Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

So, overall, I like the premise. It's cute and soft, and definitely has room to grow. However, you can also leave it at this, expanding on the "middle" of the story. You have a great ending with "Hi," and a good set-up, but you can expand on the middle of it, making it a pensive reflection on human interaction and how it shapes our future actions, along with the possibilities of "the path not taken." But that's just my take.

That's when from the corner of my eye i caught a glimpse of something moving, i looked in that direction and found that i wasn't alone, someone else was waiting for the subway, his head rocking back and forward as he listened to some music using his headphones.

Break this up. At least throw in a semi-colon. It'll help separate the action (rocking his head) from the scene (saw something move, wasn't alone, someone else was there). It's also just a really long, meandering sentence that doesn't really have a reason to meander.

Weird. I thought to myself, not many people take the subway anymore.

This is an interesting line. Definitely good for some world building, but if you intend to keep the story this short (which you can), I'd drop it and focus more the human interaction.

He looked forward intensely as if he was trying to ignore the world, slowly he closed his eyes while rocking his head slower.

Change up the verbs. You just used rocking, and a derivative of "slow" popped up twice. I'm not a fan of telling people to use a thesaurus (it's clear that you're just showing off) but it's good in moments like this. It not only avoids repetition of relatively bland words, but a different word can evoke a different feeling and image.

I don't know exactly what came over me but when i came to my senses he was next to him. I was panicking inside of my head, i don't even know that person! Why the hell did i walk over to him? This didn't make any sense, and neither did what i said next.

"Hi"

You certainly can go a lot of ways with this premise. I'd sit down and develop this more, and consider what kind of story you want to tell.

A little something I typed up after a long hiatus away from writing. Only on draft 2, but it's feeling good.
-----------------------
I saw her today.

We met in a coffee shop. Not the one that this started at. And ended at. This one was different. It was close to her place. Even though it was set up in one of the busiest business sections of the city, it tried to keep the hipster aesthetic. The large plate-glass windows broke the illusion that smooth, carved wooden tables and chipped china gave. The staff dressed the part in their dreary sweaters and gauged ears, but the customers came and went in their Hugo Boss suits, tailored to the priciest perfection they could afford.

I arrived first. Got my coffee. Sat down. Waited for her. Another girl was there. She seemed anxious, like she was waiting for someone. I hope I didn’t look that nervous.

I check the door every time it moved. I sip my coffee slow. I don’t know if I want it to last to talk with her longer, or drink it quickly and get out of there sooner. I try to fix my hair, but it won’t stay. The sweater was a good choice. It hides the sweat.

She walks in. She looks different. She looks…lighter. Her hair is brighter. She lost weight. Her clothes fit snug around her body, accentuating her figure, but hiding the demure curves that I adored, that I held close at night. I smiled as my heart jumped.

Hi. I stayed seated. I didn’t hug her. I don’t need Alexis. The pain is gone. I’m in control. I stroke the beard Alexis wouldn’t let me grow. I run my hand through my unkempt hair. Fuck, should have gotten it cut. She loved my long hair.

I forgot how beautiful she is. I couldn’t look at her for too long without feeling my eyes tremble. She was confident. In charge. Crisp. She was stronger than when she left me. Did I weigh her down that much? No, I was her spring board. Is that better?

We start updating each other about the last month and a half. Work was long but getting better, I finally felt good about my finals at law school. The conversation feels off. Forced. Joyless. For once, I took the lead on the conversations. She must appreciate my newfound conversation skills. It avoids the awkward silences.

She doesn't want to be here. I made Alexis come here. I guess bothering her every couple of weeks to hang out finally paid off. She lied when she wanted to still be friends. She just didn’t want me to hate her. Too late, bitch.

We talk about friends. I mention the Jen thing. It’s a humble brag, I know. I wanted to mention it. Show Alexis women are tripping over themselves to sleep with me. I made sure to say we didn’t have sex. I’m not some godless, lost asshole, fucking everything in sight. Especially if I’m the other man. The other man to my best friend. But I could. I don’t need Alexis.

She brings up how her friends “fixed” my Tinder. I lament the few responses I received and the reverted changes. She says Tinder is fun. I ask her if she’s seen anyone. Timidly. Should have looked her in the eye. Show I don’t care. She says a few dates but only talks about one where the guy thought she was Jewish. Yeah, that Facebook status was about getting laid. She’s embarrassed. Alexis knows I know.

I mention I went on a date. I specify that it was from the Halloween party. She knows when we broke up. I tell her it didn’t go well. I leave out the almost sex. I do say that she wanted something long term. That and the 2001: A Space Odyssey anecdote. I knew she would appreciate that. Alexis knows how much I like to pretend to be cultured, throwing in references to movies and music and art and books that I only have a slim grasp on.

Wait…she’s awkward. Alexis thinks I had sex. Awesome. Mission accomplished. The banner unrolled, confetti rained down upon my head, world peace has been obtained. I casually checked my phone for the time. She wants to move the conversation on, but it’s clear she’s ready to end it. I say something about her sister or Christmas gifts or whatever. We talk about that for another few minutes, transitioning away from the tough words. I realize I need something for my sister. She mentions there’s only a week left. I say 9 days. We settle on 8…ish. Normally that’d be fun. Playful frustration. It was a battle. Frustrated frustration. Seriousness. Strain.

