Same with us really, though it's less of a tenet and more of an assumption, given that heaven's gonna have the perfect version of all things, without the issues of sin.
it also means that I can be an organ donor without worrying about the logistics of that, so I'm 100% down with it
All bodies will be perfect for us in the milennium.
I have wondered about people who would prefer being handicapped in some way, but I think that the important bit is "perfect for us", so if that is what they truly wish and if that is what would be for them perfect, it is how they will be. Not a lot has been revealed on this point, though, so that last sentence is just my speculation.
i kind of wish christian douchebag anti-mormons would focus more on exaltation and stuff instead of nails pointed at god or w/e it's way more interesting
in general there's other stuff but the douchebags aren't going to care much for the sep tember six
Okay. I've been thinking of buying one for a while now.
I'll buy that after the "fresh new game" thrill of Age of Empires II: The Forgotten wears off in a few days.
If you're going to buy Fallout 3 and New Vegas, I'd recommend getting the Game of the Year edition and the Ultimate Edition respectively, since those come with all the DLC, so you don't have to buy them separately. Also if you're buying for PC, you might want to check to see if your computer can run those games effectively.
i am trying to writ esomething, but i am still mechanically unclear on how to write fiction
all of it is so hard fo rme to register. how descriptive do i have to be, for people and for scenes? when? where? guess it's something you pick up from practice
i do know that we are permitted to cremate the dead and encouraged to donate organs, so i guess we don't believe that our physical earthly bodies are going to be resurrected, at any rate
I have been meaning to write a short thoughtpost about Bloodborne as a cosmic horror story, and how it uses a foreign mythology and set of symbols as raw materials that can be put together in strange ways if you don't have the same gut level idea of how they're "supposed" to be put together, but I want Sredni's feedback.
i am trying to writ esomething, but i am still mechanically unclear on how to write fiction
all of it is so hard fo rme to register. how descriptive do i have to be, for people and for scenes? when? where? guess it's something you pick up from practice
ikdf
i find it easiest to just write whatever, skip over bits where i get stuck, and then edit into a shape that's more presentable afterwards
i find i always want my writing to be perfect the moment i write it, but i've been trying to train myself out of this way of thinking
the more aware i become of pitfalls, the more self-conscious i become about my writing, and at this point if i go over it in my head too much i end up writing nothing at all
there is an old Hemingway quote which goes: 'The first draft of anything is shit.'
pin it above your desk. it is gospel. just write the damn thing. i find poems, because they have much more of a structure, you can 'compose' in your head and actually write a reasonably good "first draft" (usually the poem has been redrafted a few times in my head already.) prose is absolutely impossible to write wellstraight off the bat because there is such freedom. you willl be fumbling about in the dark for a while. everyone is. it takes persistence. the consequence of that freedom is that you will take a lot of turnsdown into dead ends. again, everyone does. it takes persistence to find your way through. language is a maze.
one piece of editingadvice i would give it is to leave a lot of time between what you write first and your first redraft. you want to come to it rly fresh and have forgotten what you were "going for", just read it, take out what is shit, improve it, emphasise the good. dont be embarrassed. or, well, do, but channel that into making it better.
The official doctrines of the church recognize both heaven and hell. In practice, however, many Methodist bodies and individuals de-emphasize hell in teachings and sermons. In keeping with an even-keeled theology, there is little official consensus in church literature on the manner of ascension to heaven after death. The question is open for discussion and interpretation. Methodism repudiates the existence of purgatory because it has no basis in scripture.
