#the audience holds a false authority over a false choice that means nothing | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kellysbookblog · 2 years

Photo

RELEASE BLITZ

Title: Silent Vows Series: The Byrne Brothers #1 Author: Jill Ramsower Genre: Dark Mafia Romance Release Date: October 17, 2022

My GR Review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/5015885264?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1

My Amazon Review: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RFT1D0YH19Q80?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

BLURB I wanted out of the mafia and unexpectedly got my wish, only it’s worse than I ever could have imagined. I’ve been promised to the Irish. An arranged marriage in the name of alliance. I have no choice. My father will kill me if I refuse. In two short weeks, Conner Reid will become my husband. The ruthless Irishman threatens my composure and intoxicates my senses. He represents everything I hate in this world yet summons my darkest cravings. I can’t escape him. The worst part is, I’m not sure I want to. Because my life is in danger, and Conner may be the only man who can save me. A dark romance with adult themes, Silent Vows may not be suitable for sensitive audiences. But if you like your men possessive and a steamy read with a guaranteed happily ever after, this enemies to lovers arranged marriage romance will satisfy your every craving! GOODREADS LINK: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61425509-silent-vows ENTER THE GIVEAWAY: https://bit.ly/SVGRGiveaway PURCHASE LINKS US: https://amzn.to/3yrDMhB UK: https://amzn.to/3SJJm6W CA: https://amzn.to/3ynw8ED AU: https://amzn.to/3SPLMkr B&N: https://bit.ly/3RGZ7dC Kobo: https://bit.ly/3RLDDMM Apple Books: https://apple.co/3rEHaSr Google Play: https://bit.ly/3fVZZh5 Special Edition: https://amzn.to/3Eunybd Universal: https://bit.ly/3Vf1UxK EXCERPTS #1 My heart leaped into an Olympic sprint, making my head spin. Conner was speaking to my father, but I could only hear the hypnotic undertones of his deep voice because my ears were ringing so loudly. Then a firm hand slowly clamped down over my bouncing knee, forcing my body to stillness. My father couldn’t see what was happening beneath the table, and Conner continued to speak as though the rough skin of his palm wasn’t holding me captive, but every fiber of my being was focused on the place where our bodies touched. Slowly, ever so slowly, his thumb traced back and forth over my knee. Was he … comforting me? Not exactly. From him, the gesture felt more like he was commanding me to calm—a somewhat authoritarian gesture—but it worked, nonetheless. My pulse eased back to a normal rate, erasing the threat of cardiac arrest. Finally, I took in a long, steady breath, filling my lungs with much-needed oxygen. Then just as casually as it had appeared, his hand was gone—as though this type of communication was normal between us. As though I hadn’t just met the man ten minutes before. I got the sense that time and space meant nothing to Conner Reid. He made the rules in his world, and the rest of us were meant to adjust accordingly. Conner was just as imposing as my father, maybe even more so. What did that mean for me? A life of terror and pain? I wasn’t so certain of that. For some inexplicable reason, his brand of domination didn’t strike fear in me the same way my father did. Was I simply the hopeless romantic he’d accused me of being and letting his beauty blind me to the truth? The uncertainty of my situation terrified me, but as for Conner, I wasn’t so sure how I felt. He affected me profoundly—that I couldn’t deny. So much so that it was hard to pinpoint exactly how I felt about him. But he was my new fiancé, so I was bound to find out soon enough. #2 His eyelids lowered so that only a small sliver of sapphire was visible. “What kind of man would I be if I didn’t protect what’s mine?” “I’m not yours yet.” I couldn’t quite hold his gaze while saying the words. The intensity of his stare was too much. Or maybe the words themselves were the challenge because I always sucked at lying and could taste the bitterness of the falsehood. It shocked me. I wasn’t sure why I felt any loyalty to this man, but it was there, in the kernel of guilt sprouting in my gut. Conner placed his hands on either side of my face and brought his lips back to my ear. “Liar, liar,” he whispered, his warm breath on my skin heating my entire body. “Shall I prove it?” Then his lips were on mine, sucking, tasting, devouring. Without the slightest objection, I became his willing victim, breathless for his touch. My entire body quivered as blood rushed to my center. When my lips parted on a moan, he sucked my bottom lip between his, grazing his teeth as he released it like he’d done the last time we kissed. But this time, he gave one last nip that ended on a stab of pain. I jerked back and dabbed my fingers to my lips. They came away spotted with crimson. “You bit me?” I shot at him, stunned. His eyes glinted with dangerous amusement. “So nobody gets confused about who you belong to.” My hand reared back without thought, ready to strike, but he anticipated my reaction. Lightning fast, he snatched my hand midair and spun me around, hands clasped behind me. “Time to get back out there,” he said wryly. “Wouldn’t want that asshole out there to come looking for you.” Conner released me, then swatted my ass for good measure. I shot him a glare that could have curdled fresh milk. #3 His cool stare held me captive, eyes inches from mine. “Is your father going to be a problem?” My lips parted in surprise. I’d expected innuendo and manipulation. Such a direct line of questioning hit at the very heart of my worries and unsteadied me. I shook my head and tried to dart beneath his arm. Conner wedged his body in front of the door, blocking my path completely and bringing us chest to chest. I sucked in a shock of air, then narrowed my eyes defensively. He wasn’t remotely unsettled by my display of irritation. If anything, his intensity only darkened further in the dimly lit basement hallway—a villainous storm threatening to crumble me to my foundations. “Protective is one thing. I get the sense this is more, and I think I ought to know if it’s going to be a problem.” His eyes narrowed a fraction, the difference between tension and savage ferocity in one tiny twitch of a muscle. “He ever hurt you?” The words were deadly calm. Oh God. Why was he doing this? He needed to stop asking questions, and I needed to stop thinking his questions meant he cared. This was all probably about control and power, not me. I had to shut it down. Now. The best way to accomplish that was not to look like a scared little girl. Taking a small step back, I opened my clutch and pulled out a pen, then took his hand in mine, palm up. It’s so much wider than I expected. Rough and solid muscle. Hands that knew hard work, like squeezing the life out of an enemy. I mentally scolded myself to focus and wrote two letters across the full surface of his palm. NO. Releasing him, I peered up in challenge. Conner stepped forward, placing his leg between my thighs and swiveling us until my back was against the wall next to the door. I didn’t squirm or respond, knowing I couldn’t show doubt or weakness if I was going to shut down his questions. “Not so fragile as they implied, are you?” he purred above me. I took his tie in my hand, pulling him slowly lower until our noses almost touched, and shook my head slowly side to side. His hands came to rest on either side of my head as he brought his cheek to mine, his hint of stubble creating a delicious friction against my skin. “Good, because I’m not remotely gentle.” The words were a black promise, raw and demanding and utterly intoxicating. COMING SOON IN THE BYRNE BROTHERS SERIES #2 Corrupted Union – Releasing April 4

US: https://amzn.to/3ehPIvj UK: https://amzn.to/3Etfpnu CA: https://amzn.to/3VqOHC7 AU: https://amzn.to/3rI74Vm B&N: https://bit.ly/3MkICmc Kobo: https://bit.ly/3ehQ5Gd Apple Books: https://apple.co/3Eqi5C7 Google Play: https://bit.ly/3CKjFh0 Universal: https://bit.ly/3rXtWjD AUTHOR BIO Award-winning author of contemporary and fantasy romance. With Jill’s books, you can count on confident heroines, plenty of steamy tension, and deliciously assertive leading men. There are no guarantees in life, but with her books, you know everything will work out in the end. However, a perfect ending would not be nearly as satisfying without a seemingly insurmountable challenge. Jill loves to add plenty of adversity in her stories, creating unforgettably dynamic characters and sneaky plot twists you will never see coming. AUTHOR LINKS Website: https://jillramsower.com Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/18150241.Jill_Ramsower Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jillramsowerauthor Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jillramsowerauthor Bookbub: https://www.bookbub.com/profile/jill-ramsower Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Jill-Ramsower/e/B07DZGSG14

0 notes

ask-de-writer · 4 years

Text

SEA DRAGON’S GIFT : Part 78 of 83 : World of Sea

Return to the Master Story Index

Return to World of Sea

SEA DRAGON’S GIFT

Part 78 of 83

De Writer (Glen Ten-Eyck)

140406 words

written 2007

Reproduction in any form, physical, electronic or digital is prohibited without the express consent of the author.

//////////////

Users of Tumblr.com are specifically granted the following rights. They may reblog the story provided that all author and copyright information remains intact. They may use the characters or original characters in my settings for fan fiction, fan art works, cosplay, or fan musical compositions.

All sorts of fan art, cosplay, music or fiction is actively encouraged.

///////////////////////

New to the story? Read from the beginning. PART 1 is here

///////////////////////

Kurin smiled, “Did you give helmswoman Darkistry the idea to ride the eye of the Coriolis storm north?”