I say I need to go. It was good to see her. I place the cup back on the counter as she slowly puts on her coat. I wait. We walk outside. I give her a hug. I tell her goodbye.

She walks away. I walk away. I want to cry. I don’t. I feel sad. I’m drained. I stumble towards the train to go home, tripping over the emotions I purposefully dredged up from the bottom of my soul. The ones I packed away because when she left, I fell down, clutching at any sinewy strand of substance humanity deemed worthy for me. The ones I kept hidden when I needed to live without the person that was the only thing that made you feel like a person. Why did I want this meeting? Did I want to reconnect? Show her how good I’m doing without her? To remind myself that she’s always going to be doing better? To see if I could walk away like she’s just a person? I don’t know. I don’t know. All I know is that I hurt. Not like before. A quick-sand depression, pulling me down, immobilizing me, encasing my mind in the sludge of lost love. Before I was razed by the fire of sadness, now I’m in the tar pit of an existential crisis. Why did I care so much about seeing her?

I look back for her.

She’s disappeared in the sparse crowd.

I looked forward and cross the street.

At least I still have that Tinder date this Friday.

At 12/29/10 11:22 AM, EvilJesus wrote: S'up bitches. My headset has just broke and I need a new one, I want to get a USB one to use on the computer as well. Any suggestions?

I know that the official PS3 one can be used as a desktop mic when you're charging it. And some newer computers have blue tooth technology built into it.

At 12/27/10 05:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/25/10 10:01 PM, TheThing wrote: That's a very simplistic view of pricing. But ignoring that, if my payroll increases by $200,000 by hiring more workers, unless I'm constantly selling products at certain rates (which never happen), I'm eventually going to have either raise prices or lay people off.

If employing more people will jack up costs without increasing profits...why hire more people?

Because in order for the government to collect taxes, people need to buy stuff. In order for people to buy stuff, they need money. Jobs give them money.

If people stop buying stuff, yeah, there will be savings. Or, you know, they'll be paying off mortgages or car loans or whatever instead of buying a new Xbox. More savings don't necessarily mean more spending down the line.

The reason they would have so much debt is because of the availability of cheap credit. However, if interest rates aren't so artificially low, they never would have had so much credit, and they would be incentivised to save.

Yes, fine, that's all well and good. But how does saving in a Sales Tax run country do any good for the government? The government wants money, and the only way they're going to get that is by getting people to buy stuff. Also, most people don't have $150,000 laying around to buy a house, or even $20,000 to get a car. Those are much needed loans, and people like to pay that shit off.

What you're suggesting would be to increase wages but keep prices the same, which is impossible. Every supply-side policy has led to increased spending, and the only way to keep that spending high would be to allow people to buy on credit, which would eventually lead to a bust.

No, I'm talking about increasing production. Prices would fall, and yeah, this would drive up consumption, but because this was a natural result that emerged from (comparitively) unhindered market activity, it would reach a healthy equilibrium. The bust comes when the government creates artificial booms through inflation.

For being so pro-business, you know very little about it. Sure, increasing production would drop the price, but sales may not automatically increase. For instance, dildos. There's only so many people that are going to buy dildos, and each person is only going to be so many dildos. Dropping the price on dildos would have little, if any, effect on sales because of that. Also, profits will drop, and if the previous risk comes true, there's no hope in recovering them.

As for equilibrium, there's a thing called saturation. For goods that last a long time (like dildos), you're only going to be able to sell so many before there's no market. If everyone who wants a dildo has one, they're not going to want to buy another. Sure, you'll see people who's dildos break or want a newer model, but you won't see the same sales as you did when you first dropped the price.

Also, in an "unhindered market", there couldn't be a minimum wage or safety standards on the products/work condition. Let's face it, cutting your pork sausage with horse meat is much cheaper than using all pork. And windows and doors are so expensive to put into a factory - no windows, 1 exit should do fine in case of a fire. Lighting? 2 bulbs per thousand square feet should be fine. All this is not only dangerous to the customers and workers, but also to the business. With a need for cheap labor to maintain cheap prices and the profits they bring, more and more workers would be needed, and since they were being paid shit, wouldn't be able to buy things, the government doesn't get money, and everything goes to shit.

Finally, back in the good old days (all of the 1800's, before 98% government intervention in business), recessions and depressions were normal occurrences. Hell, Hoover didn't do much in 1929 because he figured the economy would just bounce back like it always had, and that government interaction would be wasteful and pointless.

I'm not talking about stimulating production, I'm talking about not holding it back from it's natural level (as opposed to abruptly pushing it above this level).

How would you stimulate production? Right now it's at it's natural level - supply is generally meeting demand. Fun fact - manufacturers don't run at 100% capacity. It's more cost effective to run at much less, depending on the demand. They're not going to up their current production speeds because the government lessens it's hold on them.

True laissez-faire has never really existed.

But there have been laissez-faire policies/laws. And if you feel that laissez-faire would be a good choice in a Sales Tax revenue country, what policies would you enact that would increase spending dollars, but decrease/maintain prices. It doesn't have to be specific; just say "lower business taxes" or "lower business taxes and subsidize employee wages". (Note: those are just ideas that may or may not work. Don't criticize them. They're only there for example)

You do understand that those people's educations would be worthless, right? After they spent hundreds of thousands on college to become a tax lawyer would have been wasted, and they wouldn't have any marketable skills.

I'm pretty sure they could work as contract lawyers or accountants or something.