The United Methodist Church allows for cremation and organ donation. Methodism does believe in the resurrection of Christ's body after his crucifixion and the resurrection of believers after death. However, acknowledging human biology and history and citing the apostle Paul, the church focuses on a spiritual, rather than bodily, resurrection for believers. Accordingly, the church considers cremation a viable alternative to burial. In its Social Principles, Methodism actively encourages organ donation as an act of charity and selflessness.
but i can think about poetry in a way where i know what the structure, rhymes are going to be, what im going to say, plan out whole specific lines, and shuffle these things about, without having to write it down. i can work thru a kind of drafting process in my head over a period of days/weeks before i write it down. so it isnt off the top of m head improvisation. but prose i cannot do that for, there is too much and it's too unstructured
but i can think about poetry in a way where i know what the structure, rhymes are going to be, what im going to say, plan out whole specific lines, and shuffle these things about, without having to write it down. i can work thru a kind of drafting process in my head over a period of days/weeks before i write it down. so it isnt off the top of m head improvisation. but prose i cannot do that for, there is too much and it's too unstructured
oh, i see, that makes more sense
idk, i never really figured out how to 'do' poetry, some of the poems i wrote for class went down ok but i never really figured what i was doing with it
in my experience the reading and writing of poetry is usually taught really badly
there is no dark art to it, there is a toolbox of stuff you can use just as in any other type of writing, its just people seem to form this opinion of poetry where you require this ineffable genius to write it and that's rubbish, its a pprocess like any other and is no more (or less) special than any other art form
tbh i think i might have liked if we'd spent more time on stylistics
or maybe if i'd taken some kind of intermediary creative writing course before uni (i sort of did, but it was an evening class for adults and it was very basic and unstructured)
There's an insight wanker I saw once who said that poetry is all bad, because it was developed to be a form of epic storytelling and therefore that's all it ever should be.
There's an insight wanker I saw once who said that poetry is all bad, because it was developed to be a form of epic storytelling and therefore that's all it ever should be.
If this is toeing the line in regards to me shutting up about certain parties, please tell me and I'll delete it.
I have been meaning to write a short thoughtpost about Bloodborne as a cosmic horror story, and how it uses a foreign mythology and set of symbols as raw materials that can be put together in strange ways if you don't have the same gut level idea of how they're "supposed" to be put together, but I want Sredni's feedback.
Vash should really just set up a Patreon where we send him money to pay his internet bills
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Back to the daily routine after my four day weekend with AU
i am trying to writ esomething, but i am still mechanically unclear on how to write fiction
all of it is so hard fo rme to register. how descriptive do i have to be, for people and for scenes? when? where? guess it's something you pick up from practice
I saw Aevee Bee say that the best way to do things is to just write a pile of stuff down (like, absolutely everything you're thinking of in your head) and then edit it into better coherence afterwards. Almost like the opposite of software development, where you make little things and make absolutely sure they work before making the next part (unless you want supermassive headaches later).
*concerns himself with whether or not software dev is going to make him a less creative person* *remembers he isn't creative anyway*
PS: That comic was "off-topic" but reading the blog post it's almost...on-topic...
i am trying to writ esomething, but i am still mechanically unclear on how to write fiction
all of it is so hard fo rme to register. how descriptive do i have to be, for people and for scenes? when? where? guess it's something you pick up from practice
I saw Aevee Bee say that the best way to do things is to just write a pile of stuff down (like, absolutely everything you're thinking of in your head) and then edit it into better coherence afterwards. Almost like the opposite of software development, where you make little things and make absolutely sure they work before making the next part (unless you want supermassive headaches later).
*concerns himself with whether or not software dev is going to make him a less creative person* *remembers he isn't creative anyway*
was more or less what i was going for but didn't articulate too well
the software dev . . . dis-analogy is interesting to me
might be interesting to experiment with, writing the same kind of thing but using the 2 different approaches
There's an insight wanker I saw once who said that poetry is all bad, because it was developed to be a form of epic storytelling and therefore that's all it ever should be.
i always heard that plato wanted all poets expelled from his republic because poets were liars
i am trying to writ esomething, but i am still mechanically unclear on how to write fiction
all of it is so hard fo rme to register. how descriptive do i have to be, for people and for scenes? when? where? guess it's something you pick up from practice
Whenever I wrote stories as a kid, I would get stuck on exactly what some minor detail of a physical description looked like, which resulted in the characters not being able to exit a room (much less do anything inside it) until I had painstakingly described it.
Sensory details are important--a lot of writers underrate them in my opinion--but you don’t necessarily need that many of them. Give a few good foundational points (a scent, a color, a gesture) and the reader can put together the rest.
