, people found them rather amusing. Fortunately, I did too, but that's not the point. I just started shaving at sixteen because I got a shaver for my sixteenth birthday. If it feels like a good time for you, go ahead and get stuck in, and feel the relief when you wash it all afterwards. That's my favourite part of the shave.

Maybe I should wash more often.

It's easy to look down on Internet petitions because the vast majority of them are created on special create-a-petition sites, by users with no background involvement with the matter at hand and without any political or organisational backing. Still, I think it's quite a nice idea in principle, as much as as even some of the more "official" petitions lack in what they can really accomplish. Some of the ones on Greenpeace example that I've just looked at and been familiar with through reading in the past, literally take years to be effective in many cases. A lot of people aren't ond of that: you really do need to stick with these groups if you want to make a difference. An online petition might be a good step to begin with, but like JohnnyWang said, you're not really getting involved as a result. For charities, what does getting involved really mean at heart? Give them money, or do something that will create money, so the NGO can have greater chances of getting stuff done. At the end, you're a far cry away from when you signed that e-petition.

And Downing Street continues to host their petitions website for British users (though I'm not sure if foreign users are blocked from signing truly, it probably wouldn't make much sense). I've browsed those pages a few times before and signed a couple, because they have a chance to be sent to the prime minister. Yes, the prime minister probably only glances at these things if he/she reads them at all, but it's better than sitting back and just accepting something that you're clearly not happy with. The government do respond to quite a few of them.

One in particular that was promoted around the BBS some time ago was on the Manhunt 2 banning issue, which I signed. I believe it was ultimately rejected, but the game is available now anyway. This leads us conveniently through to...

At 11/2/09 06:07 PM, coure wrote: I forced people to sign my petition in Postal 2 does that count?

Haha, I wanted to bring that up. Well done for getting there first.

"Hi there, will you please sign my petition?"
"No way, you freaking pinko!"
"Shit!"

Ah, I need that game back some time. I probably would've signed the thing in real life given its message and the self-satisfaction I'd receive, with or without the Dude holding a shotgun to my face.

A quick one from me, I'd personally appreciate it if certain users could pipe down on their "stop whining" attitudes towards others in this thread alone. I know I don't have any authority to "instruct" users and to give definite answers and I've been monitoring this thread far too much for a normal human being (I'll get myself checked tomorrow), but I'm still thinking that people have an ability to not receive solely sarcastic comments if they post an issue of value in this thread. Some users could do with some elaboration, but that only requires some gentle reminding, and the user in question can do so. Again, sorry in that I shouldn't be telling people how to post, but this bugs me at different times, to say the least.

I mean, it's like...

It's time to put on make-up,
It's time to dress up right,
It's time to raise the curtain
On the NEWGROUNDS BBS tonight.

I don't like that view, as oddly shaped the reference may seem.

No, I don't think it's wrong to love the aspects of your homeland. Those things can give you great attributes as a person, and physically, it's a great thing to love a country, because landscape (and even cityscape, as hard as that may be to believe for some) can be beautiful. Without moving on to outside arguments, it's a good thing to have some dedication in something, something that keeps you happy. I can enjoy aspects of my own land and culture; as much as culture is man-made, it's a still a wonderful thing to see thought being produced in whatever way.

The problems come when this concept is used as an excuse to place blame on others, as a scapegoat, for problems that stem from elsewhere. Compare the most extreme uses (or even some of the more casual forms) of ethnic nationalism. This is where living in the 21st century suddenly becomes very depressing, when you step back into the '50s and you learn that one of the only things that's given prominence is not the objective of progress, but the objective of argument, and blame is its result. When the idea is used like this, it's never sufficient, never mind plain blind at times. It's not appropriate for the way of work today. It's perfectly fine to love one's country and the great things it may stand for, but a more worldly view is practically required today more than any other time. It would be a shame if your nationalistic values (though as far as my opinion goes, the individual needs the power to believe in a value themselves; it's no good to just say, "that's what the country believes", and my concept of "freedom" at this point may be very different to yours indeed) got in the way of that. Throw "they hate us, so we should hate them" out of the window. The hateful population of Earth is still in a minority if you look from the bottom-up. It would be a real shame if that were different, because then I'd have another reason to say the least.

And I've seen you make American-centric threads a few times before. Rest assured, most Europeans don't hate the United States as far as I know. As an American Studies teacher once told me in general, "there's one reason why a lot of young people today may dislike the United States. It's one name.". I'll leave you guess it. Me? I love American culture, and that's why I have so many books on it, and DVDs by American artists. I think nationalism is irrelevant there, but I'm just one of those guys with a hopeful happy smile plastered onto my face, haha.

