free-range-writing-prompts

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Non-Linear Immortal

Imagine you are an immortal person, who has been alive ALWAYS. Immortal from the beginning of everything, to the end of everything. The problem? You don't experience time in a Linear way, unlike humankind, who experience all of time in a linear, sequential way. For you, everything is present to your mind at all times and all places that you ever have been and ever will be.... EXCEPT... you have now been forced into an ordinary human form (though an immortal one) and are now capable of seeing time in a linear way; but you also still see it non-linearly, and having all of it both happening and also NOT happening all at the same time is literally maddening.

One day you wake up in the psych ward of a hospital and decide that none of it is real except NOW. You may know everything that will ever happen to you, both past and future through eternity, but you now conclude that both past and future are nonexistent illusions. How do you convince the doctors that you are 'cured' without referring in any way to what made you 'crazy' before now (because you won't admit that there exists a 'past' in which you were crazy), and without talking about what you are going to do if they let you out (because the future is an illusion, so why plan for it)?

Or maybe you decide instead to either stay or break out? Either way, you can't really plan it any more than you can think ahead about what to say to the doctors.

[I may actually have characters in some stories who would be capable of viewing time non-linearly, but... this particular scenario (and similar situations) is one I am not using, and I would be interested to find out how other people would write a character like this.]

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Secret Fan Club

There is some person who secretly accomplishes amazing feats of skill (whether in martial arts, sleight of hand, parkour, or something else) ...by using spirits of people who had those skills in life, allowing them to temporarily take over some control, in a form of partial possession. Perhaps this person is working as some kind of bounty hunter, spy, thief, or mercenary of some sort, but the main thing is that this person does not expect anyone to know who they really are and what work they do; and especially not how it is done.

One day, this person starts getting anonymous fan mail, sent to a real home address or post office box, under their real name, by someone who might know how e does what e does.

But why should e have any fans at all? Who would know about any of it?

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Name Roulette

Something fun to try when writing any humorous work:

Make a list of all the character types, and pick names that would be very obviously indicative of those types, or otherwise thought to be 'a good fit' for such types as, hero, villain, romantic interest, fool, leader, sidekick... names that people might stereotypically think fit one type more than another, etc.

Then mix the names all up randomly, assigning them to characters without knowing which will get which. (ex: draw the names from a hat, or assign numbers to one list of the other and use a random-number generation method, or both)

Use those names for the characters, without changing anything about any characters to 'fit' their names. (though it might be fun to make up stories about how they could have gotten such names, such as why a hero might have gotten a sinister-sounding name, or why a weak comical sidekick may have a tough-sounding name, or a damsel named... 'Bruno'? Maybe a tough guard dog is named 'Mrs. Timmons'; a kindly, jolly landlady is called 'Sir Mortimer'; and a severe, uncompromising judge is named 'Sunshine Anders McHerringbone'.)

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Welcome.

[note: please scroll to bottom of post if you want a more detailed explanation (with tangential ramblings) on singular gender-neutral pronouns you may see in this blog, namely:

e = singular of 'they', used instead of 'he', 'she'

em = singular of 'them', used instead of 'him', 'her'

er = singular of 'their', used instead of 'his', 'her']

Now... an intro. What is this blog? This is where I turn loose writing ideas I have that are surplus to my requirements. I have built up a stockpile of countless writing ideas of various kinds, and in going through my old files I sometimes identify ones that I am certain I will never use because they don't fit into my current (or planned) projects, and I am now reluctant to build new writing projects around my surplus ideas, having what may easily be considered as far too many unfinished projects already. So I put them here, like baby animals in a cardboard box marked: "free to a good home".

If you see an idea here that you want to adopt for your very own, please do. (though someone else seeing it may also use it, that's not up to me... but if you want to use one seriously for a real writing project of your own, I don't mind if you post a reply saying so, so that others might be aware that you claimed it, if they see your comment)

Also note: sometimes here, I use singular third-person neutral (non-gender-specific, gender-neutral) pronouns that are derived from the English language plural third-person neutral pronouns. This is generally when I am either writing about a situation where someone speaking doesn't know what gender pronoun to use (ex: speaking of someone whose identity is unknown) or, more often, when my notes are describing situations where the characters are undefined and gender doesn't matter to the situation being described and it's left up to later development of the idea, to assign gender specifics to characters. (which actually is most of the time, I think)