There's an insight wanker I saw once who said that poetry is all bad, because it was developed to be a form of epic storytelling and therefore that's all it ever should be.
i always heard that plato wanted all poets expelled from his republic because poets were liars
Neoreaction/Dork Enlightenment and their cousins over at LessWrong and satellites hate and fear culture. Certainly, they like their commodified pop culture, but more for its signifiers than for its content--many, perhaps the majority of these works have themes and messages that run directly against the sort of thought that underpins these movements. Of course, most obviously and inescapably, Eliezer Yudkowsky's nerd fanfic opus pretty much negates every premise, every theme, every moral of the actual Harry Potter book series, which features an antagonist whose name is French for "flight from death", whose all-consuming lust for immortal life has destroyed his ability to understand or experience even the slightest joy or human attachment. His followers believe in the inherent superiority of a group of people with natural, inherited gifts, even though the actual events of the story show that these people are in character no better, and frequently worse, than "Muggles" without these gifts. He is ultimately defeated by someone who has the natural talent but was raised by those who do not, and successfully integrates the his magical and Muggle sides into a mature identity, accepts his own mortality, and is willing to fight and die even for--especially for--the Muggles that according to Voldemort, he should see himself as innately superior to.
Among these sorts of people (and, I suspect, by other fascist-minded movements of the past), culture and art are reduced to signifiers and bits of "cool" that they attach to themselves. Their own attempts at creating art end up as propagandistic self-promotion and/or fetishistic self-indulgence (see: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality). Art that cannot be put through this reductive process and left recognizable becomes the tools of the Enemy, a vehicle through which the Cathedral intends to infect virile Neoreactionary rationality with emotions and postmodernism and liberalism and nasty icky girly ~feelings~ because their cargo-cult rationality is so unimaginative and narrow that it leaves them unable to comprehend what it actually is, what it actually means, or why someone might actually like it.
It's kind of a tacit admission of the limits and weaknesses of their "rationality"--it falls apart if it tries to seriously examine culture, philosophy, or anything else that isn't some combination of data and facts. These all get shoved under the banner of the Cathedral, a massive part of the human experience that is now totally off-limits lest it infect you with its insidious mind viruses. It also means that their society would be, in my estimation, hellishly culturally sterile, endlessly recycling old signifiers without meaning in self-indulgent, flatulent spectacles created for the glorification of Neoreaction (see for comparison what happened to art, culture, and music under 1930s fascism). Artists, as inherently mysterious and threatening forces beyond the ken of the Neoreactionary nerd-kings, would be ruthlessly controlled and eliminated if they do anything the rulers feel threatened, insulted, or confused by. The masters of this realm would dream of their transhuman dreams coming to fruition so they can finally excise this troublesome culture from the human animal and we can exist as perfectly sociopathic beings of pure reason, unaffected by other humans' experiences and perspectives. There will be no homes, only sleeping modules; no food, only Soylent; no activities beyond maximizing production, efficiency, and power. For you, at least. Someone has to watch over the human ant farm of the future, hoarding the products of your labor as an immortal AI upload Smaug.
^^oh man. Now I'm thinking about how in 20k Jules Verne wrote up a series of descriptive paragraphs describing fucking *dimensions* for a particular room, because he was getting paid per chapter.
I soon learned I could safely get The Leagues Experience while completely skipping over most of his descriptive paragraphs. (He had a few cool ones, which were thankfully easy to pick out, since every paragraph was kind of segmented by purpose. If he opened a paragraph with "The fish we saw were of the species" or something like that, you knew the rest of the paragraph would be exclusively Latin names.)
^oh jeez. lol. Voldemort. how did I not put this together (I didn't put it together because I didn't read any books but the first)
when I was in high school my English class once did a free write activity. after fifteen minutes or whatever I had like twenty lines double spaced and surrounded by my own editing marks, and my teacher looked at it and told me I was an idiot ( not really)
i haven't written much fiction since then so that's still pretty much how it ends up.