That's like asking a NASCAR driver to jockey a race horse. I mean, they both have to drive something around an oval track as fast as they can, so therefore the skills must be transferable.

You forgot trollface.jpg.

"I think we should take damoney of da rich and giv it to all da poor pplz" sounds more troll than what i said.

That comment was only made to incite anger and responses. Any logical, intelligent person wouldn't use "government is stealing my money" as a legitimate argument against taxing.

Anyway, the stealing argument is retarded. If you can demonize or glorify anything.

Wouldn't this be an argument AGAINST taxation?

This is literally in no way whatsoever analogous to taxation.

Wow, some one didn't understand that I was using examples to prove my claim that you can demonize or justify anything you want. Whether it makes sense or not is up to you, just like "taxing is theft".

This post made me giggle. I liked the part where you said "I can't give out the title since it's confidential right now, but I'll lust let you know it's a single word."

Anyway, these ads never work. Animators run the world. An animator will only pick up your script if they have the time to animate, can't think of anything to animate, and feel you're a good writer. Unless you pay someone to make your script, it's going to take a lot of luck to have an animator stumble upon an ad in the Writing forum and pick up your script.

I suggest you go over the Collab forum and make a new ad following these tips.

1) Don't request a "good" animator. You should be thankful that anyone decides to animate your script, no matter their skill. It's pompous to think that only a professional animator should make your script a reality, and that will stop people from working with you immediately. Get off your high horse and be happy that some one is willing to work with you, and share your script with Newgrounds

2) Don't say that it's confidential, or put "hints" about anything in the script. I don't care that the title is one word. Unless I'm crazy and only do scripts with 2 words, I really don't want to hear about bullshit like that. If I'm looking to work on a script, I'm just looking to see if you have one. If I want to work with you, I'll ask to see more information about the script. If you want to put some information about your script, put a very brief (under 20 words or so) description of the script.

3) Put some links up to your other work. If you've written some short stories or scripts, or already have something animated, put a link to that in your ad. Just like you want to work with the best animator possible, animators want to work with the best writer possible, and displaying some of your work helps them decide if they want to work with you.

4) You don't need to sign your ad. Unless your a big-time writer, no one gives a shit about your name. Your NG username is all that they need.

If you follow these tips, the chances of you getting your script animated will greatly improve.

At 12/28/10 02:06 PM, NapalmDTH wrote: thank you that helps. iv only written in a format that I'm use to reading lyrics in. often in death core the lyrics are written this way so when the person is singing it they can visualize they're own rhythm instead of following whats written. but ill try and stuck to the format i wrote in the last song

And another reason why music helps. I thought that these were just regular metal or screamo lyrics, which follow the beat and rhythm of the music and are divided into regular lines. If deathcore uses that format, then yeah, go with that.

Next time though, just throw a comment about how these are deathcore lyrics, so that people like me know what to look for.

2 things to before I give an overall review of your lyrics:

1) Your format is horrible. Genocider: The Plague against Man has the lines with how they should be, but other than that, you've made it hard for anyone to read. Not actually hard to read, but it's a lot easier to read lyrics when the lines are clearly defined, even when they don't rhyme. It gives the reader a sense of the beat, which leads into my second point

2) Lyrics are hard to judge because there's no music to it, at least in this form. The music not only sets the tone for what the lyrics mean, but it also defines the rhythm of the song and how the lyrics should be read. And hearing the lyrics being sung also helps with the meaning and how each line fits into the beat.

Now, on to my review of your lyrics.

The first thing I noticed was the lack of chorus. The chorus is one of the most important parts of any song with any lyrical significance. Since the chorus is repeated throughout the song, it drives home the themes of the song to the listener. What purpose does this song have? What do you want the people listening to it to take away? That's what you want to put in the chorus. While it's not exactly necessary, it's been a staple of all types of music pretty much since the invention of lyrics and should be used. It's a great device that songs can have that other forms of expression don't.

What you have here are just free verse poems without any meter. Hell, some of them are in paragraph form and should stay that way, based on the way your wrote them. Lyrics have the same setup as a poem does, and should be written the same way. I hate to keep using this as an example, but Genocider is the best written and best formatted song you've written and shared here. Look at how you wrote that, and mimic that style with every song.

Overall, I liked the lyrics. Some of them are a bit generic (The Storm, Zombie, Perception), some are just bad (Salting the Wound), but the rest had some very nice imagery and felt fairly fresh in this age of angsty music. Keep writing and practicing, and eventually you'll find your groove.

Oh, and spell/grammar check. Not only helps me out, but could also help you later on down the road when you're reading this back and wondering what the fuck you meant by "between being a boy and a ma".

It's been going that way for a while now. Remember when Bush tried to put all the Social Security money into the stock market back in 2005 or so?

It's not anything recent either; politicians have been taking money from the Social Security trust fund (where all the extra SS money went) for years, and now that there's nothing in there, we're fucked.

They either need to raise the rates, decrease the payout, raise the retirement age to 70-75, or abolish it. All 4 of those would have devastating effects to either the economy or to people. You don't realize it, but old people spend most, if not all, of their SS checks on food and clothes. What they don't spend on necessities, they spend on lottery tickets and toys for their grandchildren. All of that money goes right back into the economy, which is the 1/2 the reason FDR created it (the other 1/2 was to allow old people to live and not depend on their children).