Ow, this expression hurts.

At 11/2/09 03:27 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: I dunno if anyone could do Larry David quite like Larry David does Larry David.

Oh yeah, too true. It wouldn't be a Curb Your Enthusiasm game in name, but I think you can take a lot of its premise and turn it into something that's enjoyable to play. You can change characters, like, erm, not having Larry David as the main character, and then change the surrounding cast accordingly. IN fact, you could even have cameo appearances from notable Newgrounders, just as a little bonus for site members, I don't know. That would work along one of the recurring narratives in Curb Your Enthusiasm.

With everything I said from before about being very limited in actually producing something for the site, that's the sort of game I'd like to make with someone. All of the examples in the "everything-hates-you" subgenre seem to involve death at every turn. Bringing in the dreaded realism, some part of the audience here, including myself I'll add, seem to have times where this sort of world is constructed... but we're not dying. This sort of thing allows us to laugh at ourselves a little, while being able to associate with it.

I'm thinking about this far too much now, haha.

Actually, browsing my desk just now, I had an idea for something that someone, somewhere should get to making right now.

A Curb Your Enthusiasm game.

Or something similar. I'm aware that games where almost nothing but bad things happen to the player have been made before (examples, Get Lost and The Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy text game), but I think there's room for more in this sector. Those who aren't familiar with the show, you get some wisecracking millionaire who's forced to do a few errands... and well, it goes on from there. There may or may not be a sequence where the character gets his own back on all that is wrong at the end of the level or not. As you can see I've not thought about this so much in a way of playability, but it would probably distract me for a few minutes, with pleasure.

The more adult material would be less violent, more sexually humourous, or angry for the sake of comedy. Fans of the show will probably get me here.

Well that sounds like it could get an audience anyway. Some people might like to down that whole sort of sub-genre of game-making, but I'm sure there's plenty of room to be innovative. You yourself mention some issues with current games that could be addressed in your own idea. You may only be young and be primarily interested in something mostly unrelated, but why don't you try the trial and watch some
tutorials, if you haven't thought of it already.

As for myself, I will never have it in me to make a game in Flash. I'm just not familiar with the concepts that gamers enjoy the most. Any game with my name on it would most likely be very dull, on trainspotting or something. The technicalities aside, I'm stuck right there. Any other idea I'd have would probably be far too unrealistic. I'm aware that Flash has a huge range of oppurtunities, but I can't just say "the player does this, and then they get Internet bliss!" or something. I don't know, hopefully you understand me.

I'm very interested in getting a movie done. I'd never be able to draw and animate it all due to having a chronic terrible-art disorder since birth. I know next to nothing about animation technique. It's all in the theory for me, which as you might imagine is nice, but erm, yeah, you don't get much done. Otherwise, I'd write something. I'm never confident with my writing, but I've got a few ideas I think would work brilliantly as short films, in Flash or not. I'm not going to be specific (I know, I need to be afraid of theives stealing my great ideas, right?), but the one I've kept mostly in mind (and made a few attempts at typing up in Celtx) is in general, four short stories, revolving around the point that they are all inspired by something close to me... and close to you, too. :)

We'll see, cue Vincent Price-esque laugh.

Whether my ideas "should be made for NG" is probably a different matter though, so this post is outrageously off-topic.

At 11/2/09 02:50 PM, Falonefal wrote: The only thing I was able to read.

Sorry to be picky, and "serious", but why was that? I thought it was perfectly legible. Hardly the Queen's, but if that were important to my online experience, I'd just throw my laptop out of the window right now. You were also silly in not really saying much.

Sorry for picking you out, I just think I have a big enough head to tell everyone to be nice and how to post on the BBS!

At 11/1/09 05:21 PM, Gagsy wrote: I'm sorry, but rarely do I find the old Funny Test Answers actually funny anymore. Perhaps because I've seen the good ones enough times and I'm er questionable about new ones that come to light. People will do anything just to get noticed online. Thinking up a funny test answer is a quick answer.

I've got to agree with this, as much as I'm afraid of "bringing the tone down" or whatever. The supposed edginess of silly exam/homework answers seems to have been washed over by the Internet for me, unfortunately, because I know I've been entertained by them before. I'm not sure exactly what kills it for me, though I honestly believe it's the assumptions ("look how useless homework is") that do it for me. Whether or not the work is actually handed in might be a factor too, though I don't really know. It's one of those things where thinking too much would just be too far for all involved. I remember someone I knew wrote "Only Smarties have the answer." on his notorious (for British A-Level students) general studies paper. I don't think his reference was really that effective, but I got a giggle or two by the fact he just wrote that and then walked out.

