%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |  This is a continuation of my blogging here at WdC |
|
This will be a blog for my writing, maybe with (too much) personal thrown in. I am hoping it will be a little more interactive, with me answering questions, helping out and whatnot. If it falls this year (2024), then I may stop the whole blogging thing, but that's all a "wait and see" scenario. An index of topics can be found here: "Writing Blog No.2 Index"  Feel free to comment and interact. |
| Balance of too much and not enough Question from a regular blog reader (yes, I do so have regular readers!): I tend to write short. I like writing short stuff. But I'm in this writing class and they want a lot of what they seem to think of as details, but what seems to me to be endless descriptions. And a story I'd normally have at 1,000 – 2,000 words, they want made into 7,000 – 8,000 words. They say that's what readers want, and especially to be sure to use all the senses in every single scene. I think they even gave a rule of thumb to make sure you do all five senses every five hundred words, at a minimum. I do think it's important to use all the senses, but every five hundred words seems excessive… How do you determine the balance between enough detail to bring a reader into your scene and not too much to bore them? What a great question! First, I don’t know these people, but that sort of dictum seems to be very gatekeeper-ish of them. And saying “it’s what readers want” is patently false. I am a reader and it is certainly not what I want. The sweet spot for selling short stories is 3k-6k words, with 4k-5k generally a good length, though more and more publications have a 3k word maximum. 7k-8k is proving a hard sell in today’s markets. Next, the using of all five senses in every single scene. Do I be nitpicky and say there are actually anywhere from 8 to 20 senses, depending on who you listen to or read? Okay, I am a horror writer, and in horror writing you want to use all five of the main senses plus balance and time (so, 7 senses), but not all the time. It over-describes and takes away from the feel of horror. It can destroy the pacing. I have mentioned before that I am not a fan of rules in writing, especially something as prescriptive as “all five senses every five hundred words.” I have no issue with using the five-plus senses, but that much? The pace of the tale would be so slow. And there would be a lot of repetition. Does taste change that much? Smell? And, truth be told, I have never heard this “rule of thumb.” Finally, how do I determine the balance between too much and too little? I can’t say. It is just how it feels. Reading back, if it feels like I have not painted enough of a picture, then I need to add more. If I feel like I (the writer) want to skip bits, then I’ve put in too much. But the best way to work out if it works or not is simple: I trust my beta readers. I cannot stress how important they are for a writer, and this is just another example of that. So, thanks for the question, and I think this sort of writer gatekeeping is something that does no-one any service. In. My. Opinion. |
| External Writerings XII It's been a while, but the blog has just taken a back seat. I have a few more posts ready to go, but to start the year, let's finish last year! Here's the columns I wrote in December! Very local, about the markets in my area. Christmas movies people consider terrible but I think are fun... and the worst movie ever made. Review of the biggest selling Christmas album ever. Review of the Psychic Fair. Take a Christmas carol and turn it into a modern piece of music. Here's some examples. And some songs about a certain fellow in red with a slight weight issue. And, finally, the good albums from the last quarter of 2024. Clicking on these does help me. One click per IP address is accepted, no ad-blockers, and I get paid per click per article! And, you never know, you might even find some music or stuff you like! Or don't click. I'm not your dad. |
| 7 Factual Assumptions Debunked When it comes to knowledge, there are many things that we know from school, hearing it often enough in the media, even hearing it from experts. Well, I am here to crap all over some of these beliefs. The Food Pyramid The food pyramid was created in the USA by pressure from food companies and certain interested groups. For example, dairy is actually not needed; calcium can be gained from meats and vegetables. Something being more important than something else was purely down to who had the money and influence. Make sure you get a good amount of vitamins and minerals (following the WHO guidelines, not those of the USFDA), have equal amounts of carbohydrates, proteins and fats, and do moderate exercise 3-4 times a week is all you need to be healthy. Here is an example of some of the issues. Unfortunately, the man who went through this (Keys) cherry-picked data and sources of data to “prove” that saturated fat caused heart disease. He had studies from 22 countries, but only used the data from 7 of them, he ignored smoking, sedentary lifestyles and sugar consumption. This myth persists. Saturated fat in excess is not good, don’t get me wrong… but so is everything in excess. Even the new My Plate has issues (dairy is still there instead of calcium foods, and the idea of protein foods is confused), but at least they’re trying. Negative Reinforcement Negative reinforcement is not punishing someone who does something wrong. It is the removal of a stimulus, particularly an undesirable stimulus. So, a teacher giving everyone a lollypop for doing well on a test is positive reinforcement, as you are adding a desired stimulus; a teacher telling the class they have no homework for doing well on a test is a negative reinforcement. If the children