Writing Questions for Josh Showing 1,701-1,750 of 4,753

[Emanuela ~plastic duck~]

I am not a teacher, but a good part of my job is to teach to my colleagues and the employees of our clients how to apply new tax laws to enter data in the accounting softwares. Part of this can be taught by algorithm, as Ocotillo said, but part of it is based on the interpretation of invoices and contracts and there's no way to teach it unless you explain the objective why it must be that way. I was wondering if there's always an "objective why" when teaching writing.

[Anne]

Emanuela ~plastic duck~ wrote: "I am not a teacher, but a good part of my job is to teach to my colleagues and the employees of our clients how to apply new tax laws to enter data in the accounting softwares. Part of this can be ..."

Ooooh, that's a good questions. I wanna know, too.

[Charming]

Ocotillo wrote: ". In this sense, mathematics and problem solving are easily taught, as is grammar (though not necessarily easily *learned*, depending on the student's learning strengths). "

I like your metaphor, but I have to say that math isn't at all easy to teach.

[Cleon Lee]

I was a teaching assistant and I tutored many friends in Statistic. It's definitely easier to teach something that is more objective than subjective.

[Calathea]

I think the difficulty of learning and teaching very much depends on the learning objectives (referring to Bloom's Taxonomy). The more basic cognitive objectives (Knowlegde, Comprehension, Application) are easier to reach than the more complex objectives (Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation).
If the objective is to achieve knowledge, meaning the student has only to be able to reproduce facts, vocabulary or theories, it will be easier to teach and learn than applying this knowlegde to solve a task. And it will be even harder to teach/learn anything that needs any form of creativity (like writing a novel). As a teacher you can give instruction on basic principles (e.g. structure of a story) but you can't reach into the brains of your students and make the connections, that are needed for synthesis, for them. That needs, as was mentioned on another topic, a lot of practice on their part and evaluation of the results in form of constructive feedback from somebody who knows how.

ETA: Re-reading my post it very much sounds like a lecture, which wasn't my intention... *sorry* I just wanted to put my thoughts into words. :-)

[Oco]

@ Calathea, doesn't sound like a lecture. :) I sort of agree to a point. Though I really think that in a topic that is more 'algorithmic' than 'subjective' those higher learning objectives (analysis e.g.,) are easier to reach in the sense of teaching.

In some respects, what you're discussing is the combination of teaching/learning. Whereas I was trying to separate out the 'teaching' component (as it might apply to writing a blog on a subject, for instance).

So for example, in the topics I teach (science), there are both math/problem solving sections and more 'subjective/visualizing' sections. I find it MUCH easier to devise a teaching strategy for the math heavy sections. I know how to put it together, I can see the logical way to teach it.

BUT, that's not to say that this is the easiest part of the course for the students. It's not. It's the hardest (for most). Because it requires...analysis, synthesis and evaluation, which are higher order skill sets.

@ Charming, I did say "In this sense," with intent, because as an entire subject, no, math is not easy to teach, especially since so many students are math-phobic. But even besides that, some aspects of math (especially early) are not algorithmically taught, and those are monstrous. Even so, there are heavy math components in my courses (sciences), and when I sit down and devise a teaching strategy, these are the easiest parts to put together and implement. They are NOT always the easiest for students to learn, because they take practice and repetition to truly get a handle on.

[Calathea]

Ocotillo wrote: "So for example, in the topics I teach (science), there are both math/problem solving sections and more 'subjective/visualizing' sections. I find it MUCH easier to devise a teaching strategy for the math heavy sections. I know how to put it together, I can see the logical way to teach it."

That I can understand. Given a set of teaching methods the algorithmic ones are easier to use and of better use in certain fields.

[Josh]

So, in your experience, what are the things that can be taught and what are things that can't be taught or at least harder to teach?

Anything technical is (relatively) easy to teach. Plot, pacing, the basics of dialog, even style, to an extent, are things that can be taught.

Voice (versus style) is a little trickier. Characterization (which has a lot to do with psychology and experience of dealing with a variety of personalities) is more difficult. Someone mentioned creating sympathetic characters -- that's tricky. Because it's quite different from creating interesting characters.

All fiction requires the creation of interesting characters, but all fiction does not require the creation of sympathetic characters. And yet sympathetic characters are very often the key to success. The ability to create sympathetic characters is what separates the top writers in a genre from everyone else.

