Avatar

welcome to parchdack

@glowstickhaloboy / glowstickhaloboy.tumblr.com

jay, 26, a fussy writer. (he/him.)
i have written an audio drama.

do y'all write like this? (this is for one chapter. I can only go chapter by chapter or I will lose motivation)

  • outline, outline, outline
  • write a version of the chapter that is "John went over here. John said this. John felt this. John wanted this." Some flashes of usable dialogue/narration, but most of it is quite bad! I can't skip this phase with stuff like "[something cool happens here]." I won't write anything that way.
  • revise revise revise
  • basically, translate all of the "placeholder" narration into actual narration. (like isn't that penultimate chapter of Persuasion by Jane Austen placeholder narration bc she died and didn't get to revise it????)
  • Filter words! Show not tell!
  • Then put in bolded, highlighted notes that yell things like [SUBVERT EXPECTATIONS!!!!!] who tf am i yelling at
  • print out the chapter to revise again. I print out everything. This is the Jokes Pass where I'm like "heh heh...how do i make this funny"
  • I finish a chapter, but because I'm going chapter by chapter I know I'll have to go back and go over the entire novel to make it cohesive
  • revise it again like two weeks later to procrastinate working on next chapter
  • i feel like i write like a comic book artist draws lmao. "Oh you gotta sketch the thing then refine it when you do pencils and then you ink it and color"

@doodlebug-aboo YES. NO LIKE, EXACTLY!!!! YOUR TAGS!!!!

With writing I am taking a full-ass sketch and lowering the opacity to 5% and hitting ctrl+Z trying to draw pencils like "uhhh okay. Uhhh okay. Ummm yeah that looks right. Uhhhhhh fix later."

listen im just a guy who read two and a half pdfs a couple years ago but before that i definitely didnt know to hear alarm bells at the phrase “this sets the precedent” when it comes to politics. if you had asked me before, i would have guessed that meant that this evil/generous act can plant the idea in another evil/generous person’s mind that this kind of behavior is acceptable, and i would have left it at that. but now, roughly two and a half pdfs smarter and therefore knowing that our entire legal system in america is based on precedent, not dubious terms like “justice” or “ethics”, but precedent, means that anything which is even slightly linked to what has been allowed to fly before has a chance of being codified as law now. and therefore made more legitimate. and as long as you can argue it’s related to a previous ruling, you have a chance at adding that legacy of legitimacy to your own present claim. and in case theres anyone out there who might read this and didnt fully catch the gravity of that phrase either, it is a warning — to not let a foot in the door right now. setting a precedent is not a quick victory or a morale thing, it’s a strategic step in one direction or the other. “things should be this way because it would be good” isn’t a good enough argument in a court of law. political fights (that make it to any kind of court room at least) are weighed based on whats happened before, not what should be done now in an ideal world. i cant tell you why. that was probably on pdf number 3 and ive been busy. but if you, like me, didnt know, well, maybe now you know, so if youre ever wondering in the near future why things cant just be made simple, its because we’re fighting an uphill battle trying to drag history out of tradition and into codified morality. take all this with a grain of salt, but also remember it the next time someone asks you to get involved in the tug-of-war

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.