were given electric shocks for doing badly on a test, that would be punishment, and is something entirely different. Lie Detectors Polygraphs are not accurate. Sorry. In fact, law enforcement knows this, as they are not admissible in many courts. In Australia, they are simply not used or regarded. The problem is that when faced with a random polygraph test, a person can enter a panic state that makes them fail. See, polygraphs measure anxiety and the alleged science behind them is that lies make people anxious. But these people are not lying – they are just anxious. Yes, telling a lie makes someone anxious, but so does being accused of something they have not done. And especially being strapped into a bloody great machine! Caffeine, illness, tiredness and withdrawal symptoms all cause false positives on a polygraph test as well. People who claim they can tell if someone is lying through a polygraph are, well, lying. Law Of Averages We all know that flipping an evenly weighted coin should come up 50% heads and 50% tails, with each result a 1 in 2 chance. However, this also means that there is a 1 in 16 chance of four heads in a row. So, if we toss a coin and get 3 heads, then there should be a 15 in 16 chance of the next being a tail. Right? Well, no. It is still 1 in 2. This is because each coin toss is independent of the others. Independent events do not change their chance of happening because they are grouped in with other independent events. So, yes, while 4 heads in a row is improbable, each independent coin toss still has a 1 in 2 chance of producing a head. The results of the previous coin tosses do not change that simple fact. Here’s another example – a roulette wheel has 40 or so (I don’t gamble, I don’t know for sure, but I watch TV) slots. That means that every number should come up every 40 spins, right? And the idea that the same number comes up twice just cannot happen, right? Well, no on both. Each spin, each number has the same 1 in 40 chance of being landed on. Just because it landed on 25 on one spin does not mean it cannot land on 25 on the next. The chance is still 1 in 40. Relying on the law of averages is called The Gambler’s Fallacy… and looking for patterns like that leads to big losses. Evolution I do understand that some people refuse to accept this as a concept, and that’s fine. Ignoring and rejecting science is something people have always done, and I will just refuse to accept they are thinking properly. Evolution is the development of new traits in a creature that are passed down to subsequent generations if that trait turns out to be useful. Evolution does not have an end-goal of striving for something that is the best – evolution is a process by which organisms adapt to their environment. For example, flowers became colourful because the brighter ones originally gained the attention of the pollen-spreaders, and this brightness, over millions of years, became colour. That is simplified (evolution is very complex), but that’s the idea. And just because some members of a species develop a trait does not mean those that do not die out. Some finches have developed large bills to crack through seeds, but the original finches that eat other parts of a plant still exist. That small group had their trait and it worked for them, but the original group did not die out. The successful traits being passed on is the basis for natural selection. That is like me saying, “Well, me and my family exist, why do I still have fourth cousins?” Unless something happened to wipe them out, they will still be there. Yes, many original species do die off, but so do species without evolutionary successors. Nothing followed the Triceratops, for example. And I’ll add this here: “If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” is something people who have no understanding ask. First, read the previous paragraph. Second, man didn’t evolve from monkeys. Man and monkeys share a common proto-primate ancestor. Man and chimpanzees were the last to break apart, and the creature before them broke away from what became the great apes before that… and so on. Ancestors, not animals we see today. Theory A theory in science is an explanation that is based on evidence, both empirical and/or experimental, can be observed, and stands up to constant testing. A theory in science is something that is accepted and leads to the laws of science. A theory in philosophy is a rational look at an abstract concept with the hopes that this will explain it or offer an explanation. They are different. The confusion comes when things are called “sciences” that are not. Pseudoscience has the prefix “pseudo-“ (false) for a reason. They are baloney. You might believe in them. That’s great. But it is belief, not fact. And, no, anecdotal “evidence” is not factual evidence. There are a number of psychological phenomena to explain the vast majority of these happenings. But, still, confusing theory with guess leads to my theory that the person doing that needs to be better educated. We Use 10% Of Our Brains So, apparently, humans use only 10% of our brains. If we use it all, then we can get psychic powers! Only vegans can do this! Honestly! Not true. It has been disproved over and over again. Simply put, if we only used 10% of our brain, then brain injury would not create that great an issue. And why would evolution allow this? Brains use a lot of energy – if we only used 10% of them, we would have been over-run by chimpanzees ages ago. Or penguins. MRI scans have proved that most of our brains are in use all the time. Even when asleep, over half (that is more than 50%) of our brains are working. The human body is a stupidly complex machine. The brain is its CPU. Not using most of it makes no sense. I think 7 is enough. And I think this is another example of the Internet not being the be-all and end-all of everything. You will find all of these espoused online. That does not mean they are correct. Like every user-curated thing, the Internet is full of rubbish, especially where science is concerned. You need to do your research in actual places where the knowledge is tested, studied and curated properly by people who know, not your aunty who read it on Facebook. And, yes, I am fully aware that most of these things predate the Internet, and that brings me to my second point – don’t trust the media, like newspapers, either. Money talks and stupidity reigns, and the Internet is the latest bastion of both. |