But while you can teach the fundamentals of strong characterization...it's not so easy to teach what makes a character engaging, loveable.

[Josh]

Ocotillo wrote: "Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but a sympathetic character (in the literary sense) is one that the reader can relate to.

So a sympathetic villain is one who does bad things, but we can symp..."

Yes, I think this is a pretty good definition. Sympathetic characters are characters we can relate to, even if they are nothing like us. We care about these characters. We feel for them. Even when they are doing bad things, as in Ocotillo's sympathetic villain, we still feel invested in their fate.

A reader doesn't have to share a nationality, religion, race, sex or even species to care about a character, to be engaged with that character, but the further removed from recognizable reality, the harder the writer must work to make the character sympathetic.

[Josh]

Ocotillo wrote: "Re teaching: I can't speak for teaching writing, but I do make a decent living teaching other subjects. What I find often (not always) makes the difference between an easily taught and not so easil..."

Teaching is a fuzzy skill. That's very true. Some people have a knack for it, some don't. It's difficult because it requires more than love for and knowledge of a subject -- it also requires patience, imagination and intuitive (?) understanding of the different ways students learn.

But yes, I agree with your point which is I can instruct anyone on the building blocks of creating believable, realistic characters. But once those characters begin moving through the story, speaking, acting...it becomes more difficult. At that point the characters inevitably reflect the author's life experiences and understanding of psychology. In addition to that we have this odd thing which often happens wherein otherwise sensible writers suddenly forget how real live people behave and allow their characters to speak and react like Book People.

Sometimes they do this because in order to get from Plot Point A to Plot Point B, they must have their characters react in ways that real people just wouldn't. Sometimes they do this because a lot of (especially) new writers fall into this artificial way of thinking about plot and characters. So you have these flimsy constructs that the writer convinces herself works because "it's fiction."

And I will say that this is a genre that is very tolerant of artificial and flimsy constructs.

[Josh]

Kate Mc. wrote: "Ocotillo wrote: "Um. May I suggest that teaching is a fuzzy skill? :) "

So is learning! :D"

Ha! Very true. And, in fact, how much you can teach anyone is limited by how much they're willing to learn. Which is why when those lovely, bright, open-minded students pop up in a classroom it's like finding an orchid amidst the wildflowers.

[Josh]

Charming wrote: "Ocotillo wrote: ". In this sense, mathematics and problem solving are easily taught, as is grammar (though not necessarily easily *learned*, depending on the student's learning strengths). "

I lik..."

I don't know about teaching it, but I will say it's not easy learning it if you don't have the apptitude. ;-P

[Josh]

Cleon wrote: "I was a teaching assistant and I tutored many friends in Statistic. It's definitely easier to teach something that is more objective than subjective."

It is. Not least of because people are (naturally) more resistant to learning subjective things. Like trying to teach someone to have a sense of humor. Just because I say to you that A is funnier than B doesn't mean that you agree. And even if I am hailed as a master of comic whatever, it still doesn't mean that you see why A is funnier than B or that you will ever see why A is funnier than B.

And A may NOT be funnier than B. It's simply that more people find A funnier than B, and since I share that opinion, I'm better at catering to that taste.

But if you don't share that taste, you may never agree that A is funnier than B and you won't choose A over B no matter how many books you might sell.

If that makes any sense?

[Anne]

Josh wrote: "A reader doesn't have to share a nationality, religion, race, sex or even species to care about a character, "

"E.T., phone home."

[Calathea]

Josh wrote: "Which is why when those lovely, bright, open-minded students pop up in a classroom it's like finding an orchid amidst the wildflowers. "

You're so right! :-) It's like rain in the desert that is teaching (I don't want to say most of the time, but there can be long streches of thirst...) When you come across one of this rare species, that actually asks questions because s/he wants to know the answer and not just to please the teacher, it's like a revelation. :-))

[Oco]

"Which is why when those lovely, bright, open-minded students pop up in a classroom it's like finding an orchid amidst the wildflowers. "

You're so right! :-) It's like rain in the des..."