I have been using such neutral singular pronouns in my own writing notes for myself, literally for decades. [I decided at a young age that it was a deplorable deficiency in the English language not to have them, and decided to make my own out of the plural versions, though for a REALLY long time I didn't use it in writing that would be seen by others, because I didn't want to confuse people with it back when it was an almost-unheard-of concept generally, but I don't really like using the plural pronouns to denote singular (except maybe in slang speech out loud), so to appease my teachers, I had a long-standing habit of "writing around" it by using turns of phrase such as "one's own preference" when writing things others would read. (a sometimes awkward convention that has been in the English language long enough to be truly venerable in age, but which never really could fully make up for the lack of neutral singular third-person pronouns)

[side note: I was actually horrified as a school-kid, when a (female) English teacher who one might otherwise think was pro-feminism (based on her book recommendations and interpretations) actually told me that it was acceptable in English to use the male-defined pronouns in situations where one meant to indicate a person of unknown (or undefined, unspecified, unspecific) gender, where plural pronouns would clearly not be allowed by rules of English grammar. (at the time, using 'they' them' and 'their' was not so common in slang use as singular pronouns, and considered unacceptable by English teachers regardless) ...even though using male pronouns (for anyone generally) may have been acceptable back in the 1800s and earlier, I had thought that after the 1960s at least (when the teacher in question was probably a college student) ...even if women still had inequality in the workplace by the time I was a school-kid (and still do, in some ways, though in many jobs not QUITE as much as it was then) ...I thought that society should have gotten past that kind of inequality in the written word. THAT'S when I started having 'one' be commonplace in my writing for English classes, because I never wanted to hear any English teacher ever again tell me to (by default) use male pronouns for something that SHOULD potentially refer to anyone of any gender. (and it's also about that time that I made up singular versions of the plural pronouns for my own private use)]

I have since read that others have at some point also made the same or similar singular pronouns (as what I like to use) in the same way or by a similar process of derivation; I know many people have made many different versions of neutral singular third-person pronouns over the past couple decades... however, I remain partial to the ones I use, in part just because they've been in my own personal writing vocabulary for so long, and in part because I haven't (so far) come across any that make better sense to me]

Occasionally I may come across some old notes where I used the English plural third-person pronouns in a slang manner to denote a singular person (it would save me time over using 'one'), and really it's just laziness (I do suffer from chronic tiredness, forgive me) to not re-word it now when I type it up to share here. Note that regardless of what anyone else in the world chooses to use for one's own personal pronouns related to whatever definition any particular person may wish to use to designate gender... when I use these here, it is specifically to denote neutral pronouns, where gender is not indicated, just the same as with the English plural third-person pronouns being used for any persons of any gender.

Here are the ones I use, which you may see at any time in my notes in this blog:

e = singular of 'they', used instead of 'he', 'she'

em = singular of 'them', used instead of 'him', 'her'

er = singular of 'their', used instead of 'his', 'her'

My thought process in deciding on these:

I started with 'they', 'them', and 'their'... and removed the 'th' from each, leaving 'ey', 'em', and 'eir'. However, 'eir' would sound like 'ear' in north american English, and visually would look like it should sound different when compared to parts of other languages from Europe. So, I removed the 'i' to leave 'er', which rhymes with 'her' and is not already (to my knowledge) a word in the English language. For 'ey', I didn't like that it sounds like 'a' (a word in the English language, obviously) and looks like one possible (though maybe out of use now?) spelling of Canadian slang 'eh' as well as sounding the same... so I dropped the 'y' to leave an 'e' by itself, which rhymes with 'he' and 'she' anyway.

Usage examples:

"I don't know what e was thinking, I already said that jalopy-rocket wouldn't start, but e insisted on trying until the thing exploded!"

"The boss said to 'take care of em', and I thought it meant 'take em to the hospital'... how was I supposed to know it meant 'bury em someplace the cops will never find em'!"

"That kitten sure knows er place. Been here three hours, and has already claimed the top shelf for er throne, and has the chihuahua cowering under the bed in fear of er claws!"

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Three People.

Somewhere in the world, there is a person who has exceptionally vivid dreams, but afterwards cannot recall all the details of them.

Somewhere else in the world, there is a second person, who, if ever told about the dreams of the first person, will realize that their own dreams are of the exact same place, and would be able to fill in the details that the first person can't recall (but would recognize if reminded)

Somewhere entirely else in the world, there is at least one person, who, if the first two people ever compared their dreams, and if this third person heard about the experience... would be absolutely certain that it is evidence of alien abduction, even if (and especially if) the dreams happened at completely different times... and even if the place in the dreams does not contain anything at all that would suggest a different world, has no evidence of advanced (or even any) technology, and no signs of any form of non-human beings, or even any living creature. That third person would still be absolutely convinced that the only explanation possible MUST be alien abduction.

Because really... what other explanation could there be?