| When Authors Demand To Be Heard Sometimes an author has something to say, something they think is vital and important. They have very strong views and feelings about a topic. But what can they do? Hang on! That’s it! They are a writer! They’ll write it down! I am going to guess that a lot of writers have felt this way. I mean, writing is what we do, so why not use it? And so we write an essay, a “letter to the editor”, a blog post, an article, a poem, even a social media post, something like that. All good. And with our skill as writers, we can probably put forth a compelling case to an audience. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However! Sometimes an author really does seem to have a barrow to push, and a simple op-ed piece in whatever format is not going to be enough. This is when the author resorts to brow-beating a reader with what is on their mind in the course of a work of fiction. Yes, the theme can be whatever the author wants, and an entire story can push that along, and that is perfectly fine. But then there is the thinly-veiled author-insert character. This character has one purpose in a work and one purpose only – to espouse the beliefs of the author. In extremes, this can result in a series of scenes where the character gives speeches about whatever it is the author has their bugbear about. Or, in some cases, give one long, long, lo-o-o-ong speech spanning pages of a work. But it can be worse. Oh, yes, it most definitely can. This is when the author just dumps a diatribe in the middle of the story as part of the narrative prose. Not a character speaking, just some vague connection to the topic, and the author goes off on a rant. Again, pages can be wasted on this, and it really does break a reader’s immersion. When an author does this with a short story, it can kill any flow the work might have had. In a novel or longer work, it can result in skipping pages or readers giving up. And you would be surprised how often this happens. I have read a book where the author avatar character suddenly goes off for over a page on why Christianity is the only true religion. Fine, sure… if this was a religious book. It was science fiction, and religion only came up because they rescued a Muslim! And religion played no part in the rest of the book. At all. If the character had put it forth that was his view, that could have been fine, though, again, it had no impact on the story nor even on the character’s being. He certainly didn’t do things in a particularly Christian way. It was just the author throwing it in to show everyone what he felt. Look, as writers we can put whatever we want into a work. That is our right and that is perfectly fine. But if you want an audience to read your work and not be put off, these sorts of author diatribes should be avoided in an inappropriate setting. Use your skill as a writer and craft an entire story around your belief or the cause for you to rant. Don’t just blurt it out all at once in one long passage of you telling the reader what to think. In my opinion. |
| Pointless Scenes When writing, there are a few scenes that writers feel the need to add in order to either pad the word count (did I say that?) or to just make it seem like life is more realistic. However, I think the question needs to be asked: Are these scenes really necessary? So, here’s a few types of scenes that tend towards the pointless. The most common of these is the sex scene. In some genres, it is vital, yes, but if it appears in a science fiction or horror story, say, there should be a point to include it. For characterisation or for establishing the sort of relationship, maybe. But whereas in an erotica novel, for example, a sex scene could last pages, does it need to in a standard sci-fi work? These things need to be considered. There is the eating scene. A lot of people complain about characters never seeming to eat or drink, but then there is the opposite where entire meals are described for pages and pages. If it is in the recipe genre ("20241025 Recipe (Cooking) Genre (Fiction)" ) then it could well be necessary, or if it helps explain the relationship between characters (see the deterioration of the marriage in Citizen Kane shown through a series of increasingly tense meals), or gives them a chance to share information in a realistic setting, then sure. It can help. But... again, the length of the scene should not out-stay its welcome.A common scene is the minutiae of the day scene. While this can help to establish character, it can also drag on and disengage a reader with nothing happening of consequence. It can be used to show later on how much a character’s routine is disrupted, but if just there to show a character doing “life”, the length needs to be commensurate with its importance. The protracted death scene is also becoming more and more common. If you are writing splatterpunk or gore-horror, then it is what the audience expects. If it is a main character, then maybe it can help build the emotions of the other characters. And if it portrays a martyrdom, then, sure, it can be really effective. But if it is just there and drawn out, the impact is often lost on the reader. Finally is the scene where a character is performing some vital action – say, conducting an experiment or setting a trap – and it is described in such minute detail that the reader could use the book as a “how to” guide. Some description is going to be necessary, but all of it? The issue comes when someone with greater knowledge reads the book and points out a mistake; if you were not going full-on with description, then it would not be noticed as that detail could be glossed over. And those are the scenes that I personally feel can be looked at as being unnecessary or maybe kept to a minimum word count. Of course, any work is the work of an author, but I do think these things could at least be kept in mind. |