But yeah, I love the outside work I have to do at university, or at least I tell myself that so I don't have so big an inkling to just leave this place. I feel that at this stage, if you don't enjoy reading about your course and writing about it, a good percentage of the time, then you should reconsider your course. I quite enjoyed my high school homework too. It made up for the time I missed in school, and I think the teachers were fine in class. I suppose experiences are different, yay.

As for classes not "preparing you for life", is life really that cold to you? Again, I'm aware I'm bringing the tone down, but it's an honest question, and I'm in an optimistic mood. I know it's not the student's fault: it's mostly the fault of the system as a whole, but homework is a very small part of that. You can still enjoy the things you want, in education.

So anyway, if you were enjoying yourself, Google "funny test answers" or something, I don't know.

At 11/1/09 08:59 PM, Obsessed117 wrote: If you're a woman, its the exact opposite if you're a man.

Well, I played my line for humourous reassurance on my part. It seems to have been added to the list of reason as to why I could never be a comedian.

It also reveals to me that my self-reassurance is pretty thin. Something tells me I should work on that more than my comedy act, I don't know.

I don't even need American-styled abstinence education: I'm forcefully abstinent.

Now that I've got that line out of the way, I don't like the concept of abstinence education, I'll admit. It's not about it being "inevitable" in today's world because today's students are all sex-craving lunatics who would murder a personificaion of loving traditional values if they had the chance, but rather because it's only one way of looking at things. I criticise my own government a lot, especially in regards to education, but when I'm studing things on a global scale, I can appreciate how open the sex topics are overall. It's not a question of "US vs UK", that's just silly. What I'm getting at is that the students are intelligent enough to a.) know enough about the biological facts of sex, and b.) know the consequences when things go wrong. If neither of these statements are true to a group of students... well, pardon me for generalising to an enormous degree, but perhaps it was because the views offered in school weren't open enough to enable the students to absorb all the facts? In an extension, the student might've not wanted to look facts up elsewhere out of fear of being stigmatised. That's my fear of where things like abstinence education would lead to in a grand scale.

ThoughI believe abstinence gets you laid in the long run.

I don't think that wanting to go out and have a good time is the same as "attention seeking", simply out of the negative connotations that that phrase has. It all becomes a horrible argument of subculture once again: I know lots of people on this student village I'm currently living on went out on Friday/Saturday night in Halloween costumes just giggling their faces off and enjoying themselves. Do I think they wanted me to gawk at them, thinking "Wow, that sure is some mighty fine giggling and enjoyment going on there!"? No, I don't. You can throw judgements about certain groups all you want, but those judgements aren't necessarily going to be true.

Sure, "holidays" like Halloween and Valentine's Day are manufactured to a horrendous degree. Is that the general public's "fault"? I don't think so on that either. There's a bit of motivation involved, plasticness of the event itself aside. That motivation is just to go out with a few friends, or someone you like. You might not like the "traditions" of these events: that's perfectly fine, the artificiality isn't right for some. Still, for those that choose to observe what's there, it's not attention that's the main thing. For those that couldn't care less anyway, why should they be concerned with attention?

At 11/1/09 11:21 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: That period is the ONLY period in which I've blocked web ads (EVER), and I caught shit from people going "wahhh stop being a bitch and just support the site wahhh." Well, no, fuck that noise if it screws-up the site itself... and shut the fuck up you poor shits who want to rag on me for blocking something when you won't even lend a goddamn dime yourselves to cats who provide you with a boatload of entirely free entertainment for nothing. UGHGHGHGHGH

I think that is part of something else in the Newgrounds community. Some users seem to think that somewhere in the terms and conditions, there's a point about treating everyone who brings up a more negative point as a child. It's hard to explain, but look at any threads on the NG Chat for instance, as another example. A user, who may or may not use the forums regularly (and is unaware of the search function), politely asks why the chat rooms are yet to be released and receives only "Stop whining stupid bitch", or something, in return. It's like the users that give the sorts of responses like that, "stop whining about the ads" and so on, simply have their responses pre-copied onto their clipboard.

