John C. Wright's Blog, page 76

Wright’s Writing Corner: Payloads and Gnomes

Here are the links for the last two of the beautiful and talented Mrs. Wright’s Wright’s Writing Corner, on the Payload Moment, part one and two.

Excerpt:

Payload: Every scene/fight/sex scene should have some moment that moves the plot along or heightens awareness, drawing the reader into something greater. Villains should reveal something important during a fight, and romantic partners should learn more about each other or reveal secrets.

Also, every character should have at least one paragraph/scene where they reveal their inner motivation.

Payload: Probably the most important concept in these Writing Tips. If I had to rank them from most important to least important, this one would be number one.

Payload Part One:

http://www.ljagilamplighter.com/2014/03/26/wrights-writing-corner-payload-moment-reboot-part-one/

Payload Part Two:

http://www.ljagilamplighter.com/2014/04/02/wrights-writing-corner-the-most-important-techique/

Added bonus: article on Oreads and Gnomes at Mythical Mondays today

http://networkedblogs.com/VGvoU

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

John Galt Writes a Car Commercial

Frankly, since a young age, I have felt nothing but immense distaste toward advertisements, mostly because my icy and dispassionate Houyhnhnm mind could see the logical errors in the presentation, the appeals to emotion, and so on. I understood that customers need and want to be informed of the benefits of one’s commercial product, but the distaste remained.

Until now. I finally saw a commercial which had created so much enmity among Leftists, and generated so much raw hate and scorn, so much undisguised hatred for America and for work and for ethics, that for this reason alone it merits praise.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Book review: the Worm Ouroboros

The Worm Ouroboros

by E.R. Eddison

The Worm Ouroboros is a wonder; a charm; rich with delight

Mr. E.R.Eddison’s master-work, the Worm Ouroboros, is without peer; but the heady and voluptuous beauty of his rich prose, alas, shall find few readers able to admire it. In a word, this book is for the few to whom fantasy means phantasmagorical, noble, ornamental, awe-striking, wondrous. His book is all this, and is like no other. The main action of the book takes place on Mercury, where and Earthly visitor, in a dream, witnesses the titanic war between two mighty kingdoms of that planet. There were never villains so black and pure of quill as the tyrannous King Gorice XII of Carce and his crew. Lord Gro, his henchman, cannot rest from intrigue and treason; the Lords Corsus, Corund and Corinius are tipplers, drunks, gamblers, lechers, and yet stern fighting-men and deadly both on battle-field and sea-fight.

In contrast, the Lords Juss, Spitfire, Gouldry Blazsco and Brandoch Daha are great and noble in a way never seen these days, and rarely seen erenow. They are men of honor, bold in emprise, valiant and fierce as hawks, but well-spoken, gentlemen first and last. To climb the unclimbed mountain at the end of the world, or to wrestle unto death a King for possession of a kingdom, or to rescue a brother from the pale regions of the dead, were all one matter to them; they flinch at nothing. Great wars, opulent prose, women of beauty without compare, bold princes, splendor, horrors stirred up from the pit by unlawful grammery, treasons, escapes, sword-fights, beauties to pierce the heart, all are here in this book: but this book is not meant for all.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Urgent Message to Beta Readers

Dear Readers,

Everyone who helped me Beta Read my new collection of Essays, TRANSHUMAN AND SUBHUMAN, I realize that my list of people who help me consists of some real names, some email abbreviations, and some online nicknames.

I want to thank you by name. Please send it to me.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Steven J on Greydanus on Wright on Noah

I have not had time yet to reply to Mr Greydanus’ thoughtful rebuttal to some of the claims I made in my review of NOAH, but with so many wise and literate fellows replying for me, I may have no need. This is from Steven, whose thinking runs parallel with mine:

Dear Mr. Greydanus,

As a fan of and frequent relier upon your reviews (and with much appreciation and remaining fully so for both), I have to admit that your review was also part of what got me to go see the film, though I’d read enough far more hostile reviews to have some idea of what I’d be seeing. In the end, I think, I come down more in agreement with Mr. Wright’s analysis than yours for the following reasons — most of which, I think, must be attributed to the actual execution of the film rather than what can reasonably be inferred from the script.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Ahead of the World

A reader with the Romano-militant yet trisdekaphilic name of Centurion13 writes his opinion of the sour Leftists who anoint themselves our elite:

“No wonder they hate Christianity so. Not only does it deny everything they are; it pulls the mask off them and calls them what they are and have always been – merely more fallen men sunk into wickedness.”

What I notice is that any man whose is unwise and uneducated, if he merely read the Bible, will know this fact which even all the wise and great do not know, and will understand what is going on in life.