“No, Little Fish, that was her own idea, and an excellent one. At that time they did have to hide but I could not allow them escape over the Dragon Sea to another fleet. I still regard the Naral fleet as my fleet and it had done a terrible injustice. If the fleet was not given the opportunity to undo the injustice, a new Captain of Captains could arise. War and ruin could follow. It has before.”

“When and where did you have your talk with Barad and Tanlin?” Kurin asked Mecat.

“In the eye of the storm, as the Grandalor rode it north.”

“Besides barring them from flight,” Kurin wanted to know, “what else happened during that talk?”

“I found out why the Lady Tanlin was so highly regarded by such a rough-cut crew. That led me to give her a Dragon’s Gift.”

“What was the nature of the Gift, if you will tell us?” asked Kurin with high interest.

“Singularity of self, acceptance of loss, internal peace, an end to nightmares. She deserved no less,” said Blind Mecat quietly. “She made many hard choices. The Wide Wings, Skye and Thunderhead, got included in the Gift by accident. That may have far reaching ecological consequences. I urgently wish to find out.”

“I think that you will have that chance, Mecat,” said Kurin.

Turning to face the Court, Kurin paced as she talked. “The incident with the Fauline is now closed and all the charge of piracy dealt with. We have the word of Dragons who were direct witnesses. By the Tenth Great Law the facts as described by Captain Barad are incontestable.

“The matter of the poison plot has been exposed, not as the action of a whole ship, nor even of a large cadre, as it indeed did appear. It was the work of a very limited circle. It is probable that at least one murder, Master Selked’s apprentice, Merk, was committed solely to reduce the size of the circle even further. Captain Barad, having changed his mind about the plot, tried energetically to prevent harm to me or any other.

“Mister Morgu and Silor Elon, who are being held prisoner aboard the Grandalor for Council trial, were the sole attackers. On them alone lie the charges of murder, attempted murder and mutiny.

“As to the matter of unlawful flight, it was the Council itself that broke the Second Great Law. The Grandalor had both a duty, now discharged, to seek proper justice and the necessity to preserve the lives of the innocent against the blatant injustice involved.

“Neither Barad nor Tanlin can be held accountable for the piratical attack by the Longin on the Grandalor. I personally ordered the counter attack in defense of both the lives of the crew in my care and the ship itself, my sole property. Effort and care were exercised to minimize the damage to the Longin while still putting her out of action.”

That revelation caused consternation among the Court and spectators. A shocked Sula demanded, “You ordered the attack on your own ship?”

“The ship that I grew up on, yes,” said Kurin softly. “And it was the hardest thing that I’ve ever done. I had to, Sula. These lives were in my hands.” From her pile of notes, Kurin pulled out the book entitled ‘Grandalor Adoption Register.’ She handed it over, with the simple explanation, “I’ve confirmed the whole lot, personally. There’s not one person on board, except for the two prisoners, who did not adopt in. They did it after they knew what kind of trouble they were in. Captain Barad had saved many of them and they were determined not to let him down in his need. Barad and Captain Tanlin have that loyalty from their entire crew. Few Captains do.”

“I petition the Court to dismiss all current criminal charges and actions against the Grandalor, her crew, officers and Captains. They acted as reasonable people. Their assessment of the situation was proved accurate on all counts but one.

“They had no need to flee from the Honored Huld and the Soaring Bird. He was seeking to enforce their rights and would have fought Sula herself if necessary to do so.”

This bombshell caused consternation among the audience. The Great Sea Dragons were regarding each other and nodding their agreement. It made sense of confusing reports from Iren’s Orcas. Sula turned to Huld and said, “You said that we must pursue. That’s part of the reason that I did.”

Huld thought for only moment before saying, “Indeed, necessary it was. Injustice obvious was. Rights protected and enforced was need. Found them not. Error found you for yourself and correction made without help. Way of adult, not child.”

Sula turned to Kurin and asked, “How did you know?”

“I long ago asked him what Honored meant,” Kurin replied. “If what he told me were true, and I believed him, then he could not act in any other way.”

Sarfin concentrated on the petition that accompanied the revelation. He consulted Sula for a few minutes of whispered conference. Both gestured and remonstrated, at the last asking, “Captain Farrol, do you have anything further to add to your case?”

“An hour ago, you could not have changed my mind about Barad or any from his ship. Guilty, I would have said. Since then, I have heard Dragons testify in Court. I have heard things that make sense out of things that I have accepted without question. We, the Court, still have much business to address. The Grandalor case though, I concede. They are innocent of these charges.”

Sarfin stood and raised his hands for silence and got it. “The decision of the Court in this matter is final and may not be appealed. The Grandalor and her entire crew as represented in this document,” he held up the ‘Grandalor Adoption Registry’, and her Captain at the time of the charges, are innocent.

“I am not done. Captain Barad shows many qualities that are, now that we understand them, admirable. He has saved lives that would have been lost. He is right. We did not look into many matters as well as we ought to have.

“Unfortunately, that does not excuse the civil matter of the counterfeit scrip and many other infractions of conduct. His Master’s Certificate is revoked. In five Gatherings, he may petition the Council for reinstatement. During the penalty, he may not hold any position of command.

“Captain Tanlin, subject to approval by the full Council at the next Gathering, is instated as Captain of the Grandalor.

“This trial is now over.” He sat.

Kurin stood and held up her hands for recognition.

Captain Urson sarcastically said, “What, isn’t it enough that you got that load of scupper trash off?”

“No,” said Kurin with deceptive mildness, “it isn’t.”

Turning to Captain Sarfin she stated, “There are Council charges that must be brought against the Fauline. As the owner of the Grandalor and her advocate before the Naral fleet, I am the proper person to bring these charges for the ship.

“The Fauline dodged share tax. She knowingly brought false capital charges against another ship. You have the Word of Dragons on those. She has willfully lied to the Council. She could not have got to the Arrakan fleet and then to her Spring waters in the time that she had.

Kurin smiled slightly and added, “In addition, she has not yet filed the quitclaim on the Grandalor’s hull secured loan, as an integral part of her deception of the Council. Until all the parchments are signed, the Grandalor, remains out of the Naral fleet and cannot legally collect what is due to her. Thus, her loan reverts to the fleet and the Grandalor will cheerfully leave it with the fleet as partial payment of her fines. That makes the entire 12,306 Skins, 209 blocks of arrears due for immediate payment.

“If they produce the quitclaim, the date will prove it to be false, because their Log will show them to be in Arrakan fleet waters at the time. The loan will have to be paid up to current. If the date is any other than what the Court has heard from the Great Sea Dragons, the entire document is void due to forgery and the loan must still be paid.

“However it falls out, Skua, by Naral fleet Law, must lose his Master’s Certificate for life because he willfully allowed his ship to become bankrupt. Also by Law, the bankrupt vessel must be Scattered.”

Captain Urson slammed both hands down on the table and launched herself to her feet in a rage. “You little Ord! How can you do that to somebody like Captain Skua! What did he ever do to you?”

Kurin looked at her as if she were a particularly noisome bit of offal. “To me personally, nothing. To my fleet, he’s a liar, cheat and tax dodger. To my friends, the Grandalor and her crew, he’s a scoundrel who doesn’t pay his debits, a rapist and an attempted murderer. I try to take care of those that I like.”

Captain Urson was about to sit again when it hit her. “What do you mean, rapist?” she asked uneasily.

Kurin once again spoke with that deceptive mildness that Captain Urson was now beginning to dread, “Captain Sarfin, I have a few parchments here that may be of interest. These are fleet certified copies of unaltered Grinna Log entries. They detail a trial held some Gatherings back. You will find my copy of the same entries, for comparison, marked and highlighted for witness’ names and certain other information.”

She handed over another set of parchments with the explanation, “These are fleet certified, unaltered crew duty rosters for the time periods noted in the trial record, along with the whole Wohan before and after. Please note that every crewman or woman in that whole time who is absented from duty for more than a few minutes is noted.

“A simple comparison of the witness list and the duty roster proves that this trial was never held at all.

“The charge was seduction in violation of the Marriage Laws, a potentially capital offense, if no ship will take in the one found guilty.

“Captain Macom, now deceased, First Officer Skua Calin Grinna, Second Officer of the First Night Watch, Kotance Warn Grinna, Harpooner Miklot Moen Grinna, now dead from a Strong Skin attack, and one other conspired to the rape, attempted murder and denial of Great Law rights to one Darkistry Colm Grinna, now Darkistry Colm Grandalor.”

TO BE CONTINUED

<==PREVIOUS NEXT==>

Return to the Master Story Index

Return to World of Sea

#SEA DRAGON’S GIFT #Part 78 of 83 #World of Sea #Written by De Writer

6 notes · View notes

typewriterwitch · 6 years

Text

When the Forced Marriage Trope is Given Depth

The forced marriage plot is a venerated tradition in romance novels. So much so that today’s romance writers are twisting plots around like pretzels to try to make this trope plausible—and palatable—for the modern age. Usually, this involves business arrangments and marriages of convenience. The old school romance novels of my adolescence were more about king’s edicts and unbreakable betrothals to the last man on earth the heroine ever wants to marry—but with a sly wink toward lust to undercut her early hate.

