Writing From Scratch # 11: Compound Plots, Part 1

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.

Fall Reading Reviews '15

Fall Reading Reviews ’15

Every season I have a list of books to read; you can find out more information under the Great Book List page.  This season I slightly overdid it with my commitments, but we’ll chalk it up to a learning curve. Below the read more are reviews (with minor spoilers) of Thorn Jack by Katherine Harbour, Fangirl by Rainbow Rowell, Flappers: Six Women of a Dangerous Generation by Judith Mackrell, The…

View On WordPress

honey production does hurt the bees. the honey stolen is replaced with a toxic synthetic sugar substance which isn't healthy for them. honey isn't for humans to steal, please educate yourself.

Arright, sit down, you’re about to get some knowledge dropped on you by somebody with beekeepers and meadmakers in the family.

The “toxic synthetic sugar substance” you’re referring to? Is sugar water. Literally SUGAR and WATER. There’s nothing synthetic about it. And the bees only rarely need a LITTLE bit of sugar water to help them get through, because if they’re provided with enough nectar, bees will make a shit-ton of honey. Most hives generate more honey than they can ever use.

And when a hive starts getting too full, the bees may swarm and try to go find a new place to live. Do you know what happens to a more than three-quarters of swarms that leave their hive? THEY DIE. Yup. Either they can’t find a new hive, or they run into predators, or they wind up landing somewhere that humans don’t want them and then exterminators get called.

So removing a few frames from the hive, taking out the wax and the honey, and replacing them for the bees to fill with new comb and honey and larvae is actually GOOD for the hive. The bees stay busy, they’ve got frames to fill, the queen doesn’t feel the need to go anywhere, and their human buddies can help keep them safe from natural predators and pesticides.

The mutually-beneficial relationship between humans and bees has existed for literally thousands of years. People keep hives, bees pollinate crops and make honey, people harvest the honey, the bees get extra protection and can happily buzz away keeping the plants healthy and making more sweet sugary goo.

Honeybees are an endangered species. If they die, not only does your vegan diet become completely impossible, but the entire planet is royally fucked.

And do you know who’s doing more than anybody else to keep them alive and make sure we don’t all starve?

BEEKEEPERS. And they treat those bees like their own damn children. They’re not going to feed them toxins or “steal” all their food, they want the bees to be happy and healthy and THRIVING.

Being vegan is absolutely fine, but don’t go trying to tell other people how to eat and don’t sound off on shit until YOU educate YOURSELF. Try talking to an actual beekeeper sometime. Or at the very least, read an article by a beekeeper instead of relying on someone else’s scare tactics.

Writing from Scratch #2

What is a Plot?

Different people mean different things when they use the word “plot,” and they are all correct, if not as descriptive as they could be.

Some people mean a story structure, like the 3-Act Structure; some people mean a plot archetype, like an underdog sports plot or a heist plot; some people mean the negative to positive or positive to negative trajectory of the main character, like Rags to Riches; and some people mean “to plot” as in “to outline.”

Throughout Writing from Scratch, when I say “plot,” I’ll be referring to the definition I’ve already hinted at: a plot is a problem and its solution. Plots of this nature can be very long if the solution takes a while for the character to arrive at or very short if the solution is solved without much trouble. In a story with multiple plots of this type, the plot that has its problem first introduced and last solved is what I will call the Long Plot.

Plot-Problems

There are four umbrella types that plots of this kind fall under – all based on the type of problem the plot has. And these are called the MICE* plot-problems.

Milieu

Inquiry

Character

Event

Over the next few posts, I will be diving into each in turn.

Read More on WordPress

There is already considerable speculation about how Congress would react to a replay of the Saturday Night Massacre, when President Richard Nixon ordered his attorney general to fire the Watergate special prosecutor. Senators of both parties have warned the president against dismissing Mueller, some in very strong language (dismissal would cross a “red line” or be “explosive”). Members of Congress would no doubt demand an immediate, serious congressional inquiry into the matters the special counsel is investigating, if not impeachment proceedings based on the dismissal itself.

Trump Can Fire Mueller, But Not a Grand Jury 

One of the reasons Trump keeps getting away with his lawlessness and his lies, is that reporters and pundits keep acting like this craven, Vichy Congress will do ANYTHING of meaningful consequence when he steps up his obstruction of justice to firing Mueller.

