Quick Plotting Tip: Write Your Story Backwards

Submitted via Google Form:

I am quite intrigued about how animals seem to have higher tolerance for pollution and germs while humans seem to lose it. Animals still just eat off the ground and drink straight from streams. However isn’t that exactly what our ancestors did? I absolutely do realise the world in the past also was less polluted than now. But past humans and animals did that in the past in the same environment, while in the present day environments only animals do this and humans can’t. Yes, animals and humans are of course always getting sick, but animals have way less access to healthcare than humans and manage to thrieve while humans need all this heathcare. Also, it is very evident in humans in human communities lacking healthcare being worse off. But with animals, I don’t seem to see the problems occuring as I’d expect for almost no healthcare for them. At least in this way.. the only biggest issues are like lost of land/hunting, and if health is the main issue? Basically, no heathcare affects humans worse than wild animals. And attitudes are if humans eat something off the ground it’s panic, an animal.. nope. So for actual story writing, I want to address these things in my story where both people and animals are time travelling. Also, I suppose how environmental changes would affect these out of time people.

Feral: there are a lot of assumptions in your ask that just don’t hold up.

Assumption #1: Animals have a higher tolerance for pollution and germs than humans do. Animals do get sick and die. In the case of pollution, higher pollution in a given area is more indicative of human life than animal life. Humans and our domesticated pets are the creatures living in cities with horrible smog conditions and the like, and while pollution definitely causes illnesses and disabilities in humans, one of the reasons you don’t see wild animals as much in these areas is because the development and pollution it causes has killed them off. As for germs, it is true that in industrialized countries, humans are probably more susceptible to germs, bacteria, viruses, etc, due to the inhibitions sterilized environments place on the development of natural immune systems. But animals still get sick and die, too; they may not die as frequently from illness as humans (I have no data one way or another), but I would argue that many also just don’t live long enough to die of illness over another cause.

Assumption #2: Animals eat straight off the ground and drink from streams, and that’s what our ancestors did. Our ancestors always cooked - eating straight from a raw carcass means more bacteria, more difficult digestion, and less calories. And it’s very likely that humanity didn’t exist before cooking, and only exists because of cooking. Our reticence to drink directly from natural water sources has a lot more to do with human pollution than any naturally occuring bacteria; see the multiple cholera outbreaks in history. Also, a polluted water source will usually kill the animals that live in that water source, the decaying carcasses of which further pollutes the source, and animals drinking from that source will also absolutely become sick.

Assumption #3: Humans can’t forage and drink from streams in the same way animals can in not overly polluted environments. There is a whole community of wilderness survival experts who disagree with you. The knowledge of what is and isn’t safe to eat and drink isn’t taught to us by elders anymore (again, in industrialized places), but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t learn it and survive just fine.

Assumption # 4: Animals don’t require healthcare the way humans do. Animals also don’t pack themselves into crowded stadiums during worldwide pandemics and otherwise tend not to do stupid shit that will almost certainly cause them harm. A broken leg on a wild land-based animal is a death sentence, so access to healthcare would definitely keep more animals alive. We know this because we offer animals healthcare - wildlife rehabilitators exist. Meanwhile, a broken leg, even in a human community without good or any healthcare options, would probably not result in death.

Assumption #5: Wild animals thrive. Not really. I mean, there are populations that do better than others. This is often due to human intervention and interaction. Prey animals will “thrive” when humans have killed off all their natural predators. Scavenging animals will “thrive” when there’s plenty of human food waste and refuse for them to eat. An invasive species will “thrive” after humans introduce them into an environment where they don’t have any natural deterrents to population growth. An animal community “thriving” is very different from a human community thriving. And an animal community that is afflicted by a virus is far less likely to survive it than a human community. Here’s a list of mass animal die-offs that occured just between January 1 and June 1 of 2015; literally tens of millions of animals dead in 5 months.

Assumption #8: You don’t see these problems occuring or dead animals all over the place therefore, wild animals are not dying everyday everywhere from disease and pollution. You probably do not live in a place where you see massive wild animal populations; the thriving wild animal populations you claim exist are in your imagination. In a truly balanced, natural ecosystem, homeostasis is achieved; you have neither mass die-offs nor population explosions. But due to human intervention in the environment, those ecosystems are becoming far less visible. And most population centers don’t have nearly the wild animal populations necessary to make any judgements based on anecdote and personal observation on how wild animals survive or don’t.

Assumption #7: Humans eating off the ground as a “panic” response due to environmental reasons. This is 100% societal. We have moralized cleanliness. Eating something off the ground is seen as demeaning and dirty, and you have to be in really desperate straits to do it. You know, unless you follow the 5-second rule. Because that’s totally how germs work. If I drop something on my kitchen floor while I’m cooking versus outside while I’m grilling, there isn’t really a difference except that I feel gross about eating the thing that dropped on the ground outside that I immediately picked up even if there is nothing that is actually harmful on it - meanwhile my kitchen floor could absolutely have bacteria on it because I’m really lazy about mopping.

