Tag: writing

I use the word ‘kewl’ a lot, both in on-line chat and in-per­son con­ver­sa­tions. In both cas­es I usu­al­ly dou­ble it into ‘kewl kewl’. It is a response to indi­cate that I was actu­al­ly lis­ten­ing to what you had to say, and a gen­er­al com­ment of under­stand­ing and agree­ment.
The spelling is spe­cif­ic and delib­er­ate. Some­thing in me hates with a pas­sion the word ‘cool’. I don’t know exact­ly why, some­thing to do with it being a word of the old­er gen­er­a­tion, or maybe in my messed up brain I asso­ciate ‘cool’ with Amer­i­cana and all the things I dis-like about the USA. So when I first stum­bled across the ‘kewl’ spelling (back in 1994, give me some street creed here), I was drawn to it, and it has since stuck. I make no excus­es or apolo­gies. While it maybe crass and seem une­d­u­cat­ed, just maybe I’m choos­ing from a posi­tion of informed deter­mi­na­tion.
I’ve also noticed recent­ly that I use the word ‘mate’ when chat­ting on-line, but nev­er use it in in-per­son con­ver­sa­tions. No idea what that means.
I also use ‘lol’ on-line a lot, but nev­er in-per­son. Here it is obvi­ous, in-per­son some­one can actu­al­ly see if your laugh­ing. On-line, I think ‘lol’ is more imme­di­ate and gen­uine than typ­ing back ‘i find that very fun­ny’.

Har­ry will always have the same prob­lem, though he nev­er will see it. With great dreams and no dri­ve noth­ing will come of noth­ing. Har­ry desires many things, but none enough to get any. Har­ry is a foun­tain. Har­ry is a mop. Har­ry will always be a Har­ry, from the top to the very very top. Har­ry is a small man, who thinks he looks good in a big mans clothes. Har­ry nev­er did exist, nor ever want to.
Har­ry will always have the same prob­lem, though he nev­er will see it. Being a fig­mant, an image, a desire. Being a phan­ton, a shad­ow, a hunger. Bet­ter that than noth­ing at all. Har­ry will nev­er love, nev­er leave, nev­er want. Har­ry is a ran­dom thought, an itch, a dis­as­ter.
Har­ry will always have the same prob­lem, though he nev­er will see it. From the end to the very very end. From the mid­dle it gets eat­en. Up and down and around and around. Spin­ning still. Music dri­ves every­thing.
Har­ry will always have the same prob­lem, though he nev­er will see it. Har­ry is not noth­ing.

Due to the boom­ing suc­cess of the pre­vi­ous chal­lenge, I thought I’d start annother one.

Lim­its

• Must includ­ed the line: “The house was­n’t old enough to be scary.”
• No more than 1 hour!
• Short but well writ­ten is bet­ter than long but poor­ly writ­ten.

Go.

(PS: post­ing your work in the com­ments, or track­back­ing to it to your blog would be real­ly nice)

No idea.
More to the point, I’m don’t think I’d want to be a top sell­ing author. The qual­i­ty of writ­ing is rear­ly pro­por­tion­al to the com­er­cial sucess.
How­ev­er from time to time I do write (and I like to think that some of it isn’t crap). But what to write? When? First an idea is need­ed.
I have some tools and tech­niques that I use to cre­ate the spark, noth­ing all that inter­est­ing, but usu­al­ly works when I’m stuck for an idea.
Once I have an idea I look at all the pos­si­ble sto­ries I could tell with that and I start down the path that seems both inter­est­ing and chal­lang­ing to me. But giv­en the same spark anoth­er writer would nev­er write the same thing.
So with that in mind here is the brief:
Write a short (very short) sto­ry (or what­ev­er, peom, pro­gram code, pray) with­in these lim­i­ta­tions, 250 words max­i­mum, must include the word “cubic”, must have 2 char­ac­ter (no more, no less), and if you spend more than an hour on it you’ve tak­en too long.

Giv­en my pre­vi­ous tirades on the sub­ject of gram­mar, it is per­haps not sur­pris­ing that I also have a obses­sion with punc­tu­a­tion.
So an arti­cle like this can hard­ly be left alone.
Short and Curlies
Any­way, wot he said.