I always had so much to do that I could only write poetry and vague descriptions of story plots. Now the story ideas that I've held in my brain for so long can finally come to life! Yes!

I haven't written a story in so long... But I can't say I have a shortage of ideas.

And, by the way, two things:

1. Are you doing anything cool this summer? (I'm not. I have to take two online classes because of failing grades.)

2. I'm willing to collaborate with you, if you want to.

In regards to #2, if you are considering collaborating with me, you should know about me a few things:

1. I miss deadlines too.

2. I can be exacting sometimes too. So I understand. We may end up having arguments pertaining to the work, but they’ll always be civil arguments (at least from my end.)

3. My stream-of-consciousness works usually posses more quality than those I actually think about.

4. I'm very disorganized and my mind wanders constantly. I also have a problem with focus.

5. I have a problem in the fact that in each story, I either plan too much or don't plan enough. It's difficult for me to find a happy medium.

6. I usually have many ideas. Sometimes to the point where it can be annoying for some aren’t plausible, some wouldn’t work at all, some are just plain stupid…ect.

7. Sometimes, I don’t finish what I start.

8. I generally go with the flow. If you have a strong opinion about something, you’ll most likely get your way and I’ll work with it. I like to keep the peace and don’t have much trouble coming to a compromise.

9. Our writing styles may end up clashing for they are very different.

10. I tend to overwrite.

But other those frickin' ten things, working with Bri Neves is fabulous! I highly recommend it for I have done it and it is quite satisfactory. She is super, fantastic, and amazing! All in one! ^_^

Let me know if you’re interested. If not, I understand. :)

I'm going to my dad's house for a few weeks. And I have driver's ed comming up. That's about it.

I have an idea for a collaboration, but I haven't worked out exactly what it would be. I think it would be cool if we wrote a series of self-contained stories or poems centered around one thing (character, place, event). That way, writing styles won't matter, any precise planing will (mostly) be left up to the writer of a particular section, and the whole thing will still be a cohesive piece.

Actually, I do have an idea that's sort of playing around in my head. What if the "series" focused on the recollections of a great fire that burns down the narrators' town/city?

Yay! You get to see your father! I'm so happy for you! :D

I have an idea for a collaboration, but I haven't worked out exactly what it would be. I think it would be cool if we wrote a series of self-contained stories or poems centered around one thing (character, place, event). That way, writing styles won't matter, any precise planing will (mostly) be left up to the writer of a particular section, and the whole thing will still be a cohesive piece.

I like that idea. You know what I think might be cool? A thing where we alternate styles. Like you could start off with a story and I continue the story in poetry form and the whole thing keeps switching from story to poem. Or it could just be a bunch of stories. Either way, really. I write both stories and poetry, so whatever you decide would be best.

Actually, I do have an idea that's sort of playing around in my head. What if the "series" focused on the recollections of a great fire that burns down the narrators' town/city?

While I like the idea, I have a couple guidelines:

1. Unless it is comedy, I do not want the story to be pointless. Like I don't want it to be like "Okay, a fire starts. Everyone dies. The end." It can happen that way, but there must be a reason for the fire (it can't just be a random fire) and the story must go somewhere or at least posses some sort of meaning.

2. It has to be original. Something about it must stand out from other "great fire" stories.

Just for my benefit, is the idea to present how a great fire affects people and their environment? Is that the extent of your idea so far?

The focus would necessarily have to be broad, for the idea I have will entail a number of diverse narrators (unless you have another idea). The two focuses I'm thinking of are the tendency for a large disaster to create mass hysteria (i.e. who started the fires, why couldn't/didn't the fire department stop it, how are people taking advantage of others in the tragedy) and how people cope with the aftermath of a disaster.

Like you could start off with a story and I continue the story in poetry form and the whole thing keeps switching from story to poem.

I don't really think we could continue a single story very fluently by shifting from prose to poetry unless we shifted narrators. However, it would be cool to shift formats for individual stories (like have a "traditional" story followed by a poem of reflection, followed by a number of journal entries, followed by a daily inventory checklist...etc).

Ooh. I've got a crazy idea...What if one of the stories/poems/journal entries/whatever else was written from the fire's point of view? What if the fire had a mind of its own? It could feel excessive guilt or it could just be a demented physcho that loves tormenting innocent beings... Or, interestingly enough, both?? Hmmm... What do you think?

That's an interesting idea, but when the series is finished (or if it's going to be put up while still in progress, which is kind of what I'm leaning towards), a piece like that should probably be the last. And I really think you'd do it better; you write more romantically (like the literary movement) than I do, which would be the kind of tone that would probably best fit the speaker.

I do like that you've thought through the concept of the fire and how it got started, ect.

I've thought it through thematically, but not as precise things within the stories, i.e. I haven't decided how the fire started or how any of the other things I mentioned will be played out exactly.

My More Specific Ideas So Far (all obviously subject to change):

1). No one, not even the fire, really knows how the fire started, but that won't stop people from speculating or swearing that they saw what really happened.

2). I have no idea how I want to go about the "Why didn't anyone put the fire out?" issue.

3). The reader will learn from a few of the pieces that the government of the city was corrupt.

4). Illicit actions, like thievery and worse, will be going on in the survivor camp, causing a quiet panic.

5). People have different ways of coping (or not) with disaster. Let's explore that.