Boy Josh, you sure *sound* as if you've taught! :D

I agree with this, though I have to add another 'orchid'. Or maybe it's an ocotillo (seriously) which is a desert plant that looks like dead sticks most of the time, but after a rain, within hours, green leaves pop out everywhere and red flowers bloom at the tips. :D

Oh. The student: the ones who come in suspicious and annoyed or afraid, sure that they won't ever get or like this, that you are going to dislike them for being 'stupid', and you watch the lights come on as you struggle with them. Real lights. As in, their eyes. Oh my God. My. Favorite. Student. in the World. Makes it all worth it.

[Cleon Lee]

Ocotillo wrote: ""Which is why when those lovely, bright, open-minded students pop up in a classroom it's like finding an orchid amidst the wildflowers. "

You're so right! :-) It's like rain in the des..."

Boy J..."

I'm pretty sure Josh' former occupation is related to teaching, right Josh?

[Cleon Lee]

Josh wrote: "Cleon wrote: "I was a teaching assistant and I tutored many friends in Statistic. It's definitely easier to teach something that is more objective than subjective."

It is. Not least of because p..."

It makes perfect sense. Talking about creating sympathetic characters, not everyone share the same opinion about the same characters either. Some of the characters that people love, I want to whack with a two by four, in this genre or out. LOL. Which brings back the subjective topic.

[Sagajo]

Cleon wrote: "It makes perfect sense. Talking about creating sympathetic characters, not everyone share the same opinion about the same characters either. Some of the characters that people love, I want to whack with a two by four, in this genre or out. LOL. Which brings back the subjective topic. "

But there is often a sort of consensus.

[Oco]

Although I suspect that wanting to whack a character with a 2x4 can be a sign that the character is sympathetic. It's hard to feel strong emotion for a character that you aren't engaging with on some level.

Edit after the twilight comment: note I said, *can be*. :p

[Cleon Lee]

Sagajo wrote: "Cleon wrote: "It makes perfect sense. Talking about creating sympathetic characters, not everyone share the same opinion about the same characters either. Some of the characters that people love, I..."

*coughTwilightcough*

[Sagajo]

Lol... but Twilight is geared towards a teenage audience right? Some of these characters seem a bit simple if you're a bit older or if you care about other stuff than being the most wanted in school...

[Cleon Lee]

Sagajo wrote: "Lol... but Twilight is geared towards a teenage audience right? Some of these characters seem a bit simple if you're a bit older or if you care about other stuff than being the most wanted in schoo..."

I use Twilight as an example because it's the more obvious example. You're right that the target audience is teenagers, Twilight is a huge success because teen girls can relate to Bella.

I am actually thinking about some Asian soap operas that many people enjoy here. Some of them make me want to commit homicide to the protagonists or kill myself.

[Liade]

Josh wrote: "A reader doesn't have to share a nationality, religion, race, sex or even species to care about a character, to be engaged with that character, but the further removed from recognizable reality, the harder the writer must work to make the character sympathetic...."

I don't know if I'm alone in this but actually I often find it easier to care about a character because he is not the same race/nationality/sex/religion/species etc. as I am as that makes it much easier to forgive/ignore any jarring mistakes (factual or otherwise) made in characterisation.

And re. "sex" in the list above: sadly very few authors even seem to try to create sympathetic believable female characters.

[Kaje]

Liade wrote: "And re. "sex" in the list above: sadly very few authors even seem to try to create sympathetic believable female characters...."

Maybe more are trying than you think, but it's harder because a m/m story by context requires the women to be secondary characters. Don't know about other writers, but the number of secondaries in my books are limited and some of them have to be negative to provide conflict. Keep nagging us, though,, because you're right. We need more balance (and not just the female BFF.)

[Josh]

I use Twilight as an example because it's the more obvious example. You're right that the target audience is teenagers, Twilight is a huge success because teen girls can relate to Bella.

When I saw the first Twilight, I understood the appeal. It hits all kinds of adolescent buttons. As you say, a lot of adolescent girls can relate to Bella.

We have a cute kind of shy girl at a new school with some family problems but nothing too extreme (as in molestation or death) who catches the eye of one of the most popular guys at school.

Okay, yes, he's a sparkly vampire, but we all have our issues.

I am actually thinking about some Asian soap operas that many people enjoy here. Some of them make me want to commit homicide to the protagonists or kill myself.

:-D

And yet clearly someone somewhere finds something in all that to relate to.

[Josh]

And re. "sex" in the list above: sadly very few authors even seem to try to create sympathetic believable female characters.