The appeal of the forced marriage plot is the belligerent sexual tension for a start. Then it’s the softening. The something there that wasn’t there before. The hero becomes less of an ass. The heroine admits her initial impression was harsh. It’s classic Pride & Prejudiceor Beauty & the Beast. Gold standard stuff. From a practical point of the view, the forced marriage plot is a way for historical romance writers to have their Pride & Prejudice or Beauty & the Beast plot, give a nod toward social norms, and still include sex scenes.

But the forced marriage trope has a crucial difference—in both Pride & Prejudice and Beauty & the Beast examples, the narrative question is, “Will the heroine consent to marry the hero?” Her choice is centered. Elizabeth throwing Darcy’s proposal back in his face is one of the best examples of agency in all of romance (my personal favorite comes from North & South). We want to see the heroine stand up for herself because then it’s crystal clear that, by the end, she’s marrying for love. In the case of the forced marriage trope, the choice has been made for her, so her agency is compromised.

What does that do to the appeal of the trope? It messes it right up, that’s what it does.

For fans of messy romance—romance with stakes and grit and depth—this is can be a very interesting thing. If the author treads carefully. Treading carefully means hitting a few major beats:

Acknowledging the messed up nature of the situation. The hero especially needs to understand how getting a wife against her will is, you know, bad. Even if he starts out conceited or oblivious, it’s crucial that he learns to value consent above all else.

Giving the heroine a free and clear means of escape. Readers seem to swoon over the whole, ‘You’re too good for me! But I’m a selfish bastard so I’ll never let you go’ angle. In this trope, the alpha possessiveness vibe is more uncomfortable than usual. Tone it way down. Even Disney gets it right: When the Beast asks Belle if she can be happy with him in the 2017 version, she responds, “Can anyone be happy if they aren’t free?” The only answer is no and the Beast promptly lets her go.

Making the character change crystal clear. The reason the heroine decides to stay with the hero is make-or-break for this trope. Quivering thighs aren’t enough. Genuine, authentic change in the hero’s actions and the heroine’s understanding is a must. This cannot be lip service. It has to feel authentic and earned.

Why are these three beats so crucial? Because the very last thing we need is forced marriage itself romanticized as an institution. Forced marriage is and has been a source of pervasive evil in the lives of women. Google ‘forced marriage’ without the ‘romance’ at the end and you get a lifeline number to stop human trafficking. This trope emerged from a dark and dangerous place, as a lot of storytelling tropes do. No number of happy fictional endings will change that.

Most premises for this trope I’ve seen skirt the trope’s heart of darkness, ignoring the uncomfortable implications in favor of a few thrills. Which begs the question—does the popularity of the trope mean its readers are regressing or resisting progress? Are readers thinking that choice is too hard and wouldn’t it be nicer if someone chose a husband for them and it all worked out in the happily-ever-after? Maybe. Romance is escapism, after all. This trope and the soulmates trope are like the benevolent dictator theories of romance novels. Easy and unrealistic are what some readers are looking for when they pick up a romance novel.

As a champion for romance with stakes and grit and depth, that’s so not me. I want a happy ending, I do. But I also what to use the forced marriage trope to, like, explore my anxieties about the long line of forced marriages from which I’m likely descended. That’s why I need the heroine to continuously stand up for herself and the hero to completely understand her situation by the end. Those three beats I laid out above allow that arc to happen. They’re a formula for catharsis and that’s damn good drama. But the right to choose one’s life partner is a cornerstone of feminism for a damn good reason. For me, the story isn’t satisfying unless it actively tackles that issue.

One of the best examples of the forced marriage trope given depth comes from a movie almost no one saw called Child 44. Tom Hardy and Noomi Rapace star as Leo and Raisa Demidov a married couple in 1950s Russia. Leo is a WWII hero turned Captain in the Ministry of State Security. The plot focuses on Leo searching for a serial killer who targets young boys. His investigation is complicated because he’s going against the will of the government. Leo’s colleagues actively want to silence any evidence that their society—a paradise—could produce a murderer. But, as the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes will tell you, the thriller aspect is a bit of a letdown. The real meaty storyline is the evolving relationship between Leo and Raisa.

The first scene to introduce Leo and Raisa as a couple is a phenomenal piece of character work. Leo is telling the story of how he fell in love and married Raisa at a dinner party. The story is a common one: love at first sight. Leo saw Raisa, waxed poetic, and asked for her name. When he tracks her down again, she admits that she gave him a false one. The two tell the story in tandem, but the audience is clued into the fact that Raisa is telling her parts dutifully. It’s Leo who finds this story romantic as he confesses his devotion to his wife. The women of the group are touched. Raisa is cool and contained. She remains cool and contained when the couple has sex in their apartment. It’s a classic framing of marital discord. Leo is kissing her neck, clearly overcome by passion. And Raisa is turned away from him, frowning into middle-distance. In a few short scenes, the audience comes to understand that Raisa does not share her husband’s blind obedience to the Soviet Union. We wonder if she might be a spy or a traitor in some way. When Leo comes home after a hard day where a subordinate murdered a mother and father in front of their two young children, he seeks comfort from Raisa. She accepts that she should do this for him, but she does not actively comfort him.

The turn comes when Leo is handed a folder and told to investigate his own wife for treason. He knows that no matter what he finds over the course of his investigation there will be no mercy. The implication alone is damning. Leo follows Raisa, seeing her lose a fellow school teacher to soldiers. She seems too close to her principal, but nothing implicates her except that he loses her in the crowd. Leo talks to his adopted father, who cautions him that it’s better to give up his wife than to go down with her. Raisa shows up for dinner then and announces where she’d gone—to the doctor. She’s pregnant. Leo tears apart their apartment but finds nothing damning. Neither do his colleagues. The scene where Leo confronts Raisa about the investigation is heartbreaking. You can see on her face that she expects to be given up. You can see on his face how much this is tearing him up inside. In the end, he submits her innocence knowing that he is dooming them both. Sure enough, they are dragged from their beds. The character work here is that Raisa lets her husband hold her, she screams for him in terror. She clings to him when she thinks they will be killed.

But they are spared somewhat. They are able to leave Moscow with their lives and sent to a village in the middle of nowhere. Gone are the luxuries that her husband’s career afforded them. In exchange for her life, he has to give up everything. Raisa is cooler than ever. It’s fascinating. She tells him that it was all a test of loyalty—he should have denounced because “that’s what wives are for.” His show of love hardens rather than softens her toward him. But she does not betray him, even when his most evil coworker offers for her to return to Moscow as his mistress. She tries to leave him, but Leo stops her and brings her back home. He forbids her from leaving again.

It’s then that we learn that Raisa resents him for how much he loves her because, as we find out, she never had a say in it. That charming story he likes to tell? She remembers it very differently. She “cried for one week” when he proposed and then accepted out fear for what would happen to her if she declined a man of his stature. She was forced into this marriage, and now she’s bound to him even tighter because of his sacrifice. Hearing this breaks Leo’s heart into a million pieces. Honestly, the angst of this scene is everything I want in this trope. Her confession rocks Leo’s world. He has tears in his eyes because he’s realizing how much of a monster he has been in the eyes of the woman he loves but has never known. We also find out that Raisa lied about being pregnant to save her own life. She’s a survivor. She’s a complex thinker and feeler. It’s heartwrenching, deep stuff, people. Sign me the fuck up twice.

That’s the first of the major beats. Acknowledging the messed up nature of the situation.

Then the murder investigation starts in earnest. Leo has to go to Moscow and he’s afraid if he leaves Raisa he won’t be able to protect her. She doesn’t want to go anywhere with him. He tells her that if she comes to Moscow with him, she can stay there. He won’t make her return, and she never has to see him again.

There’s beat number two. Giving the heroine a free and clear means of escape.

But in Moscow, things change for Raisa. She is drawn into the investigation and sees how honorable it is. She comes to realize that the man she assumed to be the honest Russian sticking up for his countrywomen against the brutal government was an ideologue all along. The monsters of her world are becoming much less black and white. By the time we get to the moment when Raisa chooses to come back with Leo, we understand why she’s making that choice.

And then boy are we ever rewarded. We get to see Raisa stand up for her husband, soothe and comfort him. We see her protect him from would-be murdererstwice and Leo turn around and do the same thing for her. She is an equal partner in his investigation and his life. The events of the movie bring them together in a way that their sham marriage never could—and it’s a messy, complicated, harrowing thing to watch. In the end, this is a true romance because the couple gets a happy ending. So happy. I won’t spoil the last bit, but there is definitely a romance novel-worthy moment when Leo turns those puppy dog eyes on Raisa to ask her if she thinks he is a monster. And of course she no longer thinks that. Her understanding of him has changed. And his actions have changed—no longer does he presume her love and ignore her true feelings. No longer does he go along with the state mindlessly and play up the war hero bit. He’s a better man and she loves him for it. That’s a transformational love story.

Final beat nailed. Making the character change crystal clear.