Due to this sort of usage in the forums, I can understand why you might be frustrated. I'm maintaining that it's just a forum thing that some users do for reasons unrelated to the actual issue (boredom, etc., I don't know). It's a different argument than "Are ads important to the site?" I think. It's a style of "convenience posting" I wish people could snap out of, honestly. It's not like people bringing up a point that's already been discussed a few times is going to cause life as we know to end, you know? It just requires a bit of patience, on all sides actually.

So, I'm like, rambling here. I don't have any real feelings regarding the ad system itself, since I don't use the Flash portal anywhere near as much as I used to, so the banners are just there for me, like they've always been. It's great to know you've got something from the store. That's something that makes me guilty at times, though I hope to spend some money there soon. Otherwise, I'd just advise anyone to look further than the convenience posters, because they probably don't mean their points seriously - it's all about having a big number under your picture, or looking like a big man in what's apparently a kiddies' world, or something silly like that.

As for alternatives to Internet ads as business models, I think any ideas would just be received with hostility, like they are now. It's this image of the Internet: to many it's a place that's completely disconnected to the frameworks of our developed societies. The Internet is, unfortunately, bought out every day, every hour, by someone else.

I'm a thinker, not a do-er.

I also think I missed any references to your actual argument.

I think for me, it's going to be "that response". Context comes in way too much, not to mention that the ideas being addressed may not call for an extreme response, like death, in order to be translated on to a page or a piece of film. Obviously you can't avoid conflict in a conventional narrative, and seeing as external conflict is (arguably, probably just me speaking here) easier to plan out and make believable, then bringing a death in might be an acceptable idea. I believe that some conflict requires the characters in a narrative to be active and alive though, to bring in internal conflicts too, since, you know, one character's conflicts disappear the moment they're wiped out.

It can be interesting to see main character deaths carried out in unorthodox ways though, not so much experimental ways, but ambitious ways. Janet Leigh in Psycho for instance. That example rests on the question, "Is Janet Leigh's character the protagonist of the film?"Honestly, that sort of thinking interests me, haha.

I don't know if this is what you were expecting. My overall view is that death is an extreme measure of resolving a conflict, hence it is relevant in extreme circumstances. In others, it can seem horrendously out of place, and we focus ourselves on issues that the work wasn't really discussing, or something really trivial. There's an almost unlimited number of ways of reading a text of course, but fnpqd[oq.

Yeah, I'm a bit lost now to tell the truth.

Although the line is considered a marketing technique more than anything (at least, in the general sens;, I hate the view that the only thing the film industry is concerned with is profit, but I'm rambling), as the audience, we should keep in mind that there's a world of film, and the world we live in. Some facts have to be distorted for the sake of entertainment in film (someone mentioned A Beautiful Mind, a textbook example of this I'd say). Techniques can be used to really capture a sense of "realism" in film, but it's a sketchy argument all the same. EclecticEnnui mentioned Man Bites Dog, a good example of a sort of "fake realism". I don't really know the film you're referring to Mr. H-O-S, unfortunately.

Actually, most films with a historical examination would fall into this, and suffer as a result via immense (and sometimes poorly devised) revisionism, like The Deer Hunter, or a similar film. Westerns tend to pull this off a little easier because the conventions are laid out a little clearer. I digress, I think.

Some films can pull this off as a result of people passing the message around. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre for instance, is barely true at all when you look at the details, despite claims otherwise (in the same way that many other barely-true horror films using elements of Ed Gein's personality as part of the monster are not). As much as it might sound like a cliche when it's just thrown off the back of a promotion, I think it's effective, at least to some, in extreme circumstances.

And Fargo does it hilariously, again off of bizarre/extreme events. The main issue now, is that when a film might use this phrase tongue-in-cheek, they'll be "ripping off Fargo". That makes me sad.

Haha, this is quite fun actually. It's time to measure up my general knowledge/association mechanisms, or whatever. Admittedly, I actually got my first one correct: Sigmund Freud, very easy really given the obvious categories. Wish me luck for the rest!

Someone mentioned that a literature portal (and possibly a literature forum I might add) is already in production, so any budding writers should try to be patient if they wish to get their stuff on Newgrounds. The blog system has lots of holes for creative writers, at least from my perspective as an active writer, but it's the best bet at the moment. On your actual idea, there is the NG Library, which has collected links of older creative works posted to the BBS, and the Story Library, which unfortunately doesn't seem to have grown too much. Anyway, any ideas are always welcomed (and it helps if they're acted on by individual users if possible)... I hope!