If you have any other ideas, or if you disagree with any of mine, let me know.

This, I imagine, will be a large project. We could work on it just together, alternating piece and building on the world the previous entries have explored, or we could invite others to add. On the one hand, it would be very cool and very fun to write a story just with you and explore issues on a one-to-one basis. I've been interested in that since I first read your poetry. On the other hand, inviting other writers (after sending them through a "screening process," of course) to add would make the project more expansive and more diverse. I don't mean to offend by suggesting this; I just wanted to entertain the possibility. You decide what you want to do.

Which brings me to a question: If we are going to post this on FictionPress, how? Are we going create a new account for this? And what, if anything, would we be allowed to publish outside of what we're compiling? I'd rather get this stuff out of the way before we start writing. Also, what genre will this story be? Fantasy? Neo-romantic? Postmodern? Or will it vary by piece?

Sorry for the very long post, but again, I want to be clear.

That's an interesting idea, but when the series is finished (or if it's going to be put up while still in progress, which is kind of what I'm leaning towards), a piece like that should probably be the last. And I really think you'd do it better; you write more romantically (like the literary movement) than I do, which would be the kind of tone that would probably best fit the speaker.

Agreed. And if you wish, I will gladly write it. I very much enjoy conveying emotions (as you probably can already tell.)

1). No one, not even the fire, really knows how the fire started, but that won't stop people from speculating or swearing that they saw what really happened.

Yes. There could be myriad opposing views creating havoc, which adds to the stress of the city. Perhaps someone (obviously someone who craves recognition) could even lie about how he/she was brave enough to try to put out the fire, but then he/she makes many excuses informing the reader that he/she really didn’t. Obviously, the character would be full of a lot of BS (which would be really fun to write). I imagine this city as being filled with tons of deception, where people manipulate other people to benefit themselves. For the world is selfish.

There should be much blame passed around. Some will blame others, some will blame the environment, some will blame their “god” and whatnot, and some will create crazy theories. Remember, that:

1. Not all people have sound minds.

2. People have many different beliefs (some of them could believe the fire was a “sign from god” or even…”a sign of the devil.”)

3. People generally are conformists. If there is a great shepherd (a leader of the city, or perhaps even a group of leaders who make all of the important decisions, i.e. the government), most people will probably be sheep and stay enclosed in their fences in little herds. Some because they trust the government (idiots), some because they agree with the government, some because they are ignorant to what the government is doing and some because they recognize the corruptness of the government, but lack the motivation to make a change.

4. Some will be indifferent to the fire, especially those who cannot relate to the loss of loved ones (perhaps newcomers to the city? Investigators trying to discover the source of the fire?)

All of this could make this story even more interesting.

2). I have no idea how I want to go about the "Why didn't anyone put the fire out?" issue.

Perhaps it was an invincible fire. With powers that even the fire can’t control. Maybe few people liked the city anyway and those few people who cared enough to try to put the fire out couldn’t because the “force” or whatever was too strong. And perhaps that force could be symbolic, representing the corruption of mankind. Maybe that force, in reality, was caused by humanity in itself. Perhaps the fire started from the friction created by the many conflicts that humans create for themselves. So, perhaps the reason no one could put it out because the humans created it in the first place and as it took the majority of the population to start the fire, it would take the majority of people to put out the fire. And humans as a whole do not have enough will or motivation to make a change.

This idea would probably work best if left only to the complete knowledge of the writers. Of course, we could definitely imply, but we’d be better not being straightforward about it. Readers generally like to think for themselves. It’s the whole concept of the “hidden meaning” that you can find in a lot of poetry.

3). The reader will learn from a few of the pieces that the government of the city was corrupt.

Definitely. I think the city could be an extreme, dramatic representation of how the world really is. Causing the “friction” that I mentioned earlier. Obviously, the city will have to have an elaborate background, perhaps evoking happiness in the readers when they realize that it burns down.

And after the fire, we must consider that either:

1. The government will change for the better.

2. The government will change for the worse.

3. The government will stay the same.

4. No one knows. It is left for the reader to decide.

4). Illicit actions, like thievery and worse, will be going on in the survivor camp, causing a quiet panic.

This would work very well with some of my previously mentioned ideas. The people are obviously ignorant to the fact they started the fire and some are naïve in the fact that the world will change by itself. Depending on where we want to go with this, this story could become inspirational or depressing, the depressing aspect more related to present day.

I have an idea that one character in this entire city is motivated to change the world. And if we went with that character, many ways this could end are:

1. (Depressing) He tries his best to change everything, but fails miserably. He never gives up and instead dies alone in his struggle, leaving a legacy of hope (that later cause the other people to either become inspired to finish his job or apathetic to his “foolhardy” ideals.)

2. (Depressing) He thinks he can change everything and realizes the world is going to hell, but goes about it the wrong way. His words do not match his actions and he dies, with his wasted potential rotting in the grave.

3. (Inspirational) He somehow gets the majority of the city to agree with him and things get better.

4. (Inspirational) He gets a few people to agree with him, but these are people with amazing dedication and perseverance. They prevail and improve their environment.

Personally, I prefer the first two as they seem to paint a more realistic picture of life as we know it, making it a more elaborate and effective message to the readers.

5). People have different ways of coping (or not) with disaster. Let's explore that.

YES. I love the way you think. I’m into pretty much anything that involves psychology.