Again, not going to say Child 44 is a perfect movie. But the love story? Is a perfect example of a thoughtful use of the forced marriage trope. More romance novels could stand to use it as a template.

#writingjourney #child 44

29 notes · View notes

verjigorm · 7 years

Text

Logical Fallacies Handlist

Fallacies are statements that might sound reasonable or superficially true but are actually flawed or dishonest. When readers detect them, these logical fallacies backfire by making the audience think the writer is (a) unintelligent or (b) deceptive. It is important to avoid them in your own arguments, and it is also important to be able to spot them in others' arguments so a false line of reasoning won't fool you. Think of this as intellectual kung-fu: the vital art of self-defense in a debate. For extra impact, learn both the Latin terms and the English equivalents.

In general, one useful way to organize fallacies is by category. We have below fallacies of relevance, component fallacies, fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies of omission. We will discuss each type in turn. The last point to discuss is Occam's Razor.

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE: These fallacies appeal to evidence or examples that are not relevant to the argument at hand.

Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum or the "Might-Makes-Right" Fallacy): This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader. If the debate is about whether or not 2+2=4, an opponent's argument that he will smash your nose in if you don't agree with his claim doesn't change the truth of an issue. Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with the points under consideration. The fallacy is not limited to threats of violence, however. The fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash--financial, professional, and so on.

Example: "Superintendent, you should cut the school budget by $16,000. I need not remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents who cannot keep down costs." While intimidation may force the superintendent to conform, it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or community. Lobbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in the legislators' constituencies and threaten to throw the politician out of office if he doesn't vote the way they want. Teachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the teachers or risk failing the class. Note that it is isn't a logical fallacy, however, to assert that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the class!

Genetic Fallacy: The genetic fallacy is the claim that an idea, product, or person must be untrustworthy because of its racial, geographic, or ethnic origin. "That car can't possibly be any good! It was made in Japan!" Or, "Why should I listen to her argument? She comes from California, and we all know those people are flakes." Or, "Ha! I'm not reading that book. It was published in Tennessee, and we know all Tennessee folk are hillbillies and rednecks!" This type of fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem or personal attack, appearing immediately below.

Personal Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, "argument toward the man." Also called "Poisoning the Well"): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement "2+2=4" is true regardless if it is stated by criminals, congressmen, or pastors. There are two subcategories:

Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims, communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.

Circumstantial: To argue that an opponent should accept or reject an argument because of circumstances in his or her life. If one's adversary is a clergyman, suggesting that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so would be incompatible with the scriptures is such a fallacy. To argue that, because the reader is a Republican or Democrat, she must vote for a specific measure is likewise a circumstantial fallacy. The opponent's special circumstances have no control over the truth or untruth of a specific contention. The speaker or writer must find additional evidence beyond that to make a strong case. This is also similar to the genetic fallacy in some ways. If you are a college student who wants to learn rational thought, you simply must avoid circumstantial fallacies.

Argumentum ad Populum (Literally "Argument to the People"): Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser. An example of this type of argument is Shakespeare's version of Mark Antony's funeral oration for Julius Caesar. There are three basic approaches:

Bandwagon Approach: “Everybody is doing it.” This argumentum ad populum asserts that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true, or the course of action must be followed, or the decision must be the best choice. For instance, “85% of consumers purchase IBM computers rather than Macintosh; all those people can’t be wrong. IBM must make the best computers.” Popular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be valid, nor does popular use of any product necessarily prove it is the best one. After all, 85% of people may once have thought planet earth was flat, but that majority's belief didn't mean the earth really was flat when they believed it! Keep this in mind, and remember that everybody should avoid this type of logical fallacy.

Patriotic Approach: "Draping oneself in the flag." This argument asserts that a certain stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that those who disagree are unpatriotic. It overlaps with pathos and argumentum ad hominem to a certain extent. The best way to spot it is to look for emotionally charged terms like Americanism, rugged individualism, motherhood, patriotism, godless communism, etc. A true American would never use this approach. And a truly free man will exercise his American right to drink beer, since beer belongs in this great country of ours.This approach is unworthy of a good citizen.

Snob Approach: This type of argumentum ad populum doesn’t assert “everybody is doing it,” but rather that “all the best people are doing it.” For instance, “Any true intellectual would recognize the necessity for studying logical fallacies.” The implication is that anyone who fails to recognize the truth of the author’s assertion is not an intellectual, and thus the reader had best recognize that necessity.

In all three of these examples, the rhetorician does not supply evidence that an argument is true; he merely makes assertions about people who agree or disagree with the argument. For Christian students in religious schools like Carson-Newman, we might add a fourth category, "Covering Oneself in the Cross." This argument asserts that a certain political or denominational stance is true or correct because it is somehow "Christian," and that anyone who disagrees is behaving in an "un-Christian" or "godless" manner. (It is similar to the patriotic approach except it substitutes a gloss of piety instead of patriotism.) Examples include the various "Christian Voting Guides" that appear near election time, many of them published by non-Church related organizations with hidden financial/political agendas, or the stereotypical crooked used-car salesman who keeps a pair of bibles on his dashboard in order to win the trust of those he would fleece. Keep in mind Moliere's question in Tartuffe: "Is not a face quite different than a mask?" Is not the appearance of Christianity quite different than actual Christianity? Christians should beware of such manipulation since they are especially vulnerable to it.

Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum Ad Traditionem; aka Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem): This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it. For example, "We know the earth is flat because generations have thought that for centuries!" Alternatively, the appeal to tradition might conclude that the premise has always worked in the past and will thus always work in the future: “Jefferson City has kept its urban growth boundary at six miles for the past thirty years. That has been good enough for thirty years, so why should we change it now? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Such an argument is appealing in that it seems to be common sense, but it ignores important questions. Might an alternative policy work even better than the old one? Are there drawbacks to that long-standing policy? Are circumstances changing from the way they were thirty years ago? Has new evidence emerged that might throw that long-standing policy into doubt?

Appeal to Improper Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundium, literally "argument from that which is improper"): An appeal to an improper authority, such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable or who might not know anything about the topic. This fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous individual. It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individual’s expertise is within a strict field of knowledge. On the other hand, to cite Einstein to settle an argument about education or economics is fallacious. To cite Darwin, an authority on biology, on religious matters is fallacious. To cite Cardinal Spellman on legal problems is fallacious. The worst offenders usually involve movie stars and psychic hotlines. A subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance, "To determine whether fraternities are beneficial to this campus, we interviewed all the frat presidents." Or again, "To find out whether or not sludge-mining really is endangering the Tuskogee salamander's breeding grounds, we interviewed the owners of the sludge-mines, who declared there is no problem." Indeed, it is important to get "both viewpoints" on an argument, but basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments. As Upton Sinclair once stated, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Sinclair is pointing out that even a knowledgeable authority might not be entirely rational on a topic when he has economic incentives that bias his thinking.

Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam, literally, "argument from pity"): An emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate. While pathos generally works to reinforce a reader’s sense of duty or outrage at some abuse, if a writer tries to use emotion merely for the sake of getting the reader to accept what should be a logical conclusion, the argument is a fallacy. For example, in the 1880s, prosecutors in a Virginia court presented overwhelming proof that a boy was guilty of murdering his parents with an ax. The defense presented a "not-guilty" plea for on the grounds that the boy was now an orphan, with no one to look after his interests if the court was not lenient. This appeal to emotion obviously seems misplaced, and the argument is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he did the crime.

Argument from Adverse Consequences: Asserting that an argument must be false because the implications of it being true would create negative results. For instance, “The medical tests show that Grandma has advanced cancer. However, that can’t be true because then she would die! I refuse to believe it!” The argument is illogical because truth and falsity are not contingent based upon how much we like or dislike the consequences of that truth. Grandma, indeed, might have cancer, in spite of how negative that fact may be or how cruelly it may affect us.

Argument from Personal Incredulity: Asserting that opponent’s argument must be false because you personally don’t understand it or can’t follow its technicalities. For instance, one person might assert, “I don’t understand that engineer’s argument about how airplanes can fly. Therefore, I cannot believe that airplanes are able to fly.” Au contraire, that speaker’s own mental limitations do not limit the physical world—so airplanes may very well be able to fly in spite of a person's inability to understand how they work. One person’s comprehension is not relevant to the truth of a matter.

COMPONENT FALLACIES: Component fallacies are errors in inductive and deductive reasoning or in syllogistic terms that fail to overlap.

Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with Circular Reasoning): If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove. For instance, suppose a particular student group states, "Useless courses like English 101 should be dropped from the college's curriculum." The members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument, illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody wants. Yes, we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing. However, those students never did prove that English 101 was itself a useless course--they merely "begged the question" and moved on to the next "safe" part of the argument, skipping over the part that's the real controversy, the heart of the matter, the most important component. Begging the question is often hidden in the form of a complex question (see below).