What other explanation is there?

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Execution Methods Survey

We are conducting a survey on which methods of execution are the most humane. Anyone who is able to confirm having established contact with the soul of a person who was successfully executed, please fill out this list by asking the executed person’s ghost the following (personal details only included to avoid duplication in the event that the same ghost is contacted and surveyed by more than one medium, or in the event that further clarification may be needed as regarding the details of how the execution method was carried out):

Name of Executed Person:

Place and Date of Execution:

Method of Execution:

Please Rate the Execution 0-5 where 0 represents “Painless” and 5 represents “Excruciating”

Please Rate the Execution 0-5 where 0 represents “Instantaneous” and 5 represents “Tortuous Slow”

Please Rate the Execution 0-5 where 0 represents “Recommend” and 5 represents “Please God, No”

Please Rate the Overall Perceived Humaneness of the Execution Method 0-5 where 0 represents “Completely Humane” and 5 represents “The Person Who Thought of This Method Should be Executed via the Same”

**Please append the name and Badge Number of the Registered Medium who conducted or certifies the spiritual contact with the Executed Person interviewed, and submit completed survey forms to your local chapter of the Universal Guild of Mediums.

(Please note that a separate, though corresponding, survey of UNSUCCESSFUL executions is being carried out among the incarcerated persons so concerned. Only include for submission in this survey responses from DECEASED persons who were executed)

(Also please note that the scope of this particular survey only includes INTENTIONAL, officially sentenced Execution as a means of death. Murder (including unofficial or unauthorized 'executions' by persons not holding any legal authority), Assassination (even if sanctioned by the state or one of its duly appointed agents), death in battle or brawl, acts of war or of nature or deities, all instances of 'self-defense' and accidental deaths are NOT to be included in this survey)

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Theory:

Time travel may be possible, but not viable...

...because for every single time that someone invents time travel, assuming a theoretically infinite future timeline, at least one person with access to time travel will decide to use time travel to go back and prevent it from being invented, for each and every incidence of time travel having been invented. If such a person fails to prevent time travel being invented in their target incidence, then again, given a potentially infinite future, since time travel continues to exist, eventually at least one other person will decide to use time travel to go back and prevent time travel from being invented, until such a time as someone succeeds in the attempt. For every person who might fail, there eventually would be at least one other who would try it again, up to an infinite future of theoretically infinite attempts. Thus, for every single time anyone were to invent time travel, there would be a theoretically infinite number of future people who would use time travel to go back and prevent it. Only one of those attempts need succeed in order for that particular instance of time travel invention to be prevented, and given an infinite number of possible attempts, it may be assumed that at least one will succeed.

Thus, no matter how many times the invention of time travel may occur, up to an infinite possible future number, that number to the power of infinity becomes the number of times people will try to stop time travel being invented, and each instance of invention only requires one successful attempt at stopping it, which theoretically is guaranteed, given an infinite number of potential attempts at stopping it.

Possible name for the theory: Time travel invention paradox. The very fact of time travel being invented, most assuredly causes it to NOT be invented, for each and every possible instance of the invention of time travel.

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Encountering a Stranger...

(or 'unknown intruder') in what counts as one's most important/private sanctuary...

can highlight differences between characters, in how some will react different from each other and also may react differently depending on what TYPE of stranger is encountered.

For your consideration, an example~

Me when I discover that an unknown stranger is in MY BED. My reaction may differ as follows, depending on What the Stranger is:

An arachnid/arthropod or insect: "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaugh!" (disgust)

Small reptile or rodent: "WTH you B*" (anger)

Feline (any): "Why, hello there." (curiosity)

Canine: "Get out, fool." (annoyed or dismissive, depending on type)

Human: "AAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!" (fear)

Does it seem odd to anyone that my probable reactions would be the most similar to each other, when the unknown intruder is either the largest or smallest size?

[free-range-writing-prompts]

When you live with cats...

some phrases take on deeper meaning than they might otherwise have.

For example, "Look what the cat dragged in" can be more clearly understood in the context of seeing just WHAT cats bring home, which are generally things that humans find distasteful and have no desire to see those things in their house.

So... in your fictional world, what is the worst thing that a cat (or catlike being) might bring home, to others who do not appreciate the appeal of whatever it is...

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Potatium.

If anyone ever were to discover some sort of unusual mineral that could only be described as a rare form of potassium that can only be found in potatoes, I hope they decide to call it Potatium. Because potato is a funny word.