Likewise, Aristotle, and all astronomers and physicists until Hubble, thought and taught that the universe was infinitely old, without beginning, uncreated. Our humble Bible-reader would have known what modern science teaches, which is that the universe does have an origin point, anywhere from fifty to five thousand years ahead of time.

During the Clinton scandal, I was an atheist, and I could not understand how any honest, intelligent man could fail to be outraged at the adultery, at the lying, at the lying under oath. I happened by mistake (or providence) to overhear a preacher with the thickest Southern hill-country accent — he sounded like a parody, or someone from central casting auditioning for a part in a remake of Beverly Hillbillies — but he said the only wise thing I heard anyone, Dem or GOP, say about the scandal. He said that all these men are defending Clinton because their sins are like his sins. They do not want him to be criticized for the filth in his soul because they love the filth in their own soul.

It made perfect sense. And yet all the pundits and commentators and radio talkshow hosts could not explain it.

So, speaking as a man with a rather broad and deep education, let me assure anyone that a man with a fifth grade education who reads and understand the Bible will know as much as I do, or know more, and be correct on issues ranging from the origin of the universe to the origin of the Clinton scandal. The world with call you a fool, because you will be between fifty to five thousand years ahead of where the world is.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Addendum to the Unified Field Theory of Madness

Deep thought and sudden insight inspired me to add another point to my theory:

If we could also explain why the Rich, who are routinely vilified by the Left number among its most ardent supporters, or the secular Jews, our theory would be very potent in its explanatory power.

8. The Paradoxes of the Wealthy Socialist and the Antisemitic Jew.

While it is not one of the main paradoxes addressed above, one must be curious why so many of the Left seem to have joined a movement with a worldview that is innately hostile to what appears to be their self-interests.

But recall what the Unified Field Theory of Madness predicts: From the roots of the compassionate epistemology, which forbids them from holding any opinion based on judgment, we have seen how this flowers into to the judgments all opponents are evil, all lovely things hateful, no war is just, no independence of thought is to be tolerated, no success to go unpunished, and no truth to be admitted.

To whom would this naturally appeal? What sort of man wants the laurels due to an intelligent man, without doing the work of actually using his intellect? What sort wants the palm leaf due an honest man, without shouldering the burden of honesty? What sort wants the ovations due a hero, without the danger or bloodshed of heroism? Who wants other people’s wealth, but not for himself, nor, apparently, for anyone, merely wasted in a vast display of public pomp?

And why are they so angry? Why so vehement? Why so arrogant? Why do they always attack the person, and never the argument, during any disagreement?

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Deluge as Earthday

Aronofsky’s NOAH would be a fine movie for Earthday, or as a source for ideas for a Dungeons and Dragons campaign.

Aside from this, the movie was bad, and bad, and bad.

First, it was bad in my eyes for reasons which are simply a matter of my expectations and tastes, which I would not necessarily expect anyone else to share.

On that basis, I can only warn away men who share my particular tastes and quirks, which may be no one. I thought the look of the movie was colorless, unappealing, unmemorable. It was drab.

Second, it was bad as story, bad for reasons which even judges who like the movie for other reasons will agree are bad as story telling: bad on technical grounds.

On that basis, I can warn away anyone who likes a well-crafted story, or even a poorly-crafted story trying to tell a story. The story-telling sank during the second half of the film, and the plot snarled into a knot of nonsense. It was bad.

Third, it was bad as a Bible story, bad for reasons which only Christians, or Conservatives, or both would consider bad, but which tree-hugging misanthropic miscreants on the Left would like.

On that basis, I can warn away anyone who is Christian as a well as any non-Christians who do not bow the knee in pious reverence at the ugly Leftist altars of man-hating Gaea-worship. Vegetarians yearning for the destruction of mankind might like this movie; and also vehement anti-Christians and anti-Semites who want to see Bible stories mocked and deconstructed. The movie was a sneer against God and Man and everything good in life. I rarely find movies morally offensive; this movie was. It was evil.

Let us give the devil his due: I would not hate this movie so much if it had been entirely bad, bad through and through, bad like STARSHIP TROOPERS or PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE. There were some good things in the first half of the film.

No, I will say that more strongly: there were some great, some wonderful moments in the first half of the film, things that made me want to doff my hat and salute the film maker.

But these good things, some of which were brilliant, were entirely undermined by the second half.

So some of you who read these words might like the film. For you, the good might outweigh the bad. I cannot condemn the film wholly.

But I can condemn it halfly, if that is a word:  If you go, please walk out of the theater once it starts raining.

Because the Deluge that follows is a flood of bad writing. Better yet, stuff popcorn in your ears, and ignore the dialog, once they get on the Ark. Maybe pull the popcorn out to hear the retelling of the Creation story by Noah to his kids.

Let us start, as all fair-minded reviews should start, with the good, and move on to the drab, the bad, and the evil.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Deluge as Earthday

Aronofsky’s NOAH would be a fine movie for Earthday, or as a source for ideas for a Dungeons and Dragons campaign.