I'm writing a script, and I need some help with some drug culture. If you guys could just give me some terms you use (or your friends use) for when drugs, specifically ecstasy, are wearing off, that would be awesome. All I got are the generic terms - Coming down and crashing, so anything you know of to add to that would be great.

And before you say it, I've tried Google. Maybe you have better search terms than me, but I'm having troubling coming up with stuff.

At 12/25/10 09:06 PM, TheSporkLord wrote: So yeah. What would you choose between Borderlands, quantum theory, and vanquish?

Borderlands, hands down.

At 12/24/10 06:26 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/24/10 06:05 PM, TheThing wrote: Then more people are hired in order to keep up production, which in turn increases prices.

This would lead to price stability, actually. If more is being produced, prices fall. If more is being consumed, prices rise, and so the two counter-balance each other.

That's a very simplistic view of pricing. But ignoring that, if my payroll increases by $200,000 by hiring more workers, unless I'm constantly selling products at certain rates (which never happen), I'm eventually going to have either raise prices or lay people off.

Eventually, prices are going to outpace wages or people will just stop buying as much crap. Then GDP falls, the government loses money.

If this were to happen, people would just save more. More capital accumulation leads to more production, and things even out.

People won't save more. They'll be spending more, then have less money, then need to use credit to buy either things they want or need. They'll be buying less of what they want, and more of what they need, and, at least under the current sales tax system, necessities like food aren't taxed. Government ends up losing money.

If people stop buying stuff, yeah, there will be savings. Or, you know, they'll be paying off mortgages or car loans or whatever instead of buying a new Xbox. More savings don't necessarily mean more spending down the line.

It's an unsustainable model that will cause recessions and depressions. Every time GDP rose drastically, it was followed by a recession or depression (1920's, 1980's, 2000's)

Uh, no. You're conflating credit-expansion driven booms with any instance in which GDP rises.

But if is "supply-side" or laissez-faire minded policies, then no. But with this, it has to be long term policies. Although a temporary tax cut or refund may seem 'laissez faire', it's stimulatory.

What you're suggesting would be to increase wages but keep prices the same, which is impossible. Every supply-side policy has led to increased spending, and the only way to keep that spending high would be to allow people to buy on credit, which would eventually lead to a bust. If you can think of at least 1 policy or combination of policies that hasn't been done before in history that would increase spending but keep prices low and not lead to a credit crunch, then I'll give you this point.

But earlier you said tax increases are frowned upon.

On 'main street' families they are. But certainly not on corporations. Oh

And then, most of the tax preparers and tax lawyers wouldn't have jobs, so you're destroying the industry.

So? These individuals weren't being productive in the first place, so it's good their jobs are gone. Their jobs existed only because of government law, not a genuine market demand.

You do understand that those people's educations would be worthless, right? After they spent hundreds of thousands on college to become a tax lawyer would have been wasted, and they wouldn't have any marketable skills.

At 12/25/10 01:36 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/24/10 09:40 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Whereas when you tax the rich, you're taking their play money.

BECAUSE STEALING IS OKAY IF THEY DON'T "NEED" THE MONEY RIGHT

You forgot trollface.jpg.

Anyway, the stealing argument is retarded. If you can demonize or glorify anything. I mean, when I kill people, it's only to keep the population under control. It's just population management, and shouldn't be punished when a lot of the country is overcrowded. Or going to the doctor is poisoning your body. Look at what it does to you - chemo makes you lose your hair and vomit, the drugs the doctors give you are addictive, and everything the doctor does creates more problems, and you end up ruining your body by going there.

At 12/24/10 04:31 PM, MattZone wrote: Abolishing the income tax and instituting a national sales tax would have several benefits:

1. The only ways for the federal government to raise revenues would be to:
a.) increase the tax rate, which would be unpopular.
b.) enact policies that would increase the national GDP, which would be very popular.

Increasing GDP wouldn't do anything, at least in the long term. Short term, yes, people are buying more goods/services, which means more money for the government. Then more people are hired in order to keep up production, which in turn increases prices. Eventually, prices are going to outpace wages or people will just stop buying as much crap. Then GDP falls, the government loses money.

It's an unsustainable model that will cause recessions and depressions. Every time GDP rose drastically, it was followed by a recession or depression (1920's, 1980's, 2000's)

2. Tax policy would no longer be a battleground for class warfare. Everyone would pay the same rate whether they were buying a gallon of milk or a yacht.

But then the rich will say that this policy is unfair to them, since they're going to be paying more taxes because they buy more higher priced items, while the lazy poor people are paying less because they're buying cheaper goods and services. It's a different kind of class warfare.

3. The corruption of the political system by special interests and corporations would be greatly reduced. Politicians could no longer reward their supporters with tax breaks and punish their opponents with tax increases.

But earlier you said tax increases are frowned upon. Besides, you do understand that it's not all that easy to increase or decrease taxes, or at least as easy as it may seem. Besides, I can make a law that says any item costing over $50,000 will have a 20% tax on it. Suddenly, those who made huge donations to my campaign are getting breaks. Sure, it's a bit more broad, but the other politicians will be on board.

4. The IRS could be greatly reduced in size, which would save several billion dollars.

Initially, but if different sales tax rates could be applied to different products, you're going to need an IRS to make sure everything is collected properly.

And while people won't be paying taxes, you're going to crush businesses as they have to deal with all of the taxes and different rates. And then, most of the tax preparers and tax lawyers wouldn't have jobs, so you're destroying the industry.