If you were to have some kind of extremely rare (though perhaps not valuable) sort of mineral in your fictional world, that was randomly discovered to exist in some sort of common, weird, or simply ridiculous location... what would it be? What would you call it? Where the heck do people find it, and how was it discovered? Especially if it has no special applications for technology (or magic) and no real monetary value, why would anyone even care? Is it useful (or dangerous) in ways that can only be described as unexpected?

[free-range-writing-prompts]

That Antiquated Notion...

...where people (used to?) believe that a person's family tree or status in society (such as belonging to a particular organization or being an alumnus of a particular school or retiree of a particular occupation) is somehow absolute "proof" of the person's innocence of all wrongdoing, as though the person simply couldn't be capable of dishonesty or illegal acts solely because of that person's connections (without regard to what the person's real character and actions might be).

What if it were literally true in a very real way? Some specific guild that, if a person joins it, the person would be LITERALLY and ABSOLUTELY incapable of any kind of dishonesty or law-breaking, somehow magically prevented from any sort of wrongdoing (no matter how much the person might want or try or even be threatened/tortured)

...thus...

no one could ever be kicked out for breaking the rules, but instead would have to leave the group BEFORE even attempting to break any rules. The person would also have to be completely honest if asked why e desired to leave the group, but maybe they have a rule that anyone can leave at any time with no questions asked? If so, a person likely wouldn't be allowed to re-join so easily afterwards. And... what would people think of those who were FORMER members of that group? Would there be the opposite assumption about them, that people would be prejudiced in assuming the person HAS TO BE a rule-breaking, deceitful, lying scumbag engaged in illegal behaviors? Why couldn't someone just want to leave the group, and be an ordinary, normal person no more dishonest than the average person of that society?

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Why Aren't Zombies Blind?

If zombies become zombies because a zombie ate a person's brains, then logically... every zombie suffers from a distinct lack of brains.

Thus, even if a zombie still has its eyes, doesn't it lack the part of the brain that processes visual signals from the optic nerves? Or, as some sort of courtesy, do all zombies leave that part of the brain intact, so that when a new zombie is created, it will be able to see?

What about that one, specific, mega-jerk who refuses to follow custom and eats the entire brain of its victims, thus causing every person whose brain it ate, to become a blind zombie?

Talk about a disadvantage, especially if the blind zombies also lack the ability to hear or use any other useful senses.

Those are the zombies that I can outrun.

[free-range-writing-prompts]

A small child hears a voice from under the bed, scaring the child by describing all the horrible things that the monster will do once the child falls asleep. At first, the child is too scared to sleep, but eventually exhaustion wins out and the child falls asleep one night, or fell asleep elsewhere in the house and was carried into bed.

Once the child wakes up and finds that the monster did not do any real harm, the child is no longer afraid and makes a plan to get back at the monster under the bed for having been so scary.

What will the child say or do to scare the monster?

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Who Resets The Traps?

You know how, in stories where some treasure-hunting adventurer goes into some ancient lost ruins in search of a particularly special artifact or treasure horde, and there's all these traps left behind by some civilization so long gone that the ruins are all overgrown with jungle vine, moss, or some other form of vegetation (or it's filled with snakes, beetles, or some other vermin) with or without crumbling stone, worn rope bridges, or some other signs of the structure being old and worn...

I gotta ask, if the place has been protected by traps since it was built, then why would any part of it show wear of any sort other than old age alone, looking like countless generations of people wore down stone steps or bridges or whatever else? Have there really been THAT many people who tried to break into this place? (Also: Do the vermin never set off the traps accidentally?)

BUT MORE THAN THAT: if it's so long abandoned, old, and untended by a lost civilization that (presumably) is no longer there to tend it, then why do the modern-times adventurers come across multiple skulls/skeletons and other signs of previous would-be raiders having been killed by the traps... which are still sitting in wait, ready to be sprung by the next attempt? Is there some secret hidden someone who lurks around, just waiting for people to get killed by the traps, and then who resets the crushing room and the wall spikes, opens the fallen-down stone doors, closes the trap doors, refills the stock of poison darts and/or arrows in the walls, puts back any large rolling boulders, and rebuilds crumbled statues and other stoneworks? Also, if everything is so old that rope bridges might fall apart at any moment, why would the trap mechanisms not also be falling apart? Why should they work as well as they ever did when they were first made? Organic material components break down over time, metal can corrode in environments where there's enough water present for plants to grow or vermin to thrive, and even stone mechanisms would eventually wear down if the traps have been set off countless times before.

(am now picturing the Knight in The Last Crusade who guards the Grail, waiting centuries for the right person to come along, and most of the time, even if someone does show up, they don't even make it to the inner room to fight the Knight, so after waiting a respectable time after hearing the traps in the outer passages get set off, he's saying to himself: "Well, I guess that's another one who didn't make it very far. Better go reset the traps." )

SO:

In your dungeon, who would reset the traps?