We have been in a Constitutional Crisis since McConnell blocked President Obama’s Constitutional right and duty to nominate to SCOTUS, and nobody in Congress or the punditocracy seemed to give a fuck about THAT, so it’s laughable to think that Congress – especially a Congress that allows Trump Toady Devin Nunes to oversee an investigation into anything involving the administration he’s protecting – will do anything more meaningful than wring their hands and make some speeches.

The only way to do anything about any of this is to DESTROY the GOP in the election this year, in a wave election of historical proportions.

(via wilwheaton)

Writing from Scratch #7: The Event Plot

The Event Plot

The problem of an Event plot is a disruption to the status quo. The solution comes either from setting everything right again or adapting to the change. The Event plot is probably what most people think of when they think “what is a plot?” Any story that deals with a life-changing or world-changing event is an Event.

The first plot I analyzed, from The Expanse television series, is an Event plot. Let’s look at another: The Princess Diaries. As we did with Lord of the Rings, we’ll look at the movie rather than books because more people will be familiar with the movie (which is a damn shame).

The Event: Mia Thermopolis’s grandmother tells Mia that she is the princess of small European kingdom Genovia, and she must take the throne.

First try: Mia tries to reestablish the old status quo of being a nobody by running away from her grandmother to her mother’s house. Fail: No, she is not allowed to ignore that she is a princess, and she must undergo “princess lessons.”

Second try: Mia tries to adapt to the new status quo of being a secret princess by taking princess lessons and letting her best friend in on the secret. Fail: Yes, Mia gets a makeover and goes to a state dinner, but she is kind of a mess emotionally and embarrasses herself.

Third try: Mia tries to ignore everything that is happening to her status quo. Fail: No, everyone knows she’s a princess now, and because horrible school bullies school-bully she is a laughing stock.

Fourth try: Mia tries to run away from the city to avoid reestablishing the old status quo by renouncing the crown or adapting to the new status quo by accepting the crown. Fail: No, she doesn’t successfully run away, and she arrives at the ball looking like a drowned cat.

Final try: Mia tries adapting to the new status quo by accepting the crown. Solution: Yes, Mia adapts to being a princess, and she impresses everyone with her speech.

Prompt: write a flash fiction with an Event in which the plot-problem that disrupts the status quo is a marriage proposal. How a marriage proposal would disrupt the status quo is up to you. You’ll also choose the character, setting, genre, and stakes, as well as what is preventing this status quo from being reestablished or adapted to immediately. This simple plot can create a story from a rom-com to a fantastical action-adventure.

If you like this and want more, check out my website theferalcollection.com

How fucking annoying is it when you feel so restless with creative energy but you can’t decide what to do with it and when you finally try to create something it comes out shit so you just give up and sit there being all creatively annoyed and jittery.

So sometimes I see bros on the internet talk about how women couldn’t have worn armor historically, because it was too heavy for them.

Here is a picture of me wearing armor when I was a nerdy 14-year-old girl who was about 5 feet tall and weighed less than 95 pounds. I sometimes wore it for 6 hours straight in summer heat, and I would run and turn summersaults in it for fun.

And before you start asking: this was authentic full steel plate with a padded arming doublet underneath. It weighed so much that I couldn’t carry the plastic tub it was stored in on my own. It was heavy. But once I was wearing it I just felt like I was being hugged or wrapped up in a really heavy blanket. That’s how armor works. The whole point is that the weight is distributed across your whole body, and your whole body can lift a huge amount. It has nothing to do with how strong you are or how much you can bench.

So if you think women are too weak to wear armor, you are wrong on so many levels. It does not even matter if you believe in your little misogynistic heart that all women are defined by their physical inferiority when compared to men, because you are also just wrong about how armor works. Even skinny teen girls can wear armor just fine. Everyone can wear armor.

“it would be impossible for this disabled character to be played by a disabled actor because of the things this character can do in this movie” well then maybe…… you fucked up in the writing of this disabled character……

Note to self

Stop thinking: “I’m not talented enough to execute this concept.” Start thinking: “I’m going to be a stronger artist when I’ve finished this piece.”