5. Tax evasion would be far easier and more lucrative to detect, investigate, and prosecute as it is far easier to find a business that is not paying its sales taxes than it is to find a person who is hiding income or refusing to pay.

See above. But if that scenario doesn't play out, I'd agree.

6. There would be no tax shelters for the rich or for corporations. The only way for the rich to avoid paying taxes would be to go overseas and spend their money there, and not come back with anything they bought because the national sales tax would also be an import tax. Corporations would be unable to avoid the tax because anything they imported, exported, or sold in the United States would be taxed.

Well, that brings up an interesting point. Yeah, large items like cars would have to be bought in America, but if I buy a PS3 in Canada and ship it to my house, I'm avoiding the import tax. Or if I go to Costa Rica and buy a bunch of stuff there and carry on the plane with me, there wouldn't be any import or American sales tax on that.

And businesses would end up being tax-free. They would only have to pay if they import or export goods, or if they buy anything in America. And then you'd kill business's efficiency by having them duplicate their businesses - one for international, and one for domestic. Since it would be cheaper to have an American manufacturing plant for America and one for everywhere else, the managing end of the deal would be horrific. Not only that, but while it would create American jobs, it would raise prices with the increased labor costs, and create inflation.

Generally, making an ad like this in the writing forums doesn't work. Artists don't come here unless they want a script to work from.

Head over to the Collaboration forum and see if anyone is interested in your script. Personally, I'd say post your script in your blog and like to it when you post in the Collab forum, because most artists won't volunteer to work with a person whose skills are unknown. If they don't know you're a good writer, then they won't work with you. But if you link your script to them, they might consider.

I replaced the first and third stanzas with the revised one, so don't think this critique is on the old version.

Also, everything here is supposed to help you. It may sound mean, but it's supposed to; pointing out flaws makes you better. I also focus more on over-arching problems to help with later poems, and only use for examples.

Finally, everything here is my opinion. I'm not an expert poet, and, while I may know technique, I don't know all of it. Anything I say is just my interpretation of what makes good poetry.

At 12/9/10 02:03 AM, LarxII wrote: I'm aching to feel
For once, something real
Be who you are
Not who they want

For starters, you begin your poem with some cliches, and the worst part is that they aren't even all that good. Cliches show a weak writer; there's no other way that you can think of to say "I want emotions" and "you're unique; show it"? Cliches are fine in normal speech, because it's a handy saying and you don't have much time to think of something better. But in writing, you're sitting there, thinking about every single word you want to put down. And this is creative writing too - you're supposed to be at least trying to come up with something relatively unique. You can use cliches as a placeholder to remind you of the emotion you're trying to convey, but they shouldn't make it into the final draft.

Also, just because you're writing a poem, it doesn't mean that you can forget about punctuation. Periods and commas are not only necessary, but they can help add meaning and/or emotion to a poem. They also help the reader. On the first read, I read "For once, something real/Be who you are" as 1 sentence, when they're 2 completely separate ideas (and I hope 2 sentences). If the reader has to stop reading your poem to understanding what's going on, chances are they won't keep reading.

Finally, I'm not really getting what's going on in this stanza; the narrator starts off saying he (I'm assuming) wants to experience some real emotion, then immediately switches to telling a girl (I'm assuming) to be herself. Even if the comment is aimed towards the narrator, it really doesn't go with the first 2 lines. Stanzas are like paragraphs; each one should have a new idea. Imagine if I wrote an essay about frogs, and in the halfway through the paragraph on their respiratory system, I started talking about the muscles that make them jump. Sure, it's relevant to the subject and the reader, but doesn't really belong where I put it.

Oh, and while the structure is better in this version, the old 1st stanza read a little better. Maybe if you use some punctuation, this version might work better, but as of now, it's not all that good.

I want something more
Something I can keep
Something in my mind
That I need more than sleep

I liked the repetition of "something"; it really drives home the fact that the narrator's not in the game for something specific to "make [him] feel...real". Anything will do. He's desperate, and sees unknown girl as his only hope. It also read great; the first 3 lines really had a nice cadence to them, and really moved the reader along nicely. However...

The big however, is that it feels like the rhyming is a bit of a stretch. Like you were trying to figure out some kind of rhyme to fit the stanza. You wanted to use "keep", and the next word you thought of was "sleep". Rhyming is tough to do, but if you do use it, try to make it as natural as possible. It's a tough call as to what's "natural", but you know it when you read it.

Finally, I'm curious as to why there's a change in structure. You start off with an AABC pattern, and move to an ABCB pattern. Generally, when there's a change in structure between stanzas, it denotes a change in the emotional or mental state of the narrator. It's not that big of a deal here, but, later on in this poem (and in any future poems), it could mean big things.

Nourish me with your love,
with your heart
And drink in my soul
Our emotions, now art

This significantly better than the last 3rd stanza you had. An actual rhyme (following the previous stanza's structure), commas where they should be, beautiful imagery. It's as though you read my post before I wrote it. I love the dichotomy of both nourishing you and drinking from you; like a ying-yang or quid pro quo situation. And I like the turn you made - enough of this "woe is me" crap; I want, no, I need you, and I want you to need me!