I have many ideas for this. Ways people cope:

1. Give up, decide the world is hopeless, and sink into a state of depression. Exploring this method further, there many different levels of depression and everyone’s experience with it is different. Some hide it, some are emotional and very verbal about it, and some vary between the two extremes. Some can even be in denial about their depression.

2. Denial. They are indifferent to the tragedy for they deny it never happened. This could be used in an extreme and literal sense with some people.

3. Optimistic. “The city was corrupt anyway. What happened was for the best.” And then they move on. And for some, the term “move on” could mean, “Pretend to move on but still be shaken up about it.”

4. Not lose faith or hope. Perhaps even become inspired.

And there are more coping strategies I thought of, but I do not remember them at this time.

On the one hand, it would be very cool and very fun to write a story just with you and explore issues on a one-to-one basis. I've been interested in that since I first read your poetry.

Why, thank you. :)

On the other hand, inviting other writers (after sending them through a "screening process," of course) to add would make the project more expansive and more diverse. I don't mean to offend by suggesting this; I just wanted to entertain the possibility. You decide what you want to do.

If it is all right with you, I’d rather just us work on this. The reasons I feel this way are as follows:

1. I am more comfortable writing with people I actually know.

2. I would love to see what our two very different, original minds could create.

3. I am better working one-on-one than in a group.

4. I think the whole “write with many others” thing would get too complicated.

5. I think since we are both aspiring writers, this could be a rewarding experience for us. Changing voices, writing from different points of view, ect. We will be forced to write more of a variety, thus improving our diversity. I think we will end up learning a lot, which will help us to grow as writers.

6. I really love this story idea and look forward to writing it with you. And I trust you in the fact that we’ll make it work.

Are we going create a new account for this?

That might be the best way to go about it. Though we may want to establish some guidelines to ensure that we agree with everything that’s being posted.

And what, if anything, would we be allowed to publish outside of what we're compiling?

Huh? I don’t understand the question.

Also, what genre will this story be? Fantasy? Neo-romantic? Postmodern? Or will it vary by piece?

Let’s develop the full plot before we worry about that. I still need to see how you take to my ideas.

Sorry for the very long post, but again, I want to be clear.

Don’t sweat it. I could talk about writing for hours. Literally. And still not tire of it.

I understand your need for clarity. I share the same need.

My turn to apologize for the ridiculously long post. I seriously did not expect to have so many ideas. But, it seems once I get going in my writing, magic happens. I’m sure you understand and I hope you appreciate my ideas. Usually for thing like this, I have A LOT of imput to share. I hope that's not annoying.

Perhaps someone (obviously someone who craves recognition) could even lie about how he/she was brave enough to try to put out the fire, but then he/she makes many excuses informing the reader that he/she really didn’t. Obviously, the character would be full of a lot of BS (which would be really fun to write).

That's a cool idea. One of us could also write a story in which someone claims to have started the fire, and then later accounts completely contradict his claim.

And perhaps that force could be symbolic, representing the corruption of mankind. Maybe that force, in reality, was caused by humanity in itself. Perhaps the fire started from the friction created by the many conflicts that humans create for themselves.

Lie you said, we'd have to be careful with this. I'd look to The Scarlet Letter for how to approach this; it did a great job with a not dissimilar idea.

The fire could be one of two things. It could either show humanity's self-destructiveness, or it could be burning away the darkest parts of humanity (e.g. maybe the really evil people that survive the fire have permanent scars or singe marks).

Obviously, the city will have to have an elaborate background, perhaps evoking happiness in the readers when they realize that it burns down.

Not happiness per se but vindication. And I would prefer if the reader learned about the city gradually through the different pieces.

4. (Inspirational) He gets a few people to agree with him, but these are people with amazing dedication and perseverance. They prevail and improve their environment.

This would work with a compromise; he convinces a few people, and the first step is made, but the reader knows it will be a long way to go before the mass will turn over to his side.

Or even better, he knows that things are wrong but is too meek to do anything about it. He quietly despairs about the aftermath of the city's destruction. Then the story ends with an epiphany, in which the narrator finally decides to do /something/.

If it is all right with you, I’d rather just us work on this.

Perfectly fine.

That might be the best way to go about it. Though we may want to establish some guidelines to ensure that we agree with everything that’s being posted.

Since every account has a specific e-mail address, we could e-mail our pieces to the address used for the account and then look over (or, in some cases, edit) the next piece before posting it. But one of us is going to have to create a new e-mail address for the account and give the other the address and password (for both the account and the address).

And what, if anything, would we be allowed to publish outside of what we're compiling?

Quoting yourself is weird, isn't it? What I meant was that these pieces that make up the larger story are mostly going to be self-contained stories (that would somewhat build on or make references to other pieces in the larger story). So would one writer be able to submit his or her individual pieces to any seperate area (e.g. e-magazine, writing contest, etc.)?

Let’s develop the full plot before we worry about that.

I don't want it to be a rigid outline (I doubt you do either), but I agree we need to know a little more. The issue of why the fire wasn't put out would have more ambiguity if set in a less advanced society (e.g. could be a reflection of humanity or it could be that there were rarely any fire-fighting systems in pre-1700's inspired societies). The genre could naturally follow the plot, or vice versa.

Depending on where we want to go with this, this story could become inspirational or depressing, the depressing aspect more related to present day.