It's troubling. No doubt about it.

[Josh]

Don't know about other writers, but the number of secondaries in my books are limited and some of them have to be negative to provide conflict

I see zero reason why the conflict would have to come from female characters.

[Liade]

Josh wrote: "I see zero reason why the conflict would have to co..."

Thank You!

[Cleon Lee]

Josh wrote: "I use Twilight as an example because it's the more obvious example. You're right that the target audience is teenagers, Twilight is a huge success because teen girls can relate to Bella.

When I..."

Yup. My point is that creating a relatable character is very dependent of the target audience. Clearly enough people in Asia can to relate passive-aggressive, weak-willed, pushover female protagonists to make the soap operas or novels successful, but such characterization will fail in Western countries.

[Josh]

Cleon wrote: "Josh wrote: "I use Twilight as an example because it's the more obvious example. You're right that the target audience is teenagers, Twilight is a huge success because teen girls can relate to Bell..."

And that comes down to knowing your audience. Which is not always as easy as we think.

[Oco]

You know, I have to back up Kaje here, because I think her point was lost.

Her point as I read it was that there is an inherent difficulty within m/m with writing *any* female characters, sympathetic or not, since the very fact that the main protags are by definition male rules out developing a major female character.

So there is a bias. Her comment about negative was to say that among *all* of those minor characters, some need to be negative, which further draws down the pool. I agree that logic is flawed, but not because she's 'assigning negative status to females' (as it sounds like y'all interpreted her comment), but because it confuses 'sympathetic' with 'good guy'.

It is indeed possible to present 'villainous' female characters as sympathetic. In fact, I wish more authors would do it. We seem to either write females as cardboard villains or as sympathetic, basically 'good' creatures. I'd like to think that the collective female ego isn't quite so fragile.

I'm going to go a little further on Kaje's limb and possibly anger people by saying that in fact, I think that lots of m/m authors inappropriately insert (what they think are) sympathetic female characters into their stories. These usually appear as the 'female best friend' who is the wise (and usually intrusive) advisor to the main male protag. Now, one can argue whether those female characters are truly 'sympathetic' (I'd say they are too 'heroic' and 'flawless' to be so), but IMO, the fact stands that m/m authors DO try to insert the 'good female', sometimes very clumsily. Should say that when I read these characters, what I see is the 'Mary Sue', where the author badly want to insert themselves into the story as that wonderful woman who champions and nurtures the gay men who need them.

That's not to say that I totally disagree with Liade's point, I don't. I think there *is* a dearth of truly sympathetic characters in *all* literature, and m/m is no exception. But Kaje is right to note that there is a basic difficulty there that may make the problem seem worse than it is.

[Cleon Lee]

Ocotillo wrote: "You know, I have to back up Kaje here, because I think her point was lost.

Her point as I read it was that there is an inherent difficulty within m/m with writing *any* female characters, sympathe..."

There is definitely a possibility that the female best friend is the extension of the author... OR... the author is trying too hard to avoid the "evil female" cliche that is rampant among earlier fanfics and some M/M stories, and ends up writing the polar opposite of said cliche.

[Liade]

Ocotillo wrote: "That's not to say that I totally disagree with Liade's point, I don't. I think there *is* a dearth of truly sympathetic characters in *all* literature, and m/m is no exception. But Kaje is right to note that there is a basic difficulty there that may make the problem seem worse than it is...."

I don't think I ever said that all female characters had to be all "nice", that's not how I see "sympathetic". But I really want an author to make me understand a bad character as well, make me see where (s)he is coming from, and I of course like authors to remember that very few characters are all black or white. Personally I like characters with a bit of grey or even charcoal in them.

[Josh]

Ocotillo wrote: "You know, I have to back up Kaje here, because I think her point was lost.

Her point as I read it was that there is an inherent difficulty within m/m with writing *any* female characters, sympathe..."

I agree with the unnecessary insertion of female characters in m/m fiction.

There should be a realistic proportion of male and female characters in any story, and all these kooky female best friends are a big yawn. But so are the crazy mothers and mother-in-laws and ex-wives and ex-fiances.

I'm not sure why female characters are so often dreadful cliches (good or evil) in m/m fiction, but so it is. And it is absolutely unnecessary. An m/m story should accurately reflect the world around the characters as any other piece of fiction does.