But there are a few problems. For starters, the rhyme once again feels a bit forced. I mean, it's a bit of hard, as a reader, to take a very abstract, vague, and large term like "emotions", and try to bring it into the real world through a thing very abstract, vague and large like art. I immediately began wondering what it would look like - is it a painting, or a sculpture? Oh, it could also be music, or a book too. And would it be happy art? Angry art? Sad art? I stopped thinking about how this image added to the poem, and started to think only about this image. You can compare the emotions to something, but have that something be a definite thing that people can instantly think of in quantifiable terms.

Feel as I feel
See as I see
Grasp my hand
Stay here with me

Forever...

Okay, change in structure - the official lecture. As I said earlier, changing structure adds meaning to a poem. Generally, rhyming shows a very calculated nature to the speaker. He/she feels strong emotion and wants to express it through poetry, but their intelligence supersedes those emotions, controlling and directing them. Free verse, however, generally shows a lack of control over his/her emotion. The emotions are running free from the heart to the hand, only using the brain to think of the words. Now, when you start out rhyming, then devolve into free verse, you kind of get this madness effect; talking about this subject has made the speaker become overwhelmed with emotion, losing the ability to create in the exacting form he/she started with.

And the change in syllables brings a whole new meaning too. You used 5 syllables (roughly) throughout the entire poem, making the reader believe this is the speaker's normal cadence. But suddenly you change to an entire stanza of 4 syllables, with a 3 syllable ending? When it's quick and short, it moves the reader along quickly, their mind trying to keep up. The speaker is talking as quick as their mind can process what they're going to say. What you did here makes it seem like the narrator is overcome with emotion to the point of not being able to think out the original, beautiful sentences that proceeded this stanza.

Finally, the word choice. The speaker is commanding this girl to be exactly like the narrator. And that last word, "forever...", out on it's own, is just creepy. It's now beyond "I love you, be with me"; it's "I love you, and I hope you don't mind me watching you from the branch outside your room". This speaker is a restraining order away from being this girl's stalker.

My suggestion is to get rid of "forever", or, if you want to use it, use it somewhere in the 4th stanza, and not put it out by itself. Also, go back to the rhyming (however unnatural it may be), along with going for the 5 syllable standard. It'll wash some of that creepy out.

Final word of advice - don't bump your work. If you do, try to hide it with a revision, or response to a critique. But no one likes a beggar. I've got plenty of stuff that gets 1 post of "it's pretty good" before it falls off. You should be thankful that Kem came in and broke it down as in-depth as he did.

At 12/19/10 12:01 AM, GordonDaMonster wrote:

At 12/17/10 11:24 PM, TheThing wrote: You should try something original, or something the board doesn't see too much of, like a zombie survival story.

Sounds like a plan, thanks for the help

That was actually a joke. Newgrounds sees a lot of zombie related stories, and they're pretty much all survival stories. Would be nice to see a story with a zombie as the protagonist though.

Anyway, you have to create the idea that you want to write about. While it is good practice to write from ideas you're given (write through a part, even though you don't really want to), you need to think of them on your own. For starters, you can't rely on other people to spoon feed you ideas. That's just not how it works. Secondly, ideas you think of are going to hold more meaning to you, and the work you produce is going to be infinitely better because you actually care about fully realizing your idea.

At 12/18/10 06:24 PM, Dromedary wrote: Anybody catch that Panorama episode the other night about addiction to gaming? I honestly think the concept is quite scary.

People can addicted to anything. There are certain biological factors that can lead to addiction, and if something can trigger those factors, addiction can be possible. Specifically, your dopamine reward system is stimulated, releasing some feel-good drugs (dopamine, if you're too retarded to figure that out). You're body says "hey, doing this makes me feel good, I should do this more often", and an addiction is born.

So, yes, video game addictions can happen. So can running addictions. And TV watching addictions. And tickling addictions. And any other ridiculous action you can think of.

Well, I will say that I'm intrigued. You've set up an interesting story, and I'm looking forward to see where it goes. But telling you that I liked it doesn't really help make it better, does it?

To start, proof read your work before you post it. That's more of a general rule, but the idea is prominent here. I noticed numerous mistakes that not only take away from the story, but confused me. "then booted his right in the ass." what did you mean - "then booted him right in the ass", or "then booted his right ass"? It takes the reader out of the story and slows them down as they try to figure out what you mean.

Also, as 777 said, you set up a weird narrative - it wants to be first person, but it's written in 3rd. It's a Jew for Jesus; it's a Christian masquerading as a Jew, and the result is comically sad. Get rid of any curses (however weird it might sound), and stick to an Omnipresent 3rd person. Or you can set it up as a friend of Kyle's talking about Kyle's life story to the reader.

Also, avoid just stating someone's background. Saying things like "Muhammed was a prisoner of war..." kind of drags the narrative down. Introduce their skills and backgrounds through dialog and action. During the fight, have Kyle look over and see "Brian throwing a guy in the effortless style the SEALs taught him". During the conversation after the fight, have Alex say "I got some great pictures for the book", then have everyone bemoan how stupid the book is and how it's never going to get published because no one ever gets out of this prison, even when you die (some one points to the dead bodies in the roof).

Finally, break it up into smaller paragraphs. Each line of dialog should start a new paragraph, and each paragraph should start a new idea. I'd break up your first paragraph like this:

Whap! THUMP. "C'mon. Get up... get up ya' piece of shit!"

Kyle spat blood, his face was dirty, almost weasely, he had been like a scavenger, like a mole, once he got used to the shithole prison. He had bruises and cuts on his face, he was pale and bleeding, no color in his face. He was angry, and determined to beat his adversary.