I think a lot of what you’re putting forth in this Ask is more socialized or due to industrialization than having anything to do with wholly naturally occurring environmental factors.

As for how the narrative will address these things, that’s a plot issue that I don’t have any advice on, but I hope this has given you some food for thought.

So somebody on my Facebook posted this. And I’ve seen sooooo many memes like it. Images of a canvas with nothing but a slash cut into it, or a giant blurry square of color, or a black circle on a white canvas. There are always hundreds of comments about how anyone could do that and it isn’t really art, or stories of the time someone dropped a glove on the floor of a museum and people started discussing the meaning of the piece, assuming it was an abstract found-objects type of sculpture.

The painting on the left is a bay or lake or harbor with mountains in the background and some people going about their day in the foreground. It’s very pretty and it is skillfully painted. It’s a nice piece of art. It’s also just a landscape. I don’t recognize a signature style, the subject matter is far too common to narrow it down. I have no idea who painted that image.

The painting on the right I recognized immediately. When I was studying abstraction and non-representational art, I didn’t study this painter in depth, but I remember the day we learned about him and specifically about this series of paintings. His name was Ad Reinhart, and this is one painting from a series he called the ultimate paintings. (Not ultimate as in the best, but ultimate as in last.)

The day that my art history teacher showed us Ad Reinhart’s paintings, one guy in the class scoffed and made a comment that it was a scam, that Reinhart had slapped some black paint on the canvas and pretentious people who wanted to look smart gave him money for it. My teacher shut him down immediately. She told him that this is not a canvas that someone just painted black. It isn’t easy to tell from this photo, but there are groups of color, usually squares of very very very dark blue or red or green or brown. They are so dark that, if you saw them on their own, you would call each of them black. But when they are side by side their differences are apparent. Initially you stare at the piece thinking that THAT corner of the canvas is TRUE black. Then you begin to wonder if it is a deep green that only appears black because the area next to it is a deep, deep red. Or perhaps the “blue” is the true black and that red is actually brown. Or perhaps the blue is violet and the color next to it is the true black. The piece challenges the viewer’s perception. By the time you move on to the next painting, you’re left to wonder if maybe there have been other instances in which you believe something to be true but your perception is warped by some outside factor. And then you wonder if ANY of the colors were truly black. How can anything be cut and dry, black and white, when even black itself isn’t as absolute as you thought it was?

People need to understand that not all art is about portraying a realistic image, and that technical skills (like the ability to paint a scene that looks as though it may have been photographed) are not the only kind of artistic skills. Some art is meant to be pretty or look like something. Other art is meant to carry a message or an idea, to provoke thought.

Reinhart’s art is utterly genius.

“But anyone could have done that! It doesn’t take any special skill! I could have done that!”

Ok. Maybe you could have. But you didn’t.

Give abstract art some respect. It’s more important than you realize.

Writing from Scratch #3

Flash Fiction: A Simple Plot

The first writing prompts we’re going to tackle will be flash fiction pieces. Flash fiction is a complete story written in under 1,500 words. We’ll be aiming for 250-500 words at first – that is one or two pages double spaced written in Times New Roman 12 pt. font.

The type of flash fiction I’ll encourage you to write will be Eighteen Sentence Stories*, and each of these sentences will have a very specific job.

The first Three sentences will provide the main character, the setting, and the genre (which clues the audience in on what kind of story they are about to read).

The main character should be introduced via an action that reveals their attitude at the start and with one defining job or trait that relates them to the plot. For example, a character may be both a father of three and a pilot. If the problem of the plot will deal with the kidnapping of one of his daughters, then “father” or “father of three” will be the defining job; if the problem of the plot will deal with the starship he’s piloting falling under attack, then “pilot” will be the defining job.

The setting should be introduced via a grounding sensory detail. The lingering scent of cookies left to burn when the parents received the ransom note. Or the pressure of being pinned back into the pilot’s seat under g forces.

The genre should be introduced via something specific and unique to the story. A ransom note is not specific or unique; a ransom note scrawled on the back of a picture that went missing off the fridge the week before is. A space ship is not specific or unique; a living space ship with a giant brain in its core that the pilot must psychically link to via the tentacles that suction onto his temples is.

Read More on WordPress

Wait, so diversity is not a problem in Hollywood anymore? Nope, we solved it. Wow!

Writing from Scratch #6: The Character Plot

The Character Plot

The problem of a Character plot involves a character’s worldview – their beliefs, values, desires, and fears. Many but not all stories include a Character plot, often called a character arc, in which a character’s worldview shifts. A Character plot is entirely concerned with the internal state of the character in question and as such is rarely seen on its own. When it is on its own, as it is in “Miss Brill” by Katherine Mansfield, you can end up with an extraordinary story.

Because a Character plot is entirely internal, the try-fail cycles don’t work out exactly the same as they do when dealing with an external/physical problem and solution; they are also up for interpretation by the reader when done subtly and beautifully as in “Miss Brill.” Character plot try-fails are often not even done intentionally as typically the character does not realize a change in the worldview needs to occur. So, read “Miss Brill” (it’s short, less than 2,000 words) and try for yourself to determine the problem – it’s not stated directly – and identify the try-fails. After, you can read over my interpretation, please let me know in the comments how our thoughts compare!