I'm pretty good at nonfiction. ive explained things all kinds of things to people in person for years, and when I write I just remove some "uh"s from what I would say and it works out okay. and I'm good at witticisms due to years of practice papering over the empty birdhouse in my soul. between that and my naturally good associative memory I can turn phrases and consciously use and manipulate cliches and odd juxtapositions and end up with something reasonably pleasant to read.
but fiction is different because I have to or at least want to plan. I guess I should just start writing same as I do for nonfiction but I'm so bad I might end up writing four pages of nothing but dialogue or something. I can't write fiction like I talk because the only story-stories I know how to tell are not I think in the right mode
i am trying to writ esomething, but i am still mechanically unclear on how to write fiction
all of it is so hard fo rme to register. how descriptive do i have to be, for people and for scenes? when? where? guess it's something you pick up from practice
I saw Aevee Bee say that the best way to do things is to just write a pile of stuff down (like, absolutely everything you're thinking of in your head) and then edit it into better coherence afterwards. Almost like the opposite of software development, where you make little things and make absolutely sure they work before making the next part (unless you want supermassive headaches later).
*concerns himself with whether or not software dev is going to make him a less creative person* *remembers he isn't creative anyway*
was more or less what i was going for but didn't articulate too well
the software dev . . . dis-analogy is interesting to me
might be interesting to experiment with, writing the same kind of thing but using the 2 different approaches
I don't think it would work. I imagine that mostly results in writing Lore.
There's good reason for the approaches to be opposite. Art succeeds when it elicits an emotional response, while programming succeeds when the compiled code runs. Language isn't as rigid as programming is, so even rough writing can elicit feelings; a program just doesn't run if there's a typo or what not in it.
Comments
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
it also means that I can be an organ donor without worrying about the logistics of that, so I'm 100% down with it
in general there's other stuff but the douchebags aren't going to care much for the sep tember six
You can check that here: http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri?itemId=11035
i googled it and found a site claiming that we follow a Satanic doctrine and will burn in hell after death, so i guess that's my answer.
i am trying to writ esomething, but i am still mechanically unclear on how to write fiction
all of it is so hard fo rme to register. how descriptive do i have to be, for people and for scenes? when? where? guess it's something you pick up from practice
i find it easiest to just write whatever, skip over bits where i get stuck, and then edit into a shape that's more presentable afterwards
i find i always want my writing to be perfect the moment i write it, but i've been trying to train myself out of this way of thinking
the more aware i become of pitfalls, the more self-conscious i become about my writing, and at this point if i go over it in my head too much i end up writing nothing at all
pin it above your desk. it is gospel. just write the damn thing. i find poems, because they have much more of a structure, you can 'compose' in your head and actually write a reasonably good "first draft" (usually the poem has been redrafted a few times in my head already.) prose is absolutely impossible to write wellstraight off the bat because there is such freedom. you willl be fumbling about in the dark for a while. everyone is. it takes persistence. the consequence of that freedom is that you will take a lot of turnsdown into dead ends. again, everyone does. it takes persistence to find your way through. language is a maze.
one piece of editingadvice i would give it is to leave a lot of time between what you write first and your first redraft. you want to come to it rly fresh and have forgotten what you were "going for", just read it, take out what is shit, improve it, emphasise the good. dont be embarrassed. or, well, do, but channel that into making it better.
that is pretty cool
i should ask about this probably
poetry that's written off the top of my head . . . well, that'd be 'troems', was i think the goon term
but i can think about poetry in a way where i know what the structure, rhymes are going to be, what im going to say, plan out whole specific lines, and shuffle these things about, without having to write it down. i can work thru a kind of drafting process in my head over a period of days/weeks before i write it down. so it isnt off the top of m head improvisation. but prose i cannot do that for, there is too much and it's too unstructured
idk, i never really figured out how to 'do' poetry, some of the poems i wrote for class went down ok but i never really figured what i was doing with it
there is no dark art to it, there is a toolbox of stuff you can use just as in any other type of writing, its just people seem to form this opinion of poetry where you require this ineffable genius to write it and that's rubbish, its a pprocess like any other and is no more (or less) special than any other art form
or maybe if i'd taken some kind of intermediary creative writing course before uni (i sort of did, but it was an evening class for adults and it was very basic and unstructured)
Time for more work
on topic: I saw Aevee Bee say that the best way to do things is to just write a pile of stuff down (like, absolutely everything you're thinking of in your head) and then edit it into better coherence afterwards. Almost like the opposite of software development, where you make little things and make absolutely sure they work before making the next part (unless you want supermassive headaches later).