He got back up, the brute Thomas was already up. His muscles were huge, and he looked about as shitty as Kyle did, if not, worse. Kyle charged him, anger in his mind. He slugged Tom in the gut, and pulled off an uppercoat. Saliva flung out of his foe's mouth, and he kept punching, alternating fists. Left,right,left,right,left,right, and the a cold boot slammed him in the groin.

"You dirty shit. Your dead now!", Tom yelled out of breath. He wresteld Kyle to the ground, their sweaty bodies struggled, grunting and punching, the crowd backing away. The others fighting around them were just as violent as the other two. Kyle's friends, and Tom's lackey were duking it out, punching each other down around the prison cells.

When Tom wrestled Kyle to rthe ground Kyle spit in his eyes, then booted his right in the ass. His enemy was launched over his head, and, relieved, Kyle stood up, and walked over to his enemy. He got on top of him, and brutally punched him in the face. Each punch a new bruise, a new cut, and new blood shed.

Not only does it make it easier on the eyes, but it makes the action easier to comprehend. The reader is given a breath between punches to absorb what happened. It also allows certain things to stand out, things you want the reader to pay attention to.

You should try something original, or something the board doesn't see too much of, like a zombie survival story.

At 12/17/10 06:50 PM, SirCannabisClock wrote:

At 12/17/10 06:47 PM, TheThing wrote: You can read my reasons why this situation is so far from being possible in my posts. Assuming that you can comprehend more than a couple of words at a time.

ITT: The thing still doesn't understand creative writing

ITT: SirCannabisClock confusing creative writing and creative thinking.

You can have creative writing and still make sense.

If I write a novel about a new disease that causes your arms (or any body part) to fall off, it's possible. But the idea is so ridiculous that no one would take it seriously. And if my main character exposed himself to the virus in order to study it's effects, no one could connect with him, or feel any emotion towards him because he's fucking retarded. And in the end, it turns out the virus was created by a private in the military because if you took the arms off of the people in line for the Presidency, eventually he would become President. Everything here is possible, but so unlikely that it's not going to happen.

So stop trolling, and go fuck a landmine.

At 12/17/10 06:36 PM, SirCannabisClock wrote:

At 12/17/10 05:00 PM, TheThing wrote: No, I get creative writing. But even creative writing needs to be within the realm of reason

Everything op posted is well within reason

You can read my reasons why this situation is so far from being possible in my posts. Assuming that you can comprehend more than a couple of words at a time.

At 12/17/10 03:58 PM, SirCannabisClock wrote:

At 12/17/10 01:49 PM, TheThing wrote: I'm sorry, but when you base the plot of your novel on modern politics, it should be relatively accurate and reflect the current political environment.

ITT: The thing still doesn't get creative writing

No, I get creative writing. But even creative writing needs to be within the realm of reason, unless it's a comedy, or a parody of the subject you're writing about. Even fictional worlds and people need to adhere to basic common sense, unless the characterization of a person says that they doesn't use it. But if no one uses common sense, then I have no connection with the people or the world. If I can't believe that this place or these people actually exist, my immersion in the story is destroyed.

As I've stated multiple times before, unless this is a parody, this could never work. It's just too far fetched for people to believe. Yeah, it's creative (ish), but almost nothing about this is believable. It's a Reagan Republican's wet dream from 1986.

I'm sorry, but when you base the plot of your novel on modern politics, it should be relatively accurate and reflect the current political environment. It should also be in the realm of possibility - there's no way that a democratic government would allow a President to randomly nuke an enemy country, then send 2 million men to attack it. The political backlash would be astounding. And where's the general in all this? Assuming that the Russian President did get approval for all this, the best strategy is to sit 2 million soldiers on an already crowded island, just to hold it hostage after you nuke that country? And there was no warning to the attack - 2 million men just showed up in New York City one morning? No satellite images of 2 MILLION MEN BEING TRANSPORTED HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD to warn anybody about the attack?

Like I said, I can appreciate Brandon for looking to the future and trying to predict it, but almost nothing about his plot makes any reasonable sense to anyone who doesn't fear the Russians like we did in 1953 or 1985.

For me to actually care about the characters and the situation, there needs to be some logical thought behind it, which would make it believable. There is no way that a resistance group fighting Russians would automatically trust a Russian who fought for the Russian army. At the very least, they wouldn't put him in charge of anything important, or give him anything he could report back to the Russians. If they do, that would be a horrible Resistance, and I would be hoping that they get wiped out, because they're only hurting America's chances at winning this thing by being so indescribably retarded.

Like I said, if this is a satire of Cold War fears, by all means, write it (and keep that tone). But if you want a serious action novel about nuclear war and holding a part of the country hostage, have China and America get into something. Reflects modern political feelings? Yep. Possible political metaphor (China holding a bunch of US debt)? Yessir. Within the realm of reason? Although unlikely, it's not too hard to believe China would want the US to pay up or be taken over. Accurate governmental structures? China's government can certainly send a nuke where ever they want, and they have a million man army. Depending on America's reaction, it could be very accurate.

I had no idea it was possible. That some one from 1983 could travel through time to 2010.

Honestly, your knowledge of modern politics is pitiful. Russia and America having an arms race? Russia must back North Korea? Over 2 million missiles shot at 1 city? Russia and the US fighting over oil (the only resource the Middle East really has, and a resource both Russia and the US has a lot of)? All of that is so ridiculous and barely in the realm of possibility that no one would take your novel seriously, just from a political point.