What if we write narrators with diverse views on mankind and then force the reader to decide what, if anything, about the story is inspiration or depressing? (mutters to self: stupid lazy readers, just want to have morals shoved down their throat instead of thinking for themselves, they can just... Um, that was a little loud, wasn't it? Oops.)

We need to have some way to organize all the little pieces. We could organize them chronilogically, but that's boring. We could organize them by their narrator's general attitude, but that could get messy or monotonous. So I think we should organize them into different sections by subject focus (i.e. is the piece more focused on the fire, or on coping with disaster, or how the city was before?).

I'm thinking there could be a single thread or story that would unite all the different sections. And I'm thinking that could be a stictly-metered ballad that "recounts" the whole fire incident, broken into pieces as "excerpts" in the beginning of each section.

I love that! That character could claim to be all badass and whatnot. The whole “I’m a non-conformist rebel and I burned this city down for I felt it just!” And then later, the reader finds out that, in reality, the character is just like everyone else. Muahaha.

I'd look to The Scarlet Letter for how to approach this; it did a great job with a not dissimilar idea.

That’s where I got the inspiration from. :)

The fire could be one of two things. It could either show humanity's self-destructiveness, or it could be burning away the darkest parts of humanity (e.g. maybe the really evil people that survive the fire have permanent scars or singe marks). I like both ideas. I think, in order to decide, we would have to analyze where each route would go and how exactly it would affect our readers. And whatever we find most effective, that is the road we will take.

Not happiness per se but vindication.

Ah, yes. That’s the right word… :)

And I would prefer if the reader learned about the city gradually through the different pieces.

Well, yeah, I didn’t mean we should give everything away at the beginning. That would just be dumb.

This would work with a compromise; he convinces a few people, and the first step is made, but the reader knows it will be a long way to go before the mass will turn over to his side.

Or even better, he knows that things are wrong but is too meek to do anything about it. He quietly despairs about the aftermath of the city's destruction. Then the story ends with an epiphany, in which the narrator finally decides to do /something/.

Really, you could do a combination of both here. After quietly despairing for a while, he can gather a few people and then try to “change the city” or whatever.

Since every account has a specific e-mail address, we could e-mail our pieces to the address used for the account and then look over (or, in some cases, edit) the next piece before posting it. But one of us is going to have to create a new e-mail address for the account and give the other the address and password (for both the account and the address).

Sure. I’ll create the account, if you want.

So would one writer be able to submit his or her individual pieces to any seperate area (e.g. e-magazine, writing contest, etc.)?

I don’t see why not. I mean, what the writer does with his/her works would be his/her own prerogative. Though we’d probably want to know about if beforehand, I don’t see us running into any problems here. :) What do you think?

The issue of why the fire wasn't put out would have more ambiguity if set in a less advanced society (e.g. could be a reflection of humanity or it could be that there were rarely any fire-fighting systems in pre-1700's inspired societies). The genre could naturally follow the plot, or vice versa.

I do agree with that, but I must say, I’ve never written a work that wasn’t written in modern day. So, I request that if our city is set in an earlier period, you please give me suggestions of things I can think about to help the story remain genuine to its time. I don’t want to screw anything up and I’d like this story to make as real of an impact as possible.

What if we write narrators with diverse views on mankind and then force the reader to decide what, if anything, about the story is inspiration or depressing?

Hey, that’s a wonderful idea! :) Why didn’t I think of that?

(mutters to self: stupid lazy readers, just want to have morals shoved down their throat instead of thinking for themselves, they can just... Um, that was a little loud, wasn't it? Oops.)

Haha. You’re delightful, William. A real card.

(By the way, ‘twas most unfortunate timing. At the exact moment I reading those sentences, a miraculous crowd of stupid, lazy readers was looking over my shoulder. Needless to say, they are all ** at you. Don’t you see them? They are glaring angrily at you through the computer screen. The truth hurt them, William.) :’(

:p

So I think we should organize them into different sections by subject focus (i.e. is the piece more focused on the fire, or on coping with disaster, or how the city was before?).

Yes. We’ll have to work out exactly what categories we’re going to have to get a clearer idea of what we’re going to wirte, but I think that method of organization will work out just fine. :)

I'm thinking there could be a single thread or story that would unite all the different sections. And I'm thinking that could be a stictly-metered ballad that "recounts" the whole fire incident, broken into pieces as "excerpts" in the beginning of each section.

Yeah. That would really tie it all-together. Good thinking. ^_^

Wow, I feel like you’re coming up with many more good ideas than I am. :/

Because you're mostly responding to my ideas and not inputting much of your own. But that's okay. Your ideas will come when we actually start writing (or perhaps sooner).

I like both ideas. I think, in order to decide, we would have to analyze where each route would go and how exactly it would affect our readers. And whatever we find most effective, that is the road we will take.

Yeah, we need to decide on just one of the ideas because both seem mutually exclusive.

Really, you could do a combination of both here. After quietly despairing for a while, he can gather a few people and then try to “change the city” or whatever.

We could also set this shortly before the fire breaks out and have the few people be "innocent victims" of mankind's self-destruction, but that might be too cynical.

Sure. I’ll create the account, if you want.

Yes, please.

I do agree with that, but I must say, I’ve never written a work that wasn’t written in modern day. So, I request that if our city is set in an earlier period, you please give me suggestions of things I can think about to help the story remain genuine to its time. I don’t want to screw anything up and I’d like this story to make as real of an impact as possible.