| Epistolary Writing So, this is an old way of writing that sort of faded for a while, and then made a brief resurgence, and now is returning with the modern technology trappings we have about us. So, I guess the first thing is: What is epistolary writing? Well, it comes from the Greek word for ‘letter’ – hence the epistles in the New Testament – and originally it was a story told by means of letters between the characters, or letters from one character to another detailing the story. It was as though writers “back then” thought they needed an excuse to have a story told in the first person point of view. Later on, this was mixed in with diary entries, ship logs, police reports, etc. to give a more rounded feel, and also giving multiple first person PoV characters without it being confusing. I guess the best known of these would be Bram, Stoker’s Dracula. It faded as literary tastes changed, but then Stephen King wrote Carrie which was partially epistolary, including amongst its narrative excerpts from books written by people on not only the events but on the subject of paranormal abilities. This seemed to bring it back well, and so we have Douglas Adams’ Hitchhikers’ Guide To The Galaxy series where there are excerpts from the titular tome scattered throughout to explain the world. And, even more recently is Lionel Shriver’s We Need To Talk About Kevin, wherein a mother details the events of the story in letters to her husband. The latter works brilliantly – it is one of the few books written this century that has genuinely scared me, and was the first book since I was a teenager to give me nightmares. However, this seemed to open the floodgates, and there are now books written as series of emails and social media posts, I’ve read a short story that was made up of Twitter posts (with an accurate character limit!), and I have even read a short story made up of text messages only, with all the infuriating abbreviations. This is the modern epistolary writing style. A novel I was asked to beta read was written like this (I won’t tell you where she got the idea from). It started with a blog entry, then a different character’s journal, then a letter between them (explaining why letters were sent instead of emails or the like), and then it was emails, texts, social media posts, more letters, blog entries, some extracts from web pages and books – it was quite well done style wise… just a shame the story was almost non-existent. I think she fell in love with style over content. Some advantages of an epistolary story include: more than one first person PoV character without confusing the reader is possible; info-dumps can be introduced organically; it can show more of the characters’ inner feelings; can show setting and time-frame without being explicit; the story can feel more personal. Some disadvantages of an epistolary story can include: passages being drawn out too long; too much irrelevant detail (as can happen in letters); may have an issue seeming natural (because people who write have prior knowledge that does not need to be spelt out); the story can feel disjointed. But the biggest disadvantage is it is difficult making each section by a different person feel like they are by different people. You can avoid it like Shriver in having one narrator writing letters, but otherwise, the style of writing, words and phrases used, etc. need to be unique for each individual narrator. It is hard enough in dialogue, let alone in the written word. One obvious thing is one person constantly misspells certain words, but that is really done to death. You do need to find a way to differentiate those doing the writing, though. Two other little things. First, epistolary stories really do not work in non-linear narratives. It is hard enough for a reader to keep track of who is writing what without messing up the timeline as well. An extension here is that if quoting from a make-believe book that was written in the future (comparative to the story), then the incidents should still be in order. Second, do not use real books. For that matter, do not use real people as the writers except if they have been dead long enough. Partial epistolary stories are perfectly acceptable, and can add depth to your writing, but the above still holds true and, to add to the degree of difficulty, the epistolary works should have a different voice to the surrounding prose, so it does not seem that the actual writer (you) is actually writing the letters. I do think this can be worth exploring. I have seen epistolary writing in horror, science fiction, romance, contemporary mainstream and even urban fantasy. It can be used in many different genres. Give it a go. What have you got to lose? |