Look at your average mainstream genre novel featuring a male protag. In general -- and I know that's generalizing -- you have a more balanced representation of male and female characters.

Why, because the lead characters are gay, does the composition of the world suddenly change? It shouldn't.

[Josh]

Part of what we're dealing with is simply weak characterization overall!

[Oco]

Yes. To both of your comments, Josh.

@liade, Neither Kaje nor I disagreed with you. Kaje pointed out a confound. And in fact, I clearly stated that I agreed with you (edit: except insofar as my belief that m/m writers do 'try' on some level, but fail). My comment about confusing nice with sympathetic was in reference to Kaje's implication about negative characters precluding 'sympathetic'. It wasn't at all directed towards your post.

[Liade]

Ocotillo wrote: "Kaje pointed out a confound...."

A confound, yes, maybe, but as Josh pointed out there's no reason why a baddie would automatically have to be female, and more importantly, as I also said, even if the throw of the dice decided that said baddie had to be female, I'd still like the character to be understandable, with credible motivations which may also make me feel sympathetic with her; I want to see where she's coming from. I don't think "negative character" and "sympathetic character" are mutually exclusive. Though I agree that this is more difficult to achieve in a short story, it shouldn't be in a novel.

[Josh]

Liade wrote: "Ocotillo wrote: "Kaje pointed out a confound...."

A confound, yes, maybe, but as Josh pointed out there's no reason why a baddie would automatically have to be female, and more importantly, as I..."

Maybe it's something as simple as remembering that all characterizations must be nuanced. So the protags have their weaknesses and even the baddies leave a nice tip for the waitress or feed the squirrels or remember to send Father's Day cards.

[Liade]

Josh wrote: "Maybe it's something as simple as remembering that all characterizations must be nuanced. So the protags have their weaknesses and even the baddies leave a nice tip for the waitress or feed the squirrels or remember to send Father's Day cards...."

Yes. Charcoal, not out-and-out black.

[Oco]

@ liade's post 1815: Um? I think I already covered all that in #1808? The point (maybe you didn't read it?) was that I believed Josh misunderstood Kaje's post on exactly the point that you are now resurrecting (again, Kaje never said that a baddie had to be female, and nobody questioned your second point--in fact, I said that very thing). I'm going to drop this now.

@ Lou: I get you. I'm not saying that the female best friend / nurturer type is a bad thing. Not at all. I'm saying that very often she is written as an 'unreal' (and thus 'unsympathetic') character. One hallmark of the "Mary Sue" is she can do no wrong. A sympathetic character can.

It's as Josh said, IMO, that it is a problem with weak characterization. I'd bet, based on my impression of your writing ("Hanging Loose"), that whatever character you've drawn is complex enough that she is NOT what I'm talking about.

I used the best friend as an example of where many m/m writers are inserting women that they may think of as sympathetic, but in my view, aren't. I did NOT mean that all 'best friend' women are those characters. Not at all. As in, apples are fruits, but that doesn't mean that fruits are apples.

Lisa, Adrien English's mother, is sympathetic. She is both likable and annoying (IMO) in that she supports Adrien, but also does lots of things that are intrusive (controlling his money, inappropriately getting info from Adrien's doctor and lawyer). And we know this. She is sympathetic because even while she is doing this 'bad stuff', we understand why and can connect with her and see her as essentially human. She is not the 'bff' I'm talking about because we see that she is flawed. She is complex and real, thus we can connect.

Again, I'd lay a bet that you do this well. Your females in Hanging Loose (in fact, all of the characters) were balanced and 'real'. I see this problem most in authors that I quickly learn to avoid.

[Josh]

I like strong, ass-kicking female characters who wear real ass-kicking boots, not that shit with the high heels. Yet they are almost completely incompatible with the m/m genre.

Sure!

To write that kind of character you've got to write a powerful male character to balance or that ass kicking gal in the boots will take over your story. That's a big character!

Any romance is going to have to stay focused on the two main characters and their dilemma, and yes there is a limit to how many side characters a story will support and how much attention can go to their story, but even a walk on part can be memorable.

