|
|
The Ten Obstructions: A "Write-Off" For WritersSep 04 '04 (Updated Oct 11 '04) Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Books
The Bottom Line Bottom Line. Fine fellow. Quite unnecessary. Love him? Not me.
If you look closely at the expression "write-off", you'll notice the root word "write". Writing, as I've come to understand it, calls for more than the ability to put subjects and verbs together to form sentences, sentences together to form paragraphs, and paragraphs together -- in some sort of logical order -- to create a text. It would be a good start if all the people writing on Epinions could accomplish these simple criteria, but I realize that this is the Internet and that might be asking too much. Though I wish they'd sometimes try. More than just a technical exercise, writing is an attempt to stretch a literary muscle. It's a way of communicating that can entertain, enlighten, and enliven. It's an artform, one that I know I'll be trying for the rest of my life to master, but am secure in the knowledge that I never will. And that's okay. In that light -- and in honour of my 200th Epinions review -- here is a "write-off", in its most literal sense. It's not a "tell-off", a better nomenclature for the recent spate of survey collections (using the word "recent" may be a case of hiding my head in the sand, for the survey genre is now over 16 months old, and not threatening to die out -- mercifully -- anytime soon). This "write-off" is an attempt to get the better part of the Epinions community (you know who you are) writing again. A novel concept, I know. But one not easily accomplished. The inspiration for my interest in this "write-off" is three-fold. You don't need to know this information, but I'm going to tell you anyway: …I'm interested in just how Jack White creates his art, while purposefully limiting himself, choosing to perform in a two-piece band with a trichromatic colour scheme. …I'm interested in Lars von Trier's plans for his mentor, Jørgen Leth, as outlined in trust12345's review of the movie that gave this "write-off" its title. …And I'm interested in living up to a challenge, offered by mobiprof here: Me: Are we doomed to an inferno of inconsequential questionnaire write-offs, from inconsequential minds? Mobi: You could answer that by starting your own challenging write-off. But mainly I'm just interested. I'm interested in Epinions, as a community of writers, one challenging the other in the hopes that we are all getting better. I'm interested in becoming a better writer myself. And I'm interested in finding new writers to read, and new writers to fall in love with, and new writers to envy. So, in the interest of getting on with things, here is my own challenging "write-off": Step one is fairly simple. Pick any product in the Epinions database, and review it. Feel free to choose a movie, a CD, a soapdish, a computer program, etc. The only product not eligible is you. Step two is more complex, and more multi-faceted. Your review must conform to the following ten rules, or obstructions: 1. The review must contain one paragraph written using sentences of no more and no less than 2 words each. It's possible. Don't fret. Not hard. Just try. 2. The review must contain at least one quotation of a line of dialogue from Brian DePalma's "Scarface". The line must be in context, and preferably contain some sort of analytical insight on the item you are reviewing. 3. The review must, for one paragraph, play the fortune cookie game. You know the fortune cookie game, don't you? It's the one where you add the words "in bed" to the end of every sentence. Thus, the opening lines of "One Hundred Years of Solitude" would become, "Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice in bed." "Moby Dick" would become, more simply, "Call me Ishmael in bed." Any changes you make will not hinder the meaning of the paragraph. They may make it sexier, or more somnolent, but your ideas must still come through loud and clear. 4. The review must include at least three (3) neologisms. You can include definitions, if you want, or assume that your reader will glean a definition based solely on context. Personally, I think the latter is more fun. 5. The review must include at least one word that would normally be struck through by the Eps Naughty Word Censor. The word must be completely intact, and free of asterisks or alternate spellings. And it must call attention to itself as if it were printed in 72-point type, or in neon lights on a marquee. Own the naughty words, or the naughty words will own you. 6. The review must contain at least one tangent, of at least 200 words in length, about something unrelated to the product in question. Make it about something that bugs you, something that makes you happy, or just a random thought that popped into your head. 7. The review must include a complete Shakespearean-style sonnet, written by you, but still on-topic 8. The review must include a rebuttal to some of your more key points, written from the point of view of the item you are reviewing. 9. The review must include a quotation of an entire section, at least one paragraph long, from another writer's review of the same product, and systematically explain why you agree, or disagree, with their viewpoint. Preferably this other review will also come from Epinions, but that's not a hard and fast rule. (To be fair, provide a link to the original review from which you pilfered the quotation.) For bonus points: include at least one ad hominem attack, justified or not, on the original reviewer. Be gentle or be fierce. 10. Come up with an obstruction of your own, explain it within the body of the review, and then put it into practice. Step three should be a nice break, after that grueling workout. Leave a comment on this review, with the url of your entry. Or, less publicly, send me an e-mail when the review has been posted. And that's it, amigos. *** If the pleasure of stretching your writerly wings is not enough incentive for entering this "write-off", then I offer this addition: POINTS AND PRIZES!!! Yes, that's right: points and prizes. All entries will be scored, by me, on a subjective scale from 0 to π (FYI, that's a "pi", not an endtable). Each obstruction will be scored individually, using a rubric that takes into account creativity, organization, content, grammar and spelling, word choice, fluency, voice, and neatness. The scores for your ten obstructions will be added together, to get your total score. The winner, should there be one, will receive the following prize package: -a unicorn's horn -a mermaid's tail -a working time machine -a complete collection of working perpetual motion machines -a tape recording of God laughing -a transcription of the final, as-yet-unwritten chapter from "Harry Potter: Year 7" -inner peace -free will Total retail value: $∞.00 Due Date: Does there have to be a due date? Whatever. Let's make it 33 ⅓ days from now, for no conceivable reason. So: October 7, 2004, 5:00 PM EST. All late entries will be accepted with no questions asked So, do you have the nerves of steel, the mind like a steel trap, the intestinal fortitude, and the computer keyboard and monitor necessary for entry into this gladiatorial battle? Maybe, maybe not. But you won't know unless you try. I look forward to your submissions… ---- LEADERBOARD 1. GOLD trust12345 (2) -- 3.14159265358979 points 2. SILVER shilmafone -- 2.78656126780761 points 3. crazedkrinkle -- 2.67925490332046 points 4. BRONZE trust12345 (1) -- 2.60752190247954 points 5. mfunk75 -- 2.60752190247953 points 6. millinocket -- 2.5839599575776 points 7. treeseed -- 2.50384934491107 points 8. Simply_Crispy -- 2.4735193974949 points 9. spus025 -- 2.46772102939478 points 10. flamepillar -- 2.45358386245363 points 11. slarter -- 2.43473430653209 points 12. andym173 -- 2.42216793591773 points 13. pduval69 -- 2.41902634326414 points 14. sadgit -- 2.41340248400717 points 15. shelxland -- 2.34045511099786 points 16. dbcint -- 2.22683416622105 points 17. lynus -- 2.17555291261093 points 18. naughtgreen -- 2.17398211628414 points 19. hugh_u_kidden -- 2.10800867055875 points 20. prettyvacant -- 1.61792021659874 points (Additional scoring notes: Trust12345 served as guest judge for my entry. For taking on this duty, he was awarded 0.00000000000001 bonus points on his first entry. Which I think is only fair. Also, Sadgit and Crazedkrinkle posted their entries past the deadline, which makes them ineligible for any of the prizes. But I've included their entries on the leaderboard anyway.)  |
| Read all comments (82)|Write your own comment |