I really don't have that much research either, but I do think that this is stylistically more suited to a less advanced society. We could invent our own world for this purpose if we need to, but we'll have to look at a lot of details for that.

The categories or sections I have in mind for the story so far are:

1). Aftermath: how the people are coping with or taking advantage of the disaster

2). Before Fire: the conditions in the city at any time before the fire broke out

3). The Great Fire: focused on the actually events of the fire outbreak

If you have any you want to add or change, go ahead. We might be able to have mini-themes in each sections that ultimately tie back to the larger theme of the work.

Hmmm…Part of me likes that and part of me doesn’t. I like it because it’s very unique and unexpected, but part of me doesn’t because although I understand the message the idea is trying to convey, it is not entirely realistic. We’ll have to think that one over.

Another thing I just thought of is, maybe if we went with the whole “innocent people that tried to change the world dying” thing, we could have them die due to the selfishness of the rest of the world. Or the selflessness of themselves. Or both, really. Perhaps we could even have one character that somehow had the opportunity to save a bundle of people (I’m thinking twenty or fifty or so) from the fire, by risking his life but instead decided to save his own life. To make it more effective, some of the people that he would be risking his life for could be people he claimed to care about. Like family, friends, ect. Or even his wife. Like early in the story he could tell he wife “I would die for you” or something like that and it turns out he really doesn’t follow through with that. Acts such as these could represent the fact that the world is becoming more selfish as time goes by. Also more deceptive. And the fact that sentimental words that people say to each other are slowly beginning to lose their meanings.

Yes, please.

I’ll do it after I finish typing this message. :)

I do think that this is stylistically more suited to a less advanced society.

Definitely. But we have to decide, how much of a less advance society do we want? Have automobiles been invented? How do people dress? What are the common fads of the time? Ect.

We could invent our own world for this purpose if we need to, but we'll have to look at a lot of details for that.

Yes, but the details could make it all the more fun. If we do invent our own world, I’m thinking we should either make it fairly close to our world or completely outrageous (kind of like the absurdist style of writing.) The benefit of making it more realistic is that the reader will be able to relate to it more. The benefits to doing the outrageous thing are that anything can happen and we can be as symbolic as we want without it being jarring. I’m thinking that if we can pull it off, we should do something crazy and original. Though if we’re not careful, it might end up being too much.

If we did kind of the absurdist style of writing (though obviously, this story doesn’t have an absurdist type of theme), I have an idea for the type of characters we could create. My idea is that each character can posses one or two dominant traits, exaggerating the traits that all humans in the world posses. These traits can be displayed in both their actions and their character. Basically, the purpose of this would be to possibly point out the flaws of humanity and human nature.

Here are some examples of what I am talking about. Although in reality, all of the characters share these traits to some extent, each character would posses a certain trait to the extreme:

1. Character A – selfishness/greed

2. Character B – apathy

3. Character C – ignorance/stupidity

4. Character D – jealously

5. Character E – the desire to conform

6. Character F – hypocrisy

Let me know how you feel about this idea.

Remember that if we decide to do this idea, we would have to make sure to keep our characters three-dimensional. Flat characters, no matter what the purpose, can ruin any work.

(Yay, I'm actually coming up with stuff now!) ^_^

The categories or sections I have in mind for the story so far are:

1). Aftermath: how the people are coping with or taking advantage of the disaster

2). Before Fire: the conditions in the city at any time before the fire broke out

3). The Great Fire: focused on the actually events of the fire outbreak

If you have any you want to add or change, go ahead. We might be able to have mini-themes in each sections that ultimately tie back to the larger theme of the work.

I think we should organize this in a way that creates a smooth transition, showing the drastic change of the city and its population. My idea is that somehow, throughout the work, we cause the reader’s mood and opinions to fluctuate. I do like the way you’ve grouped things, but we have to make sure everything runs smoothly. A good flow is crucial to this work.

I’ll do it after I finish typing this message. :)

Remember to PM me all the necessary information.

Definitely. But we have to decide, how much of a less advance society do we want? Have automobiles been invented? How do people dress? What are the common fads of the time? Ect.

It might partially depend on how connected we want the town to be to nearby settlements. The more advanced the civilization, the greater distance necessary for isolation, and vice versa. I suggest a period like the Industrial Revolution or the Roaring '20s because in both (and in how I perceive the story), the appearant prosperity belied the social and economic disparities. And of course, seeming lack of morals (see the poor treatment of the workforce before labor laws came into effect). This kind of setting, a society almost rotting from within while succeeding from without, would great contrast in our setting, which would reflect the possible symbolism of the fire.

If the fire is going to represent self-destruction, we might want to make the town the largest settlement in the given area. Oh, added effect! What if the city tried to call for help from nearby towns to help put out the fire but other towns ignored them?

Yes, but the details could make it all the more fun. If we do invent our own world, I’m thinking we should either make it fairly close to our world or completely outrageous (kind of like the absurdist style of writing.) The benefit of making it more realistic is that the reader will be able to relate to it more. The benefits to doing the outrageous thing are that anything can happen and we can be as symbolic as we want without it being jarring. I’m thinking that if we can pull it off, we should do something crazy and original. Though if we’re not careful, it might end up being too much.