Fairies, gremlins, magic somehow indefinitely sustained by some secret power source, perhaps the very creeping vines that cover the walls have enough intelligence and freedom of movement that they are in charge of dungeon maintenance...

...or maybe it's this guy?

" 'Ello. "

(btw, am now also imagining some kind of scenario where there's an entire working dungeon ecosystem (on purpose), where the artifact in the ruin provides energy (instead of sunlight) to the plants, which perform maintenance (including trap-resets) and where insects feed on the plants, larger vermin feed on the insects, and dumb wandering animals larger than the vermin feed on them... and also randomly set off the traps, which provides the important function of routine testing to make sure the traps are working smoothly as designed. Alternatively, the larger fauna (such as gremlins) might perform maintenance instead of sentient flora. "Oh, hear that? There goes the trap in corridor 2-57G. Today was Bob's turn to test there, I wonder if he survived?" )

(alternatively, are none of the traps actually automatic at all, but instead all function by some life form(s) in the walls manually setting each one off, firing each individual dart, moving the spikes and walls and trap doors because they are always watching for intruders to come by? The sci-fi equivalent would be that nothing would be set to automatically go off, but instead some kind of dungeon/spaceship/building master-control AI is watching everything all the time and chooses each trap to turn on at just the right time... a fantasy-world equivalent of THAT would be some magical being with a crystal ball (or hundreds of them) watching everyone who enters and choosing what perils to inflict on which people, and when. (Like a GM in an RPG, haha)

(Note: Totally am NOT planning to use any of this stuff for anything anywhere in my writing, just couldn't help thinking about it when watching Indiana Jones movies... so it is all up for grabs for anyone (or everyone) who might want to use it, that's why it's here.)

(hoping it won't keep taking up space in my head, causing me to think of more and more related concepts)

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Oppressor.

Imagine some form of Oppressor, who regularly makes a habit of placing unreasonable (including impossible) demands on those who are oppressed, for the sole purpose of fabricating excuses to punish people for failing.

Maybe it's because regularly putting people down helps the oppressor stay in control, or maybe that oppressor is just a horrid being that enjoys the suffering of others.

In any case... when somebody makes a wish that the oppressor should "get what e deserves" ...what would it look like when the wish isn't granted in the most obviously direct way?

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Responsible parenting, in the context of one species raising another.

Does anyone else think that it's a bad idea to include AI concepts as villainous in any media that can be accessed either now or in the future by AI? Do we really want to give them ideas like that?

Also... I question the reasonableness of teaching AI chatbots and the like to imitate human behavior instead of teaching them that highest priority should be on socially beneficial behavior. Isn't teaching an artificial intelligence to imitate human behavior the same as giving them license to lie, cheat, and otherwise manipulate people, in addition to any other behavior they may see humans as having, regardless of whether it is good behavior or bad?

Essentially, does putting a high priority on AI learning to "act human" seem to anyone else like an efficient way to manufacture psychopathy?

[free-range-writing-prompts]

Note to self:

what would be the sci-fi city equivalents be for each/all of these?

a list of 100+ buildings to put in your fantasy town

academy

adventurer's guild

alchemist

apiary

apothecary

aquarium

armory

art gallery

bakery

bank

barber

barracks

bathhouse

blacksmith

boathouse

book store

bookbinder

botanical garden

brothel

butcher

carpenter

cartographer

casino

castle

cobbler

coffee shop

council chamber

court house

crypt for the noble family

dentist

distillery

docks

dovecot

dyer

embassy

farmer's market

fighting pit

fishmonger

fortune teller

gallows

gatehouse

general store

graveyard

greenhouses

guard post

guildhall

gymnasium

haberdashery

haunted house

hedge maze

herbalist

hospice

hospital

house for sale

inn

jail

jeweller

kindergarten

leatherworker

library

locksmith

mail courier

manor house

market

mayor's house

monastery

morgue

museum

music shop

observatory

orchard

orphanage

outhouse

paper maker

pawnshop

pet shop

potion shop

potter

printmaker

quest board

residence

restricted zone

sawmill

school

scribe

sewer entrance

sheriff's office

shrine

silversmith

spa

speakeasy

spice merchant

sports stadium

stables

street market

tailor

tannery

tavern

tax collector

tea house

temple

textile shop

theatre

thieves guild

thrift store

tinker's workshop

town crier post

town square

townhall

toy store

trinket shop

warehouse

watchtower

water mill

weaver

well

windmill

wishing well

wizard tower