*concerns himself with whether or not software dev is going to make him a less creative person*
*remembers he isn't creative anyway*
PS: That comic was "off-topic" but reading the blog post it's almost...on-topic...
Sensory details are important--a lot of writers underrate them in my opinion--but you don’t necessarily need that many of them. Give a few good foundational points (a scent, a color, a gesture) and the reader can put together the rest.
Among these sorts of people (and, I suspect, by other fascist-minded movements of the past), culture and art are reduced to signifiers and bits of "cool" that they attach to themselves. Their own attempts at creating art end up as propagandistic self-promotion and/or fetishistic self-indulgence (see: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality). Art that cannot be put through this reductive process and left recognizable becomes the tools of the Enemy, a vehicle through which the Cathedral intends to infect virile Neoreactionary rationality with emotions and postmodernism and liberalism and nasty icky girly ~feelings~ because their cargo-cult rationality is so unimaginative and narrow that it leaves them unable to comprehend what it actually is, what it actually means, or why someone might actually like it.
It's kind of a tacit admission of the limits and weaknesses of their "rationality"--it falls apart if it tries to seriously examine culture, philosophy, or anything else that isn't some combination of data and facts. These all get shoved under the banner of the Cathedral, a massive part of the human experience that is now totally off-limits lest it infect you with its insidious mind viruses. It also means that their society would be, in my estimation, hellishly culturally sterile, endlessly recycling old signifiers without meaning in self-indulgent, flatulent spectacles created for the glorification of Neoreaction (see for comparison what happened to art, culture, and music under 1930s fascism). Artists, as inherently mysterious and threatening forces beyond the ken of the Neoreactionary nerd-kings, would be ruthlessly controlled and eliminated if they do anything the rulers feel threatened, insulted, or confused by. The masters of this realm would dream of their transhuman dreams coming to fruition so they can finally excise this troublesome culture from the human animal and we can exist as perfectly sociopathic beings of pure reason, unaffected by other humans' experiences and perspectives. There will be no homes, only sleeping modules; no food, only Soylent; no activities beyond maximizing production, efficiency, and power. For you, at least. Someone has to watch over the human ant farm of the future, hoarding the products of your labor as an immortal AI upload Smaug.
I soon learned I could safely get The Leagues Experience while completely skipping over most of his descriptive paragraphs. (He had a few cool ones, which were thankfully easy to pick out, since every paragraph was kind of segmented by purpose. If he opened a paragraph with "The fish we saw were of the species" or something like that, you knew the rest of the paragraph would be exclusively Latin names.)
^oh jeez. lol. Voldemort. how did I not put this together (I didn't put it together because I didn't read any books but the first)
i haven't written much fiction since then so that's still pretty much how it ends up.
I'm pretty good at nonfiction. ive explained things all kinds of things to people in person for years, and when I write I just remove some "uh"s from what I would say and it works out okay. and I'm good at witticisms due to years of practice papering over the empty birdhouse in my soul. between that and my naturally good associative memory I can turn phrases and consciously use and manipulate cliches and odd juxtapositions and end up with something reasonably pleasant to read.
but fiction is different because I have to or at least want to plan. I guess I should just start writing same as I do for nonfiction but I'm so bad I might end up writing four pages of nothing but dialogue or something. I can't write fiction like I talk because the only story-stories I know how to tell are not I think in the right mode
There's good reason for the approaches to be opposite. Art succeeds when it elicits an emotional response, while programming succeeds when the compiled code runs. Language isn't as rigid as programming is, so even rough writing can elicit feelings; a program just doesn't run if there's a typo or what not in it.