Absurdism seems better suited for specific criticisms of society, and by the looks of our discussion, that's not what we're going for. Of course, we can have strains of absurdity in some of the different pieces (or even something like magic realism), and if you really think we could make it work without giving too much levity to the work, we could try making the whole thing more absurdist-based. However, something about that doesn't feel stylistically right. Maybe it's just me.

My idea is that each character can posses one or two dominant traits, exaggerating the traits that all humans in the world posses. These traits can be displayed in both their actions and their character. Basically, the purpose of this would be to possibly point out the flaws of humanity and human nature.

Now, having specific character flaws is a very good idea. I personally don't like writing exaggerated characters, no matter how well-rounded the character is (though I will if the work requires), but if you want to do so, that would be cool.

I think we should organize this in a way that creates a smooth transition, showing the drastic change of the city and its population. My idea is that somehow, throughout the work, we cause the reader’s mood and opinions to fluctuate. I do like the way you’ve grouped things, but we have to make sure everything runs smoothly. A good flow is crucial to this work.

I agree. And here's how I think it would work well (per usual, tell me if you have any suggestions or changes):

1). In the aftermath section, we see that the characters, while in some cases not caring, are acutely aware of their society and how people treat each other. In this section, the crimes against humanity (or should I say just other people) should be kept to a minimum.

2). In the section before the fire, most if not all the characters should be accepting of everything that's around them, trying to do only what is necessary to survive and maintain status quo. Here, crime and corruption are rampant but treated as something common and barely mentionable.

3). The actual fire shows how this shift came about and reveals the darkest parts of human nature.

It might partially depend on how connected we want the town to be to nearby settlements. The more advanced the civilization, the greater distance necessary for isolation, and vice versa. I suggest a period like the Industrial Revolution or the Roaring '20s because in both (and in how I perceive the story), the appearant prosperity belied the social and economic disparities. And of course, seeming lack of morals (see the poor treatment of the workforce before labor laws came into effect). This kind of setting, a society almost rotting from within while succeeding from without, would great contrast in our setting, which would reflect the possible symbolism of the fire.

That’s good and I see your point. I see both periods you mentioned being equally effective in our work. However, if we go this route, we may have to do a bit of research to insure that our work remains true to its setting. Unless we decide to create our own world; then we can create our own background/history.

If the fire is going to represent self-destruction, we might want to make the town the largest settlement in the given area.

Yes.

Oh, added effect! What if the city tried to call for help from nearby towns to help put out the fire but other towns ignored them?

Yes. And the towns should not only ignore them, but scoff at them as well. Perhaps some of the towns could even posses a keen sense of knowledge or awareness of the main city’s path to destruction. Perhaps in the past, they used that awareness in attempt to help the main city with its problems. However, our city did not take heed to the other cities’ “warnings.” Therefore, the other cities are indifferent, possessing an “I told you so” attitude. How do you feel about that idea?

Of course, we can have strains of absurdity in some of the different pieces (or even something like magic realism), and if you really think we could make it work without giving too much levity to the work, we could try making the whole thing more absurdist-based. However, something about that doesn't feel stylistically right. Maybe it's just me.

Perhaps we could agree to probably not making the work absurdist-based, but perhaps attempting to throw in a couple of pieces to this style. I think, if we could do it well (as you said, “without giving too much levity”), it may add to the message and the theme. As far as magic realism, it depends on the type of magic you are referring to because certain aspects of that genre just wouldn't work (such as, we'd have to figure out a way so the reader wouldn't be like "gee, if this city's so magical, why doesn't the city just rebuild itself? And why can't the magic just bring these people who died back to life? That would solve everything.")

Now, having specific character flaws is a very good idea. I personally don't like writing exaggerated characters, no matter how well-rounded the character is (though I will if the work requires), but if you want to do so, that would be cool.

I particularly enjoy this style of writing and I’m practically in love with characterization. So, if we confirm this idea, I would be happy to do most of the work in exaggerating the flaws of the characters. Actually, as I think about this right now, I have plenty of ideas of where I would go with it and how I would do it.

I agree. And here's how I think it would work well (per usual, tell me if you have any suggestions or changes):

1). In the aftermath section, we see that the characters, while in some cases not caring, are acutely aware of their society and how people treat each other. In this section, the crimes against humanity (or should I say just other people) should be kept to a minimum.

2). In the section before the fire, most if not all the characters should be accepting of everything that's around them, trying to do only what is necessary to survive and maintain status quo. Here, crime and corruption are rampant but treated as something common and barely mentionable.

3). The actual fire shows how this shift came about and reveals the darkest parts of human nature.

So far, I have nothing to add or change about that. I even like the way you ordered them because it is an interesting way to do so. I love how it builds to get to the actually fire. It’s like a crescendo. A present about to be opened (the final unveiling of the details of the actual fire.) It’s a novel, just waiting to face its final page turn. An excited insomniac child, awaiting the sun to rise so the fun can begin…A…A…Alright, alright I’ll stop with the similes and metaphors… :p

For the fire and the setting to work the way we want it to, we'd necessarily have to make this in a fictional world (with a similar setting). Otherwise, what fire would we base it on? Chicago or San Francisco? Neither have the same situation beforehand that fits our idea.