Circular Reasoning is closely related to begging the question. Often the writers using this fallacy word take one idea and phrase it in two statements. The assertions differ sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion. The speaker or author then tries to "prove" his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different words. Richard Whately wrote in Elements of Logic (London 1826): “To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments.” Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion. In the example, the author is repeating the same point in different words, and then attempting to "prove" the first assertion with the second one. A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: "God exists." "How do you know that God exists?" "The Bible says so." "Why should I believe the Bible?" "Because it's the inspired word of God."

The so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. Surely God deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this example!

Hasty Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter, also called “Jumping to Conclusions,” "Converse Accident"): Mistaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too few samples to prove a point. Example: "Susan failed Biology 101. Herman failed Biology 101. Egbert failed Biology 101. I therefore conclude that most students who take Biology 101 will fail it." In understanding and characterizing general situations, a logician cannot normally examine every single example. However, the examples used in inductive reasoning should be typical of the problem or situation at hand. Maybe Susan, Herman, and Egbert are exceptionally poor students. Maybe they were sick and missed too many lectures that term to pass. If a logician wants to make the case that most students will fail Biology 101, she should (a) get a very large sample--at least one larger than three--or (b) if that isn't possible, she will need to go out of his way to prove to the reader that her three samples are somehow representative of the norm. If a logician considers only exceptional or dramatic cases and generalizes a rule that fits these alone, the author commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

One common type of hasty generalization is the Fallacy of Accident. This error occurs when one applies a general rule to a particular case when accidental circumstances render the general rule inapplicable. For example, in Plato’s Republic, Plato finds an exception to the general rule that one should return what one has borrowed: “Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and asks for them when he is not in his right mind. Ought I to give the weapons back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so. . . .” What is true in general may not be true universally and without qualification. So remember, generalizations are bad. All of them. Every single last one. Except, of course, for those that are not.

Another common example of this fallacy is the misleading statistic. Suppose an individual argues that women must be incompetent drivers, and he points out that last Tuesday at the Department of Motor Vehicles, 50% of the women who took the driving test failed. That would seem to be compelling evidence from the way the statistic is set forth. However, if only two women took the test that day, the results would be far less clear-cut. Incidentally, the cartoon Dilbert makes much of an incompetent manager who cannot perceive misleading statistics. He does a statistical study of when employees call in sick and cannot come to work during the five-day work week. He becomes furious to learn that 40% of office "sick-days" occur on Mondays (20%) and Fridays (20%)--just in time to create a three-day weekend. Suspecting fraud, he decides to punish his workers. The irony, of course, is that these two days compose 40% of a five day work week, so the numbers are completely average. Similar nonsense emerges when parents or teachers complain that "50% of students perform at or below the national average on standardized tests in mathematics and verbal aptitude." Of course they do! The very nature of an average implies that!

False Cause: This fallacy establishes a cause/effect relationship that does not exist. There are various Latin names for various analyses of the fallacy. The two most common include these types:

Non Causa Pro Causa (Literally, "Not the cause for a cause"): A general, catch-all category for mistaking a false cause of an event for the real cause.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (Literally: "After this, therefore because of this"): This type of false cause occurs when the writer mistakenly assumes that, because the first event preceded the second event, it must mean the first event caused the later one. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't. It is the honest writer's job to establish clearly that connection rather than merely assert it exists. Example: "A black cat crossed my path at noon. An hour later, my mother had a heart-attack. Because the first event occurred earlier, it must have caused the bad luck later." This is how superstitions begin.

The most common examples are arguments that viewing a particular movie or show, or listening to a particular type of music “caused” the listener to perform an antisocial act--to snort coke, shoot classmates, or take up a life of crime. These may be potential suspects for the cause, but the mere fact that an individual did these acts and subsequently behaved in a certain way does not yet conclusively rule out other causes. Perhaps the listener had an abusive home-life or school-life, suffered from a chemical imbalance leading to depression and paranoia, or made a bad choice in his companions. Other potential causes must be examined before asserting that only one event or circumstance alone earlier in time caused a event or behavior later. For more information, see correlation and causation.

Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignorantio Elenchi): This fallacy occurs when a rhetorician adapts an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion and directs it to prove a different conclusion. For example, when a particular proposal for housing legislation is under consideration, a legislator may argue that decent housing for all people is desirable. Everyone, presumably, will agree. However, the question at hand concerns a particular measure. The question really isn't, "Is it good to have decent housing?" The question really is, "Will this particular measure actually provide it or is there a better alternative?" This type of fallacy is a common one in student papers when students use a shared assumption--such as the fact that decent housing is a desirable thing to have--and then spend the bulk of their essays focused on that fact rather than the real question at issue. It's similar to begging the question, above.

One of the most common forms of Ignorantio Elenchi is the "Red Herring." A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some side-point; for instance, “Senator Jones should not be held accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there are other senators who have done far worse things.” Another example: “I should not pay a fine for reckless driving. There are many other people on the street who are dangerous criminals and rapists, and the police should be chasing them, not harassing a decent tax-paying citizen like me.” Certainly, worse criminals do exist, but that it is another issue! The questions at hand are (1) did the speaker drive recklessly, and (2) should he pay a fine for it?

Another similar example of the red herring is the fallacy known as Tu Quoque (Latin for "And you too!"), which asserts that the advice or argument must be false simply because the person presenting the advice doesn't consistently follow it herself. For instance, "Susan the yoga instructor claims that a low-fat diet and exercise are good for you--but I saw her last week pigging out on Oreos, so her argument must be a load of hogwash." Or, "Reverend Jeremias claims that theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if Jeremias himself admits he stole objects when he was a child?" Or "Thomas Jefferson made many arguments about equality and liberty for all Americans, but he himself kept slaves, so we can dismiss any thoughts he had on those topics."

Straw Man Argument: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. His "victory" is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one, he has created a straw man argument.

For instance, one speaker might be engaged in a debate concerning welfare. The opponent argues, "Tennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers during the first year after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their newborn children." The second speaker retorts, "My opponent believes that some parasites who don't work should get a free ride from the tax money of hard-working honest citizens. I'll show you why he's wrong . . ." In this example, the second speaker is engaging in a straw man strategy, distorting the opposition's statement about medical care for newborn children into an oversimplified form so he can more easily appear to "win." However, the second speaker is only defeating a dummy-argument rather than honestly engaging in the real nuances of the debate.

Non Sequitur (literally, "It does not follow"): A non sequitur is any argument that does not follow from the previous statements. Usually what happened is that the writer leaped from A to B and then jumped to D, leaving out step C of an argument she thought through in her head, but did not put down on paper. The phrase is applicable in general to any type of logical fallacy, but logicians use the term particularly in reference to syllogistic errors such as the undistributed middle term, non causa pro causa, and ignorantio elenchi. A common example would be an argument along these lines: "Giving up our nuclear arsenal in the 1980's weakened the United States' military. Giving up nuclear weaponry also weakened China in the 1990s. For this reason, it is wrong to try to outlaw pistols and rifles in the United States today." There's obviously a step or two missing here.

The "Slippery Slope" Fallacy (also called "The Camel's Nose Fallacy") is a non sequitur in which the speaker argues that, once the first step is undertaken, a second or third step will inevitably follow, much like the way one step on a slippery incline will cause a person to fall and slide all the way to the bottom. It is also called "the Camel's Nose Fallacy" because of the image of a sheik who let his camel stick its nose into his tent on a cold night. The idea is that the sheik is afraid to let the camel stick its nose into the tent because once the beast sticks in its nose, it will inevitably stick in its head, and then its neck, and eventually its whole body. However, this sort of thinking does not allow for any possibility of stopping the process. It simply assumes that, once the nose is in, the rest must follow--that the sheik can't stop the progression once it has begun--and thus the argument is a logical fallacy. For instance, if one were to argue, "If we allow the government to infringe upon our right to privacy on the Internet, it will then feel free to infringe upon our privacy on the telephone. After that, FBI agents will be reading our mail. Then they will be placing cameras in our houses. We must not let any governmental agency interfere with our Internet communications, or privacy will completely vanish in the United States." Such thinking is fallacious; no logical proof has been provided yet that infringement in one area will necessarily lead to infringement in another, no more than a person buying a single can of Coca-Cola in a grocery store would indicate the person will inevitably go on to buy every item available in the store, helpless to stop herself. So remember to avoid the slippery slope fallacy; once you use one, you may find yourself using more and more logical fallacies.

Either/Or Fallacy (also called "the Black-and-White Fallacy," "Excluded Middle," "False Dilemma," or "False Dichotomy"): This fallacy occurs when a writer builds an argument upon the assumption that there are only two choices or possible outcomes when actually there are several. Outcomes are seldom so simple. This fallacy most frequently appears in connection to sweeping generalizations: “Either we must ban X or the American way of life will collapse.” "We go to war with Canada, or else Canada will eventually grow in population and overwhelm the United States." "Either you drink Burpsy Cola, or you will have no friends and no social life." Either you must avoid either/or fallacies, or everyone will think you are foolish.