Aside from this, the movie was bad, and bad, and bad.

First, it was bad in my eyes for reasons which are simply a matter of my expectations and tastes, which I would not necessarily expect anyone else to share.

On that basis, I can only warn away men who share my particular tastes and quirks, which may be no one. I thought the look of the movie was colorless, unappealing, unmemorable. It was drab.

Second, it was bad as story, bad for reasons which even judges who like the movie for other reasons will agree are bad as story telling: bad on technical grounds.

On that basis, I can warn away anyone who likes a well-crafted story, or even a poorly-crafted story trying to tell a story. The story-telling sank during the second half of the film, and the plot snarled into a knot of nonsense. It was bad.

Third, it was bad as a Bible story, bad for reasons which only Christians, or Conservatives or both would consider bad, but which tree-hugging misanthropic miscreants on the Left would like.

On that basis, I can warn away anyone who is Christian as a well as any non-Christians who do not bow the knee in pious reverence at the ugly Leftist altars of man-hating Gaea-worship. Vegetarians yearning for the destruction of mankind might like this movie; and also vehement anti-Christians and anti-Semites who want to see Bible stories mocked and deconstructed. The movie was a sneer against God and Man and everything good in life. I rarely find movies morally offensive; this movie was. It was evil.

Let us give the devil his due: I would not hate this movie so much if it had been entirely bad, bad through and through, bad like STARSHIP TROOPERS or PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE. There were some good things in the first half of the film.

No, I will say that more strongly: there were some great, some wonderful moments in the first half of the film, things that made me want to doff my hat and salute the film maker.

But these good things, some of which were brilliant, were entirely undermined by the second half.

So some of you who read these words might like the film. For you, the good might outweigh the bad. I cannot condemn the film wholly.

But I can condemn it halfly, if that is a word:  If you go, please walk out of the theater once it starts raining.

Because the Deluge that follows is a flood of bad writing. Better yet, stuff popcorn in your ears, and ignore the dialog, once they get on the Ark. Maybe pull the popcorn out to hear the retelling of the Creation story by Noah to his kids.

Let us start, as all fair-minded reviews should start, with the good, and move on to the drab, the bad, and the evil.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Deluge as Earthday

Aronofsky’s NOAH would be a fine movie for Earthday, or as a source for ideas for a Dungeons and Dragons campaign.

Aside from this, the movie was bad, and bad, and bad.

First, it was bad in my eyes for reasons which are simply a matter of my expectations and tastes, which I would not necessarily expect anyone else to share.

On that basis, I can only warn away men who share my particular tastes and quirks, which may be no one. I thought the look of the movie was colorless, unappealing, unmemorable. It was drab.

Second, it was bad as story, bad for reasons which even judges who like the movie for other reasons will agree are bad as story telling: bad on technical grounds.

On that basis, I can warn away anyone who likes a well-crafted story, or even a poorly-crafted story trying to tell a story. The story-telling sank during the second half of the film, and the plot snarled into a knot of nonsense. It was bad.

Third, it was bad as a Bible story, bad for reasons which only Christians, or Conservatives or both would consider bad, but which tree-hugging misanthropic miscreants on the Left would like.

On that basis, I can warn away anyone who is Christian as a well as any non-Christians who do not bow the knee in pious reverence at the ugly Leftist altars of man-hating Gaea-worship. Vegetarians yearning for the destruction of mankind might like this movie; and also vehement anti-Christians and anti-Semites who want to see Bible stories mocked and deconstructed. The movie was a sneer against God and Man and everything good in life. I rarely find movies morally offensive; this movie was. It was evil.

Let us give the devil his due: I would not hate this movie so much if it had been entirely bad, bad through and through, bad like STARSHIP TROOPERS or PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE. There were some good things in the first half of the film.

No, I will say that more strongly: there were some great, some wonderful moments in the first half of the film, things that made me want to doff my hat and salute the film maker.

But these good things, some of which were brilliant, were entirely undermined by the second half.

So some of you who read these words might like the film. For you, the good might outweigh the bad. I cannot condemn the film wholly.

But I can condemn it halfly, if that is a word:  If you go, please walk out of the theater once it starts raining.

Because the Deluge that follows is a flood of bad writing. Better yet, stuff popcorn in your ears, and ignore the dialog, once they get on the Ark. Maybe pull the popcorn out to hear the retelling of the Creation story by Noah to his kids. This is right before he announces that he intends to have them all die, wiping out mankind to the last man, including himself. This is the version of Noah where Noah plans not to save any life on Earth, this is to say, this is the Anti-Noah version of Noah.

Let us start, as all fair-minded reviews should start, with the good, and move on to the drab, the bad, and the evil.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.