And then the basic setup - 2 million men (but only 280 gunships) are used to attack an island a few square miles big, only to "hold it hostage"? And even without NORAD (assuming that our missile defense systems didn't defend it), America has other ways to run the military. And they would start by intercepting the unnecessarily massive force en route to Manhattan, and shoot some nukes back to Russia. And Russia does all this, just to have America stop trading with Bumfuck in the Middle East? Russia stopped being a dictatorship a long time ago; they have a system of checks and balances through a parliament. Their Prime Minister or President just can't do what they want, especially with the military. And America's only hope is a Russian that everyone automatically trusts and respects, fighting with a resistance group that has a ridiculously long name?

Look, I admire you for trying to predict the future, but you're stuck in the 80's with your enemy countries, you know as much about political systems as an 8 year old, and you have no idea how the military works or the logistics of moving a thousand men, let along 2 million. Tom Clancy at least makes a valid attempt at utilizing the current political and military situations to set up a novel.

Unless this is supposed to be a parody of Cold War era Tom Clancy novels, look at my break down and rework your idea. Watch the news, read international political stories, look at stats from the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan to see how many support and maintenance personnel were needed. Look up how Russia and America organize their government and military, and how they would respond to a threat like this. In novels like this, accuracy will make or break your book, so research and knowledge is key. The closer to what might actually happen you are, the better the book will be.

I don't have a script on hand, but I'd love to write one for you. I should have something done by either tomorrow night or Saturday afternoon/night. Hopefully.

Is it a first come, first serve? Or will you set a deadline and read through the submissions and pick the best one?

She's always around me,
But she's never near me.
I want to be with her,
But I can't approach her.

She's just so full of life,
And always so happy.
I pretend I don't think
About the question, just
So I don't scare her off.

She's so cute and perfect;
Clearly, she's the right one for me.
But apparently I'm not the right one for her.
I'm not as good as any of the other guys
Because they're smart, athletic, attractive,
While I'm weird, creepy and crazy.

She has no idea how much I love her.
How can she not see it?
But I don't care if she doesn't know the extent
Of my endless love for her.
I'll still be her friend.
But for how much longer before I break?
How much longer can I take watching her
With other guys,
When I know that she should be with me
And not with them?
She needs to be with me!
Because she's my true love, my soul mate,
And I will never be complete
Until she's only mine.

At 12/17/10 12:22 AM, TheThing wrote: Trust me, ads like this go nowhere quick.

And by ads like this, I mean ads like this on this forum.

At 12/16/10 09:17 PM, The777Demon wrote:

At 12/16/10 07:06 PM, TheThing wrote: Unfortunately, animators run the world around here. Saying that you're willing to write a script for an animator or willing to voice act in a movie/game won't get you anywhere. You need to wait for an animator to post an ad for help and respond to that.

this site does help for collaborating though.

Got a whole forum for that, my friend. In fact, it's called the Collaboration Forum. You can try your luck there, and get on the list of people looking to collaborate.

Trust me, ads like this go nowhere quick.

Unfortunately, animators run the world around here. Saying that you're willing to write a script for an animator or willing to voice act in a movie/game won't get you anywhere. You need to wait for an animator to post an ad for help and respond to that.

So, uh, I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but what DVD is going to be included? Will it be a random one from the store, a specific one from the store, or whatever shitty movie you have lying around the office?

At 12/13/10 03:55 AM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 12/13/10 02:15 AM, TheThing wrote: Be prepared for some cheesy shit.

Okay, that's good that you're aware of it. Honestly, up until the last paragraph this just sounds like my friends when they're high, so I'm gonna skip over all that...

Theoretically, the character saying this could be some kid that gets high, or is high at the time. Probably a Senior in high school or college kid. Just someone that really isn't too concerned with the future.

...The last paragraph, though. Now this is actually something. Not in itself, of course, because it's just a paragraph, but I think that if you use this theme as a foundation for something bigger, you could end up with something special.

That's what I was thinking. I remember coming up with the idea of sunrises, sunsets and the night, but didn't really have anything to put this into. But I figured I'd just share it before I tried to back-end a story into it.

Then again, it also sounds an awful lot like The Sun Also Rises, but whatever.

Never read it, so any coincidence is just that.

The only good thing about a sunset is that it means that it's night. The time of drunkenness, sex, violence and just overall debauchery. Night allows us to drown away the sins of the day with the sins of the night. Good sin. Fun sin. Not the sins of failure or inaction, but the sin that allows people to be free.

But of course, all the night really does is give us the illusion of those things. It doesn't erase consequences, it only defers them. What happens in the night really happens, and it can have ramifications in the sober daytime world, too, from something as minor as a hangover to something as major as a radical change in a relationship.

Of course. You wake up next to some pregnant girl, you're done. But the character doesn't really see it that way. The night is freedom to him/her, where normal societal pressures don't apply and they don't have to worry about any of that. This could be the speech in the middle of the story, before the shit hits the fan, of course. Without the context, it's tough to actually analyze what this speech means.

But the night won't hold onto it, because, as night gives way to dawn and sunrises, we become filled with hope again. And in order to feel hope, we need our humanity.

Aaaand we've come full circle back to the cheese. I think you might want to give this part a little more thought.

Yeah, it probably needs to be played with a bit. But it definitely has some promise.