At 10/28/09 09:57 PM, WritersBlock wrote: It's more of a reality than you think. ;)

I'm half-aware of the thing you've got going, and I'm honestly extremely psyched about that. What frustrates me the most is that I can't come up with anything that I believe may be interesting enough to be considered, but I'm happy anyway since it may inspire more attempts in the future in getting writers together to make a marketable product. I'm looking forward to whatever comes out anyway.

Following on from another WB point, I too think a writing forum would be great for handling scripts that a Flash animator may be able to work with. I'm talking properly formatted scripts, with as little prose as possible, like the professionals do it. I just spat in your face a few times, sorry. Anyway, yeah, lots of people would need a helping hand with that, myself included, so erm, yeah, forums are great for that.

At 10/28/09 03:29 PM, TomFulp wrote: Leaving no stone unturned, we're planning an even crazier event around the production of movies. It will combine writers, artists, animators, musicians and voice actors in a structured competition that spans several phases.

Whoa, that in itself sounds awesome. I've wanted to contribute something proper for so long, but I don't have any animating or art-related talent. I wouldn't know the first thing about serious game production, but I've seriously been thinking about ideas for short films for a little while. As always, I'll keep my eyes on that little space at the top of each forum.

It's something I've been keeping tucked away in anticipation of a Writing Portal, but for now we might just have to settle for opening a Writing Forum, much like how the Art Forum prepared for the Art Portal. More on that in the coming weeks, we still have our massive summer/fall project to complete.

I'm very happy to read that, as much as I'm obviously aware that user-created literature oppurtunities (obviously, deservedly) will take a back-seat to the stuff you guys have got going. I've talked to lots of people about this before actually, and I was thinking that a similar strategy to the art portal/forum could come out.

I'm just psyched to see some official stuff on the whole process. It's not something that's going to be easy, at least I certainly don't think so, you guys are probably well aware of it all. That's me in brief, before I start erupting into, "WE COULD DO THIS AND THAT!", "WE COULD HAVE PUBLISHED ANTHOLOGIES IN THE STORE AND EVERYTHING!", etc.

Good evening to you sirs.

At 10/28/09 09:44 AM, Lizzardis wrote: What's that for? Blackpool is awesome! Its like a strange totally the opposite place like Miami. Apart from....Its much colder.....More populated.....And the girls cover themselves up! XD

I do quite like Blackpool though, its a nice place at winter time if you wrap up warm and go for a stroll around the shops on the beach side. Then it becomes night time and the Christmas light turn on :)

I've only been to Blackpool once, and while it wasn't so bad funwise around the pleasure beach and elsewhere, I didn't particularly like it. No offense intended to any Blackpoolers here, it just, yeah. I don't know, maybe I should go again and reassess it. The place is actually more of a running joke in my family. My parents refer to it as "Bolton-On-Sea", and while they're from Bolton, trust me, they don't mean the name to be nice. Another Blackpool anecdote is to do with my Grandad. He supposedly had the job during the war of "guarding Blackpool". The joke goes that the Germans flew over, looked down, concluded it had already been bombed, and flew off.

But I'm sure it's a fine place if you have fun anyway.

At 10/28/09 09:56 AM, Ejit wrote: I have a general hatred towards big English seaside towns, they're generally tacky, cheap and a bit run down.

This is my view, generally, like I say.

COME ARMAGEDDON COMMMME

At 10/28/09 10:01 AM, BabiesAteMyDingo wrote: But I know England quite well. Especially around Winchester, because I lived there for some years.

Awesome, I'm living in Winchester now to study. It's a pleasant area I think. Sometimes I don't think I appreciate it enough actually, since I could be in a much worse place to live. I'm still settling in though, so I'm actually a little foreign to some things myself, though obviously it's not a massive transition or anything.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be talking about, just a little surprised to see Winchester come up!

At 10/28/09 02:38 PM, Ejit wrote: If I was foreign and I came to England and saw Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow, I'd go straight home.

As much as I believe that most cities here, including those three, have improved to some degree since the post-war, "oh, let's throw some concrete together and call it a new city" styles that depress most people, I know what you mean. The center of Birmingham is actually pretty cool I think. They tend to have lots going on, and I almost always find what I want... but yeah, the rest, hmm, to put it bluntly. Again, no offense intended.

Being brief and general, a more accurate phrase to throw out there might be, "If I was foreign and I came to England and saw Halifax, Brixton and Moss Side, I'd consider trying to go straight home."

Those places are probably better in reality than their reputation implies though, Halifax in particular, because that image seems to be a little dead now.