Faulty Analogy: Relying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively. For example, “education is like cake; a small amount tastes sweet, but eat too much and your teeth will rot out. Likewise, more than two years of education is bad for a student.” The analogy is only acceptable to the degree a reader thinks that education is similar to cake. As you can see, faulty analogies are like flimsy wood, and just as no carpenter would build a house out of flimsy wood, no writer should ever construct an argument out of flimsy material.

Undistributed Middle Term: A specific type of error in deductive reasoning in which the minor premise and the major premise of a syllogism might or might not overlap. Consider these two examples: (1) “All reptiles are cold-blooded. All snakes are reptiles. All snakes are cold-blooded.” In the first example, the middle term “snakes” fits in the categories of both “reptile” and “things-that-are-cold-blooded.” (2) “All snails are cold-blooded. All snakes are cold-blooded. All snails are snakes.” In the second example, the middle term of “snakes” does not fit into the categories of both “things-that-are-cold-blooded” and “snails.” Sometimes, equivocation (see below) leads to an undistributed middle term.

Contradictory Premises (also known as a logical paradox): Establishing a premise in such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise. For instance, "If God can do anything, he can make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it." The first premise establishes a deity that has the irresistible capacity to move other objects. The second premise establishes an immovable object impervious to any movement. If the first object capable of moving anything exists, by definition, the immovable object cannot exist, and vice-versa.

Closely related is the fallacy of Special Pleading, in which the writer creates a universal principle, then insists that principle does not for some reason apply to the issue at hand. For instance, “Everything must have a source or creator. Therefore God must exist and he must have created the world. What? Who created God? Well, God is eternal and unchanging--He has no source or creator.” In such an assertion, either God must have His own source or creator, or else the universal principle of everything having a source or creator must be set aside—the person making the argument can’t have it both ways.

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY: These errors occur with ambiguous words or phrases, the meanings of which shift and change in the course of discussion. Such more or less subtle changes can render arguments fallacious.

Equivocation: Using a word in a different way than the author used it in the original premise, or changing definitions halfway through a discussion. When we use the same word or phrase in different senses within one line of argument, we commit the fallacy of equivocation. Consider this example: “Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection; I say that death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life.” Here the word end means "goal" in Plato's usage, but it means "last event" or "termination" in the author's second usage. Clearly, the speaker is twisting Plato's meaning of the word to draw a very different conclusion. Compare with amphiboly, below.

Amphiboly (from the Greek word "indeterminate"): This fallacy is similar to equivocation. Here, the ambiguity results from grammatical construction. A statement may be true according to one interpretation of how each word functions in a sentence and false according to another. When a premise works with an interpretation that is true, but the conclusion uses the secondary "false" interpretation, we have the fallacy of amphiboly on our hands. In the command, "Save soap and waste paper," the amphibolous use of "waste" results in the problem of determining whether "waste" functions as a verb or as an adjective.

Composition: This fallacy is a result of reasoning from the properties of the parts of the whole to the properties of the whole itself--it is an inductive error. Such an argument might hold that, because every individual part of a large tractor is lightweight, the entire machine also must be lightweight. This fallacy is similar to Hasty Generalization (see above), but it focuses on parts of a single whole rather than using too few examples to create a categorical generalization. Also compare it with Division (see below).

Division: This fallacy is the reverse of composition. It is the misapplication of deductive reasoning. One fallacy of division argues falsely that what is true of the whole must be true of individual parts. Such an argument notes that, "Microtech is a company with great influence in the California legislature. Egbert Smith works at Microtech. He must have great influence in the California legislature." This is not necessarily true. Egbert might work as a graveyard shift security guard or as the copy-machine repairman at Microtech--positions requiring little interaction with the California legislature. Another fallacy of division attributes the properties of the whole to the individual member of the whole: "Sunsurf is a company that sells environmentally safe products. Susan Jones is a worker at Sunsurf. She must be an environmentally minded individual." (Perhaps she is motivated by money alone?)

Fallacy of Reification (Also called “Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness” by Alfred North Whitehead): The fallacy of treating a word or an idea as equivalent to the actual thing represented by that word or idea, or the fallacy of treating an abstraction or process as equivalent to a concrete object or thing. In the first case, we might imagine a reformer trying to eliminate illicit lust by banning all mention of extra-marital affairs or certain sexual acts in publications. The problem is that eliminating the words for these deeds is not the same as eliminating the deeds themselves. In the second case, we might imagine a person or declaring “a war on poverty.” In this case, the fallacy comes from the fact that “war” implies a concrete struggle with another concrete entity which can surrender or be exterminated. “Poverty,” however is an abstraction that cannot surrender or sign peace treaties, cannot be shot or bombed, etc. Reification of the concept merely muddles the issue of what policies to follow and leads to sloppy thinking about the best way to handle a problem. It is closely related to and overlaps with faulty analogy and equivocation.

FALLACIES OF OMISSION: These errors occur because the logician leaves out necessary material in an argument or misdirects others from missing information.

Stacking the Deck: In this fallacy, the speaker "stacks the deck" in her favor by ignoring examples that disprove the point and listing only those examples that support her case. This fallacy is closely related to hasty generalization, but the term usually implies deliberate deception rather than an accidental logical error. Contrast it with the straw man argument.

‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy: Attempting to stack the deck specifically by defining terms in such a narrow or unrealistic manner as to exclude or omit relevant examples from a sample. For instance, suppose speaker #1 asserts, “The Scottish national character is brave and patriotic. No Scottish soldier has ever fled the field of battle in the face of the enemy.” Speaker #2 objects, “Ah, but what about Lucas MacDurgan? He fled from German troops in World War I.” Speaker #1 retorts, “Well, obviously he doesn't count as a true Scotsman because he did not live up to Scottish ideals, thus he forfeited his Scottish identity.” By this fallacious reasoning, any individual who would serve as evidence contradicting the first speaker’s assertion is conveniently and automatically dismissed from consideration. We commonly see this fallacy when a company asserts that it cannot be blamed for one of its particularly unsafe or shoddy products because that particular one doesn't live up to its normally high standards, and thus shouldn't “count” against its fine reputation. Likewise, defenders of Christianity as a positive historical influence in their zeal might argue the atrocities of the eight Crusades do not “count” in an argument because the Crusaders weren't living up to Christian ideals, and thus aren't really Christians, etc. So, remember this fallacy. Philosophers and logicians never use it, and anyone who does use it by definition is not really a philosopher or logician.

Argument from the Negative: Arguing from the negative asserts that, since one position is untenable, the opposite stance must be true. This fallacy is often used interchangeably with Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (listed below) and the either/or fallacy (listed above). For instance, one might mistakenly argue that, since the Newtonian theory of mathematics is not one hundred percent accurate, Einstein’s theory of relativity must be true. Perhaps not. Perhaps the theories of quantum mechanics are more accurate, and Einstein’s theory is flawed. Perhaps they are all wrong. Disproving an opponent’s argument does not necessarily mean your own argument must be true automatically, no more than disproving your opponent's assertion that 2+2=5 would automatically mean your argument that 2+2=7 must be the correct one. Keeping this mind, students should remember that arguments from the negative are bad, arguments from the positive must automatically be good.

Appeal to a Lack of Evidence (Argumentum Ad Ignorantium, literally "Argument from Ignorance"): Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true. An example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has been able to prove that they do not exist. Logicians know this is a logical fallacy because no competing argument has yet revealed itself.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad Speculum): Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone, or asserting that, if hypothetically X had occurred, Y would have been the result. For instance, suppose an individual asserts that if Einstein had been aborted in utero, the world would never have learned about relativity, or that if Monet had been trained as a butcher rather than going to college, the impressionistic movement would have never influenced modern art. Such hypotheses are misleading lines of argument because it is often possible that some other individual would have solved the relativistic equations or introduced an impressionistic art style. The speculation might make an interesting thought-experiment, but it is simply useless when it comes to actually proving anything about the real world. A common example is the idea that one "owes" her success to another individual who taught her. For instance, "You owe me part of your increased salary. If I hadn't taught you how to recognize logical fallacies, you would be flipping hamburgers at McDonald's for minimum wages right now instead of taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars as a lawyer." Perhaps. But perhaps the audience would have learned about logical fallacies elsewhere, so the hypothetical situation described is meaningless.

Complex Question (Also called the "Loaded Question"): Phrasing a question or statement in such as way as to imply another unproven statement is true without evidence or discussion. This fallacy often overlaps with begging the question (above), since it also presupposes a definite answer to a previous, unstated question. For instance, if I were to ask you “Have you stopped taking drugs yet?” my hidden supposition is that you have been taking drugs. Such a question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no answer. It is not a simple question but consists of several questions rolled into one. In this case the unstated question is, “Have you taken drugs in the past?” followed by, “If you have taken drugs in the past, have you stopped taking them now?” In cross-examination, a lawyer might ask a flustered witness, “Where did you hide the evidence?” or "when did you stop beating your wife?" The intelligent procedure when faced with such a question is to analyze its component parts. If one answers or discusses the prior, implicit question first, the explicit question may dissolve.