Yes. And the towns should not only ignore them, but scoff at them as well. Perhaps some of the towns could even posses a keen sense of knowledge or awareness of the main city’s path to destruction. Perhaps in the past, they used that awareness in attempt to help the main city with its problems. However, our city did not take heed to the other cities’ “warnings.” Therefore, the other cities are indifferent, possessing an “I told you so” attitude. How do you feel about that idea?

If we have enough space, but the story is starting to get packed with different elements. Use it at your own discretion.

As far as magic realism, it depends on the type of magic you are referring to because certain aspects of that genre just wouldn't work (such as, we'd have to figure out a way so the reader wouldn't be like "gee, if this city's so magical, why doesn't the city just rebuild itself? And why can't the magic just bring these people who died back to life? That would solve everything.")

Magic realism is like the kind of stuff Gabriel Garcia Marquez writes. It's not focused on magic, but there are a few elements here and there that are somewhat supernatural or magical (e.g. a rain that lasts for four years, people communicating from the dead but described in a low-key way). Any fantastic aspects in magic realism are not examined or focused on but just another aspect of the world. Again, I agree that if we use magic elements, those elements can't be overdone.

I particularly enjoy this style of writing and I’m practically in love with characterization. So, if we confirm this idea, I would be happy to do most of the work in exaggerating the flaws of the characters. Actually, as I think about this right now, I have plenty of ideas of where I would go with it and how I would do it.

I meant that I like neither to create nor write about very exaggerated characters, but again, go ahead if you want to.

You know, for each section of the overall work, we could just upload the documents and then wait until we know how we want to organize them within a particular section before posting the chapters.

I realized that we don't have a working title for our project. Any ideas? Mine is "The Great Fire of (the-name-of-the-city-we-are-going-to-create)."

Okay then. It’s pretty much settled that we’re creating our own fictional world.

If we have enough space, but the story is starting to get packed with different elements. Use it at your own discretion.

Yeah, at this rate, we may be overdoing it. We may have to cut a few ideas out.

Magic realism is like the kind of stuff Gabriel Garcia Marquez writes. It's not focused on magic, but there are a few elements here and there that are somewhat supernatural or magical (e.g. a rain that lasts for four years, people communicating from the dead but described in a low-key way). Any fantastic aspects in magic realism are not examined or focused on but just another aspect of the world. Again, I agree that if we use magic elements, those elements can't be overdone.

Oh, okay. I thought you were talking about Harry Potter like crap.

I meant that I like neither to create nor write about very exaggerated characters, but again, go ahead if you want to.

Ah, but we both have to agree. If you don’t like my idea, feel free to tell me.

You know, for each section of the overall work, we could just upload the documents and then wait until we know how we want to organize them within a particular section before posting the chapters.

I pretty much already assumed we’d be doing that. And, of course, we can do the editing there too. Or within the email address. Whichever you prefer.

I realized that we don't have a working title for our project. Any ideas? Mine is "The Great Fire of (the-name-of-the-city-we-are-going-to-create)."

Mine is…”The Project.” :p Nah, I’m kidding, let’s see…Your title is good enough to start out with. I have a feeling the title will come as we progress in our work.

For the fire and the setting to work the way we want it to, we'd necessarily have to make this in a fictional world (with a similar setting). Otherwise, what fire would we base it on? Chicago or San Francisco? Neither have the same situation beforehand that fits our idea.

Okay then. It’s pretty much settled that we’re creating our own fictional world.

If we have enough space, but the story is starting to get packed with different elements. Use it at your own discretion.

Yeah, at this rate, we may be overdoing it. We may have to cut a few ideas out.

Alright. I'll write a few characters that embody certain traits. We'll need to decide on the types of traits either before we write a particular story or (preferrable) while we're still in the planning stage. They should focus on what makes mankind self-destruction (since I think we've pretty much decided that that's what the fire is going to represent).

Yeah, at this rate, we may be overdoing it. We may have to cut a few ideas out.

Eventually, but we won't know until we're done brainstorming what the best ideas are. So let's keep all the ideas until we find out which work best.

Okay then. It’s pretty much settled that we’re creating our own fictional world.

I don't know if you do, but I want the city to be somewhere out of time. Almost dreamlike, like it's not tied to any specific history but its own. That way, when the city is destroyed, the reader will feel that there are few places for the refugees to go, which would also fit tonally with the symbol of self-destruction.

Or are you a little busy with school? If so, then we can hold off on any other planning until your summer school is over.

Honestly, I will be a bit busy, but since there is no homework on the weekends, I'll probably have some free time to work on this. Granted, our progress will be slower, but I doubt it will stop all-together. Then, when online classes are finshed, I will be able to go at it full-force. :)

Okay.

Honestly, I will be a bit busy

Which is okay because I'm leaving on the sixteenth anyway to go to my dad's house. Then when I come back on July eighth, I'll be more ready.

Cool. Are you excited?

I want to try to summarize the biggest things for my own sake (although I guarantee I'll miss things) so here it goes:

-The collection is going to be set in a fictional city some time in the past (probably similar to one in the Roaring '20s). The city may or may not be somewhat isolated from other communities. The city is decadent, its government corrupt.

-This city burns down in a terrible fire. The fire represents mankind's self-destructiveness.

-The various stories will be posted under three sections (in this order): after the fire, before the fire, the fire. These sections will differ in tone and level of brutality and decadence.

-Each character will have some kind of self-destructive habit and/or character flaw that s/he may or may not overcome.