| Kudzu Plotting So, this is something that came up on Discord the other day, and the name comes, I believe, from that old favourite TV Tropes. Kudzu is a plant that has so many tendrils that you can’t tell where it begins or ends. A Kudzu Plot is when an author has multiple storylines going throughout the tale and, at the end, you can’t tell what is what and what has happened. Kudzu plotting results in five things: 1) there are so many plot threads that a reader loses what is happening to who and where. This is especially the case with some fantasy epics; 2) there are so many plot-lines going that some end up abandoned mid-story with no resolution; 3) there are so many plot threads going that some end up just not resolved effectively, or resolved so that it makes no sense, tacked on near the end; 4) the plot threads do not all come together in one over-arching ending, and so creating several endings; &/or 5) some plot threads and characters do not interact with others. When faced with a Kudzu plot as a writer, it might be best to separate the tales and, instead of writing one huge book, write a series of books, related to one another by location. Even if they share a character with one other plot thread, this character can either be replaced, or it can be the further adventures of that character. But it would be exceedingly rare for this character to be a main character in two plot threads, so them coming and going from a second book is fine. Kudzu Plotting is something that can come from an overly planned story; it is rare for pantsed stories to become this convoluted because of the nature of writing as a pantser. A highly detailed plot where the writer wants to include as much as they think of in one story is where this tends to arise. Or they have that 10-volume epic in mind and want enough story to fill all ten volumes. Look, don’t get me wrong, if done well, it can be rewarding for a reader, but more fail than succeed. To me, one example stands out of a bad Kudzu plot, and it’s from my very favourite author. Stephen King’s Dark Tower series has a lot of untied loose ends, characters that disappear, and a most unsatisfying ending, with a lame final battle. In. My. Opinion. Even a film as simple as The Room (Tommy Wiseau’s “classic”), manages to have a Kudzu Plot, with so much unresolved at the end. So, of course, use one if you wish, just be careful of the many potential issues that could arise. |
| 'Misogyny' Peeves I am on Discord in a couple of writing groups, and in one we were talking about misogyny in writing. Not in characters – they can be as misogynistic as the story needs – but in situations and language used by writers. I thought I’d use this blog post to point some of them out. This was inspired, in part, also by my "20241216 Poor Characterisation" post. While not poor characterisation, per se, it does lend itself to that.First, I should say this is not about pronouns. I am not going to enter the discussion about that; it is way beyond my pay grade. So, first is the situation. The female character needs to be rescued, and the male character is the only one who can. In certain types of stories, this is accepted, but not giving the female character any agency in the situation, and just having her easily replaceable by a bag of gold without the story effectively changing is demeaning. If two (or more) female characters are talking, they talk about the male characters, and yet the male characters do not do the same. This is called the Bechdel Test, by the way. Not naming female characters at the same rate as male characters. If the book only has main characters named and no secondary characters, then that’s fine. If even the third-string male characters have names, but the female is called ‘bar-wench’, then it’s an issue. A corollary to this is not giving females surnames when the males have them. So, even if the characters all have names, the naming conventions in-world need to be equal. Even if the female is included in events, she and/or her actions are described in relation to the males. He finds her body curvy. He misses her and wants to touch her body. She has no agency in a relationship. And this last is the worst one – when, to show a bad guy is really bad, he sexually assaults a female. Using a female as a tool to show evilness. Especially egregious when he does not do it again in the work. It reduces a female to a means of perverted gratification. In addition, there are some that I am in two minds about as well. A woman changing who she has been throughout the work to get the guy (see the film Grease) seems like the female is basing her own sense of self on a male. I am in two minds about this because in some stories a male does the same thing. A woman falling for a male she had zero interest in at the start of the work when the male has not really earnt it. The problem is, the change/ redemption arc might be subtle that leads to this, but otherwise, it makes the female look wishy-washy. However, some writers do the same with male characters. The female falling into bed with a male for story convenience, not because of any great emotional connection. The problem? Same can be said for some male characters. And so there are some of my pet peeves when it comes to portrayals of women. |
| Children Characters I recently finished some beta reading for a friend (now NaNo is over). It was a simple 25k word novella with some good technicalities (though she does struggle with sentence fragments). However, one thing I told her (and that she spent this morning complaining about) was that her children characters were just miniature adults. So I got another teacher to come in and explain what I meant. The teacher read the most egregious examples and agreed with me – that is not how kids do things. My friend saw where I was coming from; she doesn’t have children and was judging by TV and films and external observations. That inspired this little blog post. So, when writing characters that are children there are a number of things to remember: 1) Emotions: Children are emotional creatures. Logic is not an over-riding concept. And the younger they are, the more this comes to the fore. The idea of permanence does not really sink in until they are as old as 6 (this means if you hide something, it ceases to exist in a child’s mind). But they also do not use logic, or the logic does not follow what an adult would consider logic, and this lasts until the end of adolescence (once puberty is completed), sometimes longer. Emotions do tend to over-ride their thought processes. 