Complex questions appear in written argument frequently. A student might write, “Why is private development of resources so much more efficient than any public control?” The rhetorical question leads directly into his next argument. However, an observant reader may disagree, recognizing the prior, implicit question remains unaddressed. That question is, of course, whether private development of resources really is more efficient in all cases, a point which the author is skipping entirely and merely assuming to be true without discussion.

To master logic more fully, become familiar with the tool of Occam's Razor.

#Logic CriticalThinking

3 notes · View notes

dailykhaleej · 4 years

Text

UAE residents warned about get rich quick schemes peddled as legitimate DailyKhaleej articles

Rip-off alert Picture Credit score: DailyKhaleej

Dubai: DailyKhaleej has cautioned residents in opposition to a dodgy get-rich-quick scheme being promoted on an abroad web site as a legitimate DailyKhaleej report.

Peddled in an editorial type as a DailyKhaleej article, the artful advertorial falsely claims {that a} native businessman has backed a doubtful bitcoin funding alternative.

Because it seems, the pretend endorsement is a clickbait to use the gullibility of aspiring cryptocurrency traders.

A replica of the pretend DailyKhaleej article Picture Credit score: Screenshot

“The fraudsters have used the DailyKhaleej name to gain credibility. This is not a DailyKhaleej report and we have nothing to do with it. Anyone who invests will be doing so at their own risk,” warned the DailyKhaleej administration which has since filed complaints with related authorities.

Slipped into an abroad information portal utilizing malvertising assault (see field beneath), the report falsely claims that Emirati businessman Juma Al Majid appeared on The Dubai Speak Present with host Loubo Siois final week and introduced a brand new “wealth loophole” “which can transform anyone into a millionaire within 3-4 months”.

Louba Siosi, host of The Dubai Speak Present carried out no such interview Picture Credit score: Equipped

It even has a bogus quote from the distinguished businessman describing how Bitcoin Code – a shadowy automated buying and selling software program – makes him more cash (sic) than any of his ventures.

“Right now my number one money maker is a new crypto currency auto trading programme called Bitcoin Code. It’s the single biggest opportunity I have seen in my entire lifetime to build a small fortune fast. I urge everyone to check this out before the banks shut it down,” Al Majid has been quoted as saying throughout a tv programme with Loubo Siois, govt producer and host of The Dubai Speak Present.

Nevertheless, Siois, denied conducting any interview with Juma Al Majid. “This is not true. I did not conduct any such interview. I am aghast that my name has been used to promote a shady scheme. I am weighing legal action,” Sious instructed DailyKhaleej.

The deceptive article that includes Siosi and Al Majid flooded Fb information feeds Picture Credit score: Screenshot

The deceptive article that includes him and Juma Al Majid has been flooding the Fb feeds of unsuspecting UAE residents over the week.

Of late, a number of high-profile individuals within the UAE and overseas have been wrongly linked with comparable pretend advertorials involving binary choices, auto-trading and cryptocurrency.

Amongst them is English actuality tv choose and producer Simon Cowell. Someday again it was reported that he has invested £500,000 (Dh2.three million) of his personal capital into autotrading as ‘wealth creation system’.

One other sufferer Mark Lewis, who based the buyer web site MoneySavingExpert.com, has sued Fb for failing to cease the deceptive adverts.

The editorial type articles invariably carry names of main information shops – BBC within the UK, ARD in Germany and now DailyKhaleej within the UAE.

The “Pre-sale” touchdown web page is designed to construct belief with guests who’re then guided to a different touchdown web page. That is the place the rip-off occurs. Final 12 months, Sharjah primarily based Pakistani banker Roohi Imran misplaced $21,000 (Dh77,133) on a web based buying and selling platform after falling for the racket whereas looking a legitimate information web site.

“As I was scrolling down the home page, a catchy headline suddenly caught my attention. When I clicked it, I was taken to a page which featured stories about how people were making so much money from online trading that they had quit their jobs. The reports appeared so convincing that I believed them and decided to invest as well. By the time I realised my mistake, it was too late,” stated the girl whose misadventure has left her household in a debt spiral.

One other bogus Dubai report claimed a valet made US$1,280 in a single day Picture Credit score: Screenshot

“I opened an online account by making an investment of $1,250 but was tricked into putting more and more money in subsequent months,” she recalled.

4 of her youngsters haven’t returned to high school because the final summer season break due to unpaid charges whereas the fifth one hasn’t been capable of begin one as the household has no cash. Just a few days in the past a Keralite misplaced $500 to the rip-off after falling for a pretend information which detailed how a valet attendant at a Dubai lodge made $1,280 in single day afer investing $250 with Bitcoin Evolution.

There are numerous variations of the rip-off however most of them unfold similarly.

Pakistani Ruhi Imran displaying paperwork after shedding Dh77,000 in a dodgy on-line buying and selling platform Picture Credit score: Mazhar Farooqui, DailyKhaleej

How the rip-off unfolds

You might be looking a trusted web site if you spot an image of a celeb beneath a catchy headline. There’s nothing remotely to recommend it’s an commercial. As you click on on it, you might be guided to a 3rd celebration web page which describes how the celeb has reaped immense monetary advantages by investing in crypto forex, binary choices or auto buying and selling. And because the report is accompanied by the brand or title of a reputable information company, you might be satisfied it’s real. On the finish of the web page, is an online kind searching for your curiosity in becoming a member of the scheme.

No sooner have you ever plugged in your private particulars, you might be contacted by a fund supervisor and inspired to make an preliminary funding by forking out a small quantity in the direction of the acquisition of a crypto forex. You then obtain a hyperlink and login particulars to the ‘trading platform’ the place your crypto forex is being held. Over the following few days the worth of your holdings seems to extend, and your funding supervisor encourages you to purchase extra. Reassured, you shell out more cash. Weeks later, you’ve sunk as much as Dh10,000 into the scheme – though your crypto forex is valued at ten occasions the quantity on the buying and selling platform. Flush with pleasure, you resolve to get pleasure from your returns. So that you contact your fund supervisor who asks to first deposit his fee. You don’t thoughts giving one other Dh5,000 – into his checking account. and anticipate him to launch your funds. That decision by no means comes.

Want to stay vigilant

Marclino Fernandes, service supply head of data expertise at DailyKhaleej stated individuals want to stay vigilant in opposition to cyberattacks.

“Cybercriminals hide in the dark web to remain anonymous as they prey on unsuspecting people all day. They hop from one platform to another just like parasites hop from one host to another,” stated Fernandes. “We involve UAE authorities to crack down on them and apply technical controls to keep them at bay,” he added.

What’s malvertising?

Malvertising is a kind of assault wherein a cybercriminal injects malicious code into legitimate internet advertising networks. The code sometimes redirects customers to malicious web sites.

The assault permits perpetrators to focus on customers on extremely respected web sites to achieve of thousands and thousands of unsuspecting guests with a extremely profitable rip-off

Circumventing the ban

On January 30, 2018, Fb banned ads for binary choices buying and selling as effectively as for cryptocurrencies and preliminary coin (ICOs). Google and Twitter introduced comparable bans within the following weeks. But, some advertisers have discovered methods to bypass the ban by malvertising.

The UAE’s Nationwide Media Council launched Digital Media Rules in March 2018 to encourage digital media shops to supply dependable content material that meets the wants of various audiences. “The guide refers to electronic advertisements in the sphere of social media communication and stresses that all those who carry out advertising activities on a commercial basis need to obtain a prior licence from the council,” stated the NMC. “The council continues to be a part of meaningful efforts to maintain a practical framework to protect the public from advertisements that do not comply with the applicable standards.”

Final 12 months Fb and Instagram issued a press release to DailyKhaleej saying they take unlawful content material extremely significantly. “We are investing heavily in our security and content review teams, as well as smart technology such as machine learning and artificial intelligence to make both platforms a safer place for everyone,” the assertion stated,

“In many ways, we face sophisticated adversaries who continually challenge tactics to circumvent our controls, which means we must continuously build and adapt our efforts,” it added.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2SN5D6U via IFTTT

0 notes

lawyernovelist · 7 years

Text

Action/Adventure Writing: Interrogation

Sorry about the delay; I’ve been fighting writer’s block and coming to terms with the need to read Stalking Darkness again before reviewing it.

On with the next in my series! Interrogation is something that I've seen a lot of writers use to break up captivity scenes. Well, to be honest torture is something that I've seen a lot of writers use to break up captivity scenes. And yes, that is a job it does pretty well - it's active, visceral, and can be exciting.

I kind of wish there was a bit more variety, though.

Spoilers for The Force Awakens, the Hobbit movies through Desolation of Smaug, and Lord of the Rings. Warning for discussion of torture.

Despite the warnings, I'm actually planning to talk about torture as little as possible. This is a large part of my problem with a lot of the interrogation scenes I encounter, both in professional and fan work: everyone always reaches for the thumbscrews, and that's just... we need some variety.