The Problem of Miss Brill’s Worldview: Miss Brill is incredibly lonely, and she doesn’t realize or acknowledge it.

First Try: Miss Brill cleans up and puts on her fox fur. Fail: Yes, Miss Brill recognizes for a brief moment that she is sad, but she doesn’t realize why and puts it out of her mind.

Second Try: She sits on her regular bench in the park and tries to eavesdrop on the old couple sitting nearby. Fail: No, the old couple don’t speak, and Miss Brill doesn’t attempt to interact.

Third Try: Miss Brill people watches everyone in the park. Fail: Yes, she sees the other older men and women sitting alone and still as statues around the park watching everyone else, but she doesn’t see that she herself is one of those people.

Fourth Try: Miss Brill watches the woman in ermine. Fail: No, she completely misses the similarity between herself and woman, and the woman in ermine is more determined to take action than Miss Brill.

Fifth Try: Miss Brill loses herself in a fantasy about everyone in the park, including herself, being a part of a play or performance. Fail: No, she clearly overestimates her importance, believing that everyone would miss her if she failed to show up on Sunday afternoon, and although she fantasizes that they have reached some common enlightenment or understanding, she doesn’t know what that understanding is.

Final Try: Miss Brill eavesdrops on the young couple. Solution: No, Miss Brill feels lonelier than ever, but she still won’t acknowledge it.

Prompt: write a flash fiction with a Character in which the plot-problem is the worldview “asking for help is a sign of weakness” and the plot-solution is the worldview “asking for help is a sign of strength.” Remember to keep the focus on the internal state of the character even as the character takes external actions. You’ll decide on the character, the setting, and the genre, as well as what are the stakes if the worldview doesn’t change and what is preventing the change from happening immediately.

Want more? This is just one of over 80 posts on my website theferalcollection.com/writing-from-scratch

I always find it kind of weird that matriarchal cultures in fiction are always “women fight and hunt, men stay home and care for the babies” because world-building-wise, it makes no sense

think about it. like, assuming that gender even works the same in this fantasy culture as it does in ours, with gender conflated with sex (because let’s be real, all of these stories assume that), men wouldn’t be the ones to make the babies, so why would they be the ones to care for the babies? why is fighting and hunting necessary for leadership?

writing a matriarchy this way is just lazy, because you’re just taking the patriarchy and just swapping the people in it, rather than actually swapping the culture. especially when there are so many other cool things you could explore. like, what if it’s not a swap of roles but of what society deems important?

maybe a matriarchy would have hunting and fighting be part of the man’s job, but undervalued. like taking the trash out or cleaning toilets: necessary, but gross, and not noble or interesting. maybe farming is now the most important thing, and is given a lot of spiritual and cultural weight.

how would law work? what crimes would exist, and what things would be considered too trivial to make illegal? who gets what property? why?

how would religion work? how would you mark time or the passage into adulthood? what would marriage look like? if bloodlines are through the mother, bastardy wouldn’t even be a concept - how does that work?

what qualities would be most important in a person? how would you define strength or leadership? what knowledge would be the most coveted and protected? what acts or roles are considered useless or degrading?

like, you can’t just take our current society and say you’re turning it on its head when you’re just regurgitating it wholesale. you have to really think about why things are the way they are and change that. 

Disney Princesses at their Current Ages

Making a Plan

So, editing is eating my soul.  And by that I mean I’m so deep in the revisions process that getting my brain back to writing for this blog is proving quite difficult. But I’m making a plan.  Two posts a week!  (This totes counts as a whole post.) Even if it’s just to say, “Hey I’m alive! Also, still editing.” (It’ll be longer than that, promise.) Regular updates are back, baby! PS. Puck and I…

View On WordPress

i hope this doesn’t need to be said but just in case

you might have seen people talking about sudowrite and/or their tool storyengine recently

and just like… don’t. don’t do it. don’t try it out just to see what it’s about.

for two main reasons:

1) never feed anything proprietary into a large language model (LLM, eg ChatGPT, google bard, etc.).

this means don’t give it private company information when you’re at work, but also don’t give it your original writing. that’s your work.

because of the way these language models work, anything you feed into it is part of it now. and yeah, the FAQ says they “don’t claim ownership” over anything and yeah, they give you that reassuring bullshit about how unlikely it is that the exact same sentence will be reconstructed—

but that’s not the point.

do you have an unusual way of constructing sentences? a metaphor you like to use? a writing tic that sets you apart from the rest? anything that gives you a unique writing voice?

feed your writing into an LLM, and the model has your voice now. the model can generate text that sounds like it was written by you and someone else can claim it’s theirs because they gave the model a prompt.

don’t feed the model.

2) the other reason is that sudowrite scraped a bunch of omegaverse fic without consent to build their model and that’s a really shitty thing to do, because it means people weren’t given the chance to choose whether or not to feed the model.

don’t feed the model.