-The pyschologies of the characters and sociology of the city will be big focuses. One aspect of this will be the varied opinions on how the fire started and how those opinions reflect on the narrators (e.g. where they place blame).

-There will be some kind of element that appears in all three section. So far, we think this is going to be a strictly-structured ballad.

-The series will probably end with an account of the Great Fire from the fire's perspective.

-We will use many different formats throughout the series, including but not limited to various forms of prose and poetry.

Correct me if any of this is wrong.

By the way, I have a few questions:

-We were thinking about setting the story in a setting in the past or in a similar frame. However, as far as I can tell, the story doesn't necessarily have to be about a fire. The way this is set so far, the collection could be focused on any sort of calamity. If that's the case, we could set the story in a modern setting using a different calamity (plague, bombings, etc.). Would you want to do that, or are you happy with the current setting?

-Do you want to make any of the stories carry over into other sections, and if so, how many? Not specific numbers, but do you want most stories to carry over, or just a few, or none at all? You see, I think the collection might be a little more accessible and cohesive if we had at least three stories/narrative poems carry over into all three sections to help focus the theme of the piece. (Of course, if we make a lack of understand a theme, this might be a detriment)

I still kind of like the fire idea and unless you have any other ideas to consider, I think we should stick with it.

You see, I think the collection might be a little more accessible and cohesive if we had at least three stories/narrative poems carry over into all three sections to help focus the theme of the piece.

I think that not necessarily stories should carry over, but elements. By this, I mean characters, settings, ideas, symbols ect. I also think it might be cool to have several symbols representing a single idea. Even by doing this you could have a few different ideas.

In order to make all this work we need to make final decisions on the purpose and message behind our piece. What do we want the readers to get out of this?

All right. That's fine. Just wanted to make sure we have all the options we can.

I think that not necessarily stories should carry over, but elements. By this, I mean characters, settings, ideas, symbols ect.

Well, the way the sections are broken up, we couldn't have linear stories anyway. What I meant was to follow a certain character or group of characters and have a loose narrative arc with the character(s) between the sections. That way, the effects of the fire will be more visible because they will be reflected in the changes in these particular characters between sections. But if you'd prefer to keep all the stories stand-alone (with some cameos with other characters or something), that's okay. Certainly others aspects, like different motifs, should carry over into different stories.

I also think it might be cool to have several symbols representing a single idea.

That depends on the idea. If it's too narrow, the symbols could make this preachy. Tell me your ideas, and we'll see how it could work.

In order to make all this work we need to make final decisions on the purpose and message behind our piece. What do we want the readers to get out of this?

I don't know about you, but I have an idea...

We've set the fire, with is ostensibly what the project is about, as a symbol for self-destruction. To me, the collection should simply focus on self-destructiveness because that's too simple and too dour. Redemption is too simple and often too sacchrine. What's in between?

I'd say it's choice. People are defined by their choices, and everyone must face the consequences of those choices. People must choose whether or not they will obey commands, accept cries for help, take the right way over the easy way, etc. I think most of the time that we harm ourselves, we do so knowing beforehand that we were making the wrong choice. And of course, choice has so much versatility in storytelling. What do you think?

Meanwhile, have a laugh: http://www.poetry.com/cardtoon/toonframe.asp?bash=A

You're probably the only person I know (besides myself) who will laugh at that. :p

Wow. We did SO much planning and didn't write a single thing... :/

Pshhh...Writers. -shakes head and rolls eyes- :p

I think we built the idea up too much in our minds. I know I did, and I know we did on the board. I still think we should work on something together, but the whole Great Fire Distaster project doesn't take advantage of our unique skills, which is what a good collaboration should do. And it should be either short or episodic. Otherwise, the idea will just get too built up again and will appear insurrmountable.

I recommend that we do ether a short story or a mid-sized narrative poem. I'd also recommend that we do a humor piece together because we seem to be at most in sync with each other in absurd conversations that turn into running jokes (Brando: The Magic Mafia will send you a...special blend...of coffee if you do not comply with our request). What do you think?

I think we built the idea up too much in our minds.

We're your typical writers, that's why. We plan too much. There were probably too many elements in our Great Fire Disaster project.

I recommend that we do ether a short story or a mid-sized narrative poem.

Sure. we could even do a paragraph by paragraph short story on here and see how it works out. No plans, just impromptu ideas. What do you think?

I'd also recommend that we do a humor piece together because we seem to be at most in sync with each other in absurd conversations that turn into running jokes (Brando: The Magic Mafia will send you a...special blend...of coffee if you do not comply with our request).

Awesome! Which reminds me, I would certainly love to write a play/a skit or two. Geeze, I really miss theatre... :(

That would definately show off our weirdness...errr...I mean creativity. :p

What do you think?

I think...YOUR IDEAS ARE TERRIBLE!!!

(Just kidding. I think we could definately write whatever we wanted together, as long as we actually WRITE IT. :p)

1. Forums are not to be used to post stories.
2. All discussions, language and content, must be suitable for teens.
3. The owner/moderator(s) of this forum is solely responsible for content posted within this area.
4. All forum abuse must be reported to the moderator(s).

1. Forum admin/moderator
2. Fanatic (on site for more than 2 years)
3. Fan (on site for more than a year)
4. Regular (on site for more than 6 months)
5. Camper (on site for more than a month)
6. Apprentice (on site for more than a week)
7. Newbie (on site for less than a week)