2) Strength and Skill: Children are not as strong or skilled as adults. While there are some children who are skilled in some things, with only one or two exceptions, they do not match an equally trained adult. This is especially true in martial arts. A child might have a black belt, but a brown belt adult, with that added strength and better perception, can often win. Plus, they might be able to wield a sword, but they do not have the strength to make the same impact as an adult. These are things that should be taken into account. 3) Perception: ’Which leads to perception. Children tend towards tunnel vision, and single sensory concentration. This means if they are focusing on the visual, the audio, smell, touch, taste is muted. It is only with puberty that this expands to enable the ability to have two or even more going on; for example, children will remember the visuals of a film, not the dialogue, while an adult will remember both. 4) Knowledge: A child will not know as much as an adult. They might have great knowledge of a single topic, but they have simply not had the time to learn about lots of subjects. And if they do have knowledge of one, this most often comes at the expense of knowledge about other things. Life experience is sold short by way too many who write children. 5) Resourcefulness: I am not saying there are no children who have lived and survived in terrible circumstances, but most children coming from a Western urbanised environment would not cope nor survive well if dumped into a situation where they have to use their wits to survive. Hell, most adults would struggle! But adults have some experience, or have seen some TV, and would have a better mental means of coping. 6) Size: Children are small. Yes, when they hit 12 or so they are getting to adult size, but they are still small, and muscles have yet to develop. Puberty is very important to changes; they are not just miniature adults before the hormones kick in. 7) Age appropriateness: Don’t have 12 years act like 5 year olds! If you have no experience with kids – ask parents or teachers and they will tell you how different the ages are. These have come from my reading of books over the years, and are born of my experience as a teacher, and my studies in human movement and development, plus years of working with children. Every single one of these mistakes I have seen more than once. So, does any author write children well? Yes, in fact. JK Rowling, over the course of the Harry Potter series, shows the development and growth and learning of the children. Enid Blyton also wrote children well, especially the Famous Five. As for bad… Too many, and I won’t mention them here (except Empress Teresa by Norman Boutin, the worst book ever written). Anyway, I hope people write their children with a little more realism. Children are not adults and do not really think like them. Make them into kids, and the stories will benefit. |
| More Punk Genres So, I did a column about different punk genres ("20241214 Punk Genres" ), and it turns out there are some I have not heard of, let alone read. Generally. Okay, some I’ve read, but didn’t know they were a punk. Or maybe they’ve been renamed because it is trendy.Of all the arts, writers are up there with film-makers and TV creators in chasing trends. Afro-futurism (or Afropunk) While the term Afropunk refers to music, it is now being used with the literature as well. It is basically a future based around black African culture. To be honest, what little I have read is standard science fiction (maybe verging on Solarpunk) set in the African diaspora. example: the comic and film Black Panther. Atlantopunk As the name suggests, a world where Atlantis exists in one form or another. This is one of those that I think has just had “punk” added to it. example: the TV show Stargate: Atlantis was the example given me, but I think the Disney film Atlantis: The Lost Empire might also qualify. I have tried but not completed a single story in this. Conspiracy Punk (also Conspiropunk) This is one I have read, where conspiracy theories (or things believed to be conspiracy theories) are true in a world. example: interestingly, The Da Vinci Code is considered a part of this punk. I have written some shorts in this. Covidpunk Stories set after a COVID or COVID-like disease devastation. This is very new, yes, but is the current “thing” in science fiction and alternate history circles. For the record, these stories do not include diseases that turn people into zombies, vampires or the like. example: while I am inclined to include an unpublished work of my own (yes, I have written a covidpunk story which I am exceedingly happy with!), I am more inclined to go wider and look at a modern post-disease film, like Outbreak. Infopunk This is cyberpunk, although the look is cleaner, but with the technology of the 1980s and 90s and nothing beyond that, no extrapolation, no technological advancements – floppy disks, CD-ROMs, dot-matrix printers, cables everywhere, that sort of aesthetic. I have no example. Metapunk This is apparently a form of cyberpunk, but involves the metaverse – all the action and everything is contained within the online world. It is relatively new. example: While new, it is claimed the film Tron is its progenitor. And so there are a few extra “punk” concepts in the art world! |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