Fully fleshed out female characters will add to any story -- whether they're good characters or evil characters. I just get uncomfortable with how much hostility to females (with the exception of mothers -- who are either ambitious snobs or all accepting Leave it To Beaver types) we find in m/m fiction. And the bulk of it comes from female writers! :-(

[Oco]

@ Lou, Hey, I just reread your post and think I partially misinterpreted your concern. I don't think that *I* would interpret your characters as Mary Sue's, but I don't deny that many might.

I think that m/m readers, since they have such a close connection with authors (and often *are* the authors), often pick up on concerns and then apply them too easily. Not sure there is much to be done about that except write the best stories we know how.

I see this a lot with the "chicks with dicks" complaint, that everyone agrees they are horrible, but then when I see the complaint leveled at a character, it is apparent that the phrase is now used as a general epithet without any real understanding of male psychology and the craft of writing. IMO. Cleon and Anne (if you're around), didn't we have this discussion in another thread? :)

[Kari]

I struggled with Hannah in Collared. Bad. Remember the scene that I was writing in dribs and drabs of 500 words or less? Thar ya go. I kept writing and re-writing her. She takes Connor to such a very dark place. Damn near killed me. I will never do that to myself again. But...though her actions were actually pretty mild and at the same time wholly reprehensible (to my mind), I also wanted the reader to understand (if not agree with) why she acted as she did. How she rationalizes her behavior is important because Hannah represents the world in all its intrusive unwelcome glory.

It's just really really hard to write a female as a villian in m/m without falling into the trap of a cardboard cutout uber bitch. The Why is important. Just not always so easy to get across.

[Josh]

The why is important, yes.

And motivations have to hold up to close scrutiny. Like, it's not enough to tell the reader the main character is afraid he will be disinherited if his mother learns he's gay if the laws of inheritance wouldn't support such a thing.

I think the main thing to remember is the villain of a piece rarely sees themselves as the villain. The villain usually believes they've got absolutely valid reasons for doing what they do. (Even when guiltily aware most people wouldn't see it that way.)

[Kari]

Josh wrote: "I think the main thing to remember is the villain of a piece rarely sees themselves as the villain. The villain usually believes they've got absolutely valid reasons for doing what they do."

That was part of what made it so difficult to write Hannah. She is genuinely perplexed when Hero1 thinks that how she's acted is wrong and then tries to convince Hero1 that he is, in fact, in the wrong. That is, by far, the most uncomfortable scene I have ever written.

[Nicole]

Josh wrote: "All fiction requires the creation of interesting characters, but all fiction does not require the creation of sympathetic characters. And yet sympathetic characters are very often the key to success. The ability to create sympathetic characters is what separates the top writers in a genre from everyone else.

But while you can teach the fundamentals of strong characterization...it's not so easy to teach what makes a character engaging, loveable."

Sometimes I think that this all comes down to the core personality author. When trying to encourage various writers to make their protagonists more broadly appealing, I often draw upon personal knowledge I have about them. For example, is the author the sort of person who would say, "My book doesn't suck," rather than, "my book is the best I could do right now" or "my book is great!"

In my experience,"My book sucks," "my book doesn't suck," and "my book is great" are all going to have some trouble with sympathetic protags because they are all defensive statements. In other words these are all writers writing from the POV of a person who is expecting to be attacked and therefore will generally construct lopsided characters (either too good or verging on grotesque) because they fear judgment from the (perceived) reader.

I think a lot of elements of fiction writing can be taught, though. I personally learned a lot from Steering the Craft, by Ursula LeGuin. Lots of good stuff in there. It can't be learned just by reading it though. I think you must actually do the exercises in order to grasp the concepts. I did the workshop exercises with a bunch of my writer friends about 5 years ago. At that time 3 of the 4 of us already had book contracts, but we just wanted to level up. I particularly liked the "leaping and crowding" exercise.

[Nicole]

Ocotillo wrote: "I'd also be interested in hearing which writing topics y'all find hardest to teach. "

I am not joking in anyway when I say that, for me, the hardest thing to teach new writers is patience.

[Kari]

Nicole wrote: "I am not joking in anyway when I say that, for me, the hardest thing to teach new writers is patience."

LOL --- yes, I know, not a joke, but is SO TRUE! Myself included. >:D

[Nicole]

Kari wrote: "LOL --- yes, I know, not a joke, but is SO TRUE! Myself included. >:D"

Well, you know that old saying: Rome wasn't built in a day. :)