I posit that a well-written interrogation scene should be less about brute force and how much gore and how many screams you can pack onto the page and more about a carefully-crafted battle of wits. Play mind games! Gouge deep into your characters!

Apart from anything else, let me engage in some serious talk for a moment. Interrogative torture is a big controversial issue. I personally am opposed to its use in all circumstances on moral grounds and also on practical grounds: it's often been shown to do more harm than good. The thing that's often said to justify it is that under torture the victim will say anything. And that's the problem: they'll say anything. You can get a lot of false stories out of someone who's just looking for a way to persuade you to take the electrodes away. And that's even before you've considered issues of moral high ground, co-operation with allies, and so forth.

OK, serious talk over. I'll go back to some of those issues, but I wanted to get my cards on the table good and clear as we go into this, since this is something that's being discussed and that has implications in the real world.

Yes, yes it does.

That having been said, of course I use it in my writing, and so do a lot of other people, and I'm not going to say that it should never appear. I just think we need some variety.

OK, so a lot depends on what the scene is even here for. And while I'll get to character motivation (again), I'm currently talking meta. There are plenty of reasons to have an on-screen interrogation scene. To name a few:

Motivation for holding the interrogated character prisoner

Clarifying the interrogators' knowledge and motivation generally

Providing a ticking clock and raising the stakes for other events

Of course, there are also perfectly good reasons not to have the interrogation happen on-screen, of which the best is suspense. Returning to my post on captivity sequences, a writer might prefer not to go into the point of view of a captured character at all in order to leave the audience wondering what's happening to him: Tolkien's handling of Frodo's capture by orcs in Return of the King is a good example of this technique. Throughout the sequence with Sam searching for Frodo, we have no idea what's happening to Frodo, so we share Sam's fear and suspense. Afterwards, once Frodo's been rescued, we learn that he was strip-searched and interrogated while a prisoner, but the suspense of not seeing that was more valuable than anything we might have gained by seeing it.

So ask why we actually need to see the interrogation at all and whether the story would be better served by another point of view.

Anyway, returning to those reasons that you might want to put this scene in. They're actually pretty powerful, and the first one in particular is why I think this is actually a really good choice for breaking the monotony in a captivity sequence: it answers what might otherwise be a question in a neat, well-integrated way.

The second and third require a bit more elaboration. What I mean by clarifying the interrogators' knowledge and motivation is that the readers can actually learn a surprising amount from what questions are being asked during an interrogation scene. "Who are you? Where do you come from? What do you want?" implies a very different level of knowledge and involvement to "What interest does House Elwood have in the heir of House Alpin?". Even with no other knowledge of the interrogators, we know from that second one that they know (or think they know) where the captured character comes from and they are also specifically interested in a particular aspect of the situation. That aspect might or might not have anything to do with the captured character, and that in turn can tell the audience something and give the author extra lines of plot to pursue.

The third thing - ticking clock and stakes - are more to do with other things going on in the story and with other characters than the characters actually in the scene. Say you have one character - Erain again - being held prisoner and interrogated about the actions of another - we'll call her Maethor - who is getting on with the rest of the plot. If we see Erain starting to waver and give up information, we know that Maethor is running out of time before her enemies will be able to know what she's doing. It adds suspense. As for stakes, the fact that Erain may be about to betray Maethor makes it important that she stop the interrogation in some way, whereas if we didn't see what was happening with him we would feel much more secure about her not doing anything about him being held prisoner.

On that note, incidentally, and as a sub-point of the second reason to include an interrogation scene, it's my opinion that if the antagonists are finding out information from a captured character and using it against the protagonists, it's only fair to let the reader know where they're getting that information, whether by having it told at some point or by actually seeing the captured character talk.

Oh, and by the way, I may have to catch myself and/or specify a few times, but all of what I'm saying here applies to interrogation of villains by heroes as well as heroes by villains.

So OK, you've decided to include an interrogation scene on-screen. How to go about doing it?

First of all, and returning to my point about variety, it might be cool if these scenes could be more, well... clever. I mean, think about it. This is at its heart about one character trying to wheedle information out of another character and using whatever means are needed to do so. And, yeah, those means can involve torture, but they don't have to.

I'm always in favour of battles of wits between characters, and it's actually another major reason to think twice before just writing a torture scene for interrogation. Apart from anything else, there are really only so many torture scenes you can write and they tend to be pretty generic. There's really not a lot of character involved in the standard torture scene.

Villain - Mwa ha ha! Tell me all of your secrets! Hero - I'll never talk! *torturing ensues, with appropriate amounts of screaming and blood, depending on method and variety of hero * Villain - Curses, he is too strong!

The only real difference the characters involved make is how much the hero screams.

Now consider the possibilities of a scene with clever questioning. I can't write a generic scene for that, and that's kind of the point. It also means you get to avoid the problem that I've actually pretty rarely seen heroic characters doing any interrogation where they're not morally-grey antiheroes prepared to use torture (Lookin' at you, Clive Cussler) or terrible at it (That one's for you, Desolation of Smaug).

Yep, it's the Hobbit Movies again. And they almost got away with it because I'd forgotten about this scene until I was thinking about examples where the character being interrogated was clearly way smarter than the characters doing the interrogating. Let's return to the Interrogation scene in Desolation of Smaug.

I already made fun of this scene pretty extensively, but let's go back to it from a meta perspective as a case study. The biggest problem, I think, is the fact that I almost declared it an entirely pointless scene. It actually isn't; if I set everything else aside it has several meta goals: it advances Thranduil's character as cold-hearted and borderline duplicitous, it shows us the lock-in moment for Tauriel going after Kili, and it raises the stakes for Kili by telling us more about his injury. The problems are that 1) All of that is completely buried in clutter, and more importantly 2) There's no in-universe reason for this scene.

Now, the first thing plays into the second, and if it were better-written wouldn't be a problem. You don't want to pare scenes down so much that there's nothing but the bare bones of what's needed for the plot, so I'm fine in theory with there being some extra content to put some flesh on the scene. However, there's a difference between content and clutter, and that's where the second thing comes in.

Why did Legolas decide to take this orc prisoner and why did Thranduil attempt to interrogate him?

And I mean their in-story motivations (there's that word again). They don't know about the structure of Tauriel's subplot or stakes for the audience, so they need an actual reason to go to this trouble, and there isn't one. At least, not one that matters.

Let me break that down a bit more: this is where the clutter problem comes in, because it's not clutter that's relevant to the characters involved. The orc is able to repeatedly change the subject and avoid answering the questions he's being asked and almost across the board the elves seem to neither notice nor care. In fact, in a couple of cases they actually abet him.

Legolas: What is Thorin Oakenshield to you?

Narzug: The Dwarf runt will never be King!

Legolas: King? There is no King under the mountain, nor will there ever be. None would dare to enter Erebor whilst the dragon lives.

Thank you for not pursuing your point and instead reiterating how much the world is against Thorin, Legolas. Perhaps you can also tell me why I should care whether you get any answers when you don't?

That's really the problem here: it's the old problem that I don't care about the outcome of the scene if the characters don't. To go into more detail, though, and pull out to the learning point, the issues are stakes and motivation. As I mentioned up above, like all the scenes I've talked about in this series the characters need to be motivated to get involved in the scene, and the more effort is being put into the interrogation the stronger the motivations need to be. Taking the Desolation of Smaug scene as an example again, the elves have put significant effort into capturing the orc, so they need to have a good reason to have done so, and that's why the fact that they seem to not particularly mind whether they get information or not is such a problem and makes the scene feel like such a waste of everyone's time.

And by the way, yes I know that apparently Thranduil gleaned all the information he needed to know from the orc's mention that "My master serves the One.", but given that that's never expanded on and doesn't really prompt him to change behaviour, just to continue doing the same thing in a smaller boundary, I don't think it counts for anything, especially when the specific questions the orc was asked went unanswered.

Anyway, on the subject of motivations and stakes, these also need to be demonstrated on the part of the character being interrogated, especially when they're actually a character rather than a walk-on like the orc. To give a relevant anecdote, I once read a fanfic that opened with Aragorn, having been captured by orcs, being interrogated and tortured for information about an unnamed companion. He insisted that he had been travelling alone, but because it was the very first scene in the story and the author didn't see fit to give us any of Aragorn's internal monologue, I spent the whole scene wondering if he was lying or not.

If, on the other hand, I'd known that (as I found out in the next scene after a POV switch) he was travelling with Legolas and they were scouting before the departure of the Fellowship from Rivendell, I might have been a lot more concerned that the orcs might get information out of him. The stakes would have been a lot higher.

Now, I was going to prescribe not opening your story with an interrogation scene for this reason: we won't know the stakes. However, I could have gleaned them from any internal monologue. The same goes for if I'd been in the POV of the interrogators - I could learn from their POV what the scene was about and how important it is that they get the information they want. Both of those are really important for a reader - or viewer - to know.

Returning to the world of film, let's have an example of an interrogation scene that I actually thought was done pretty well: Kylo Ren's interrogation of Rey in The Force Awakens. It's also worth noting that that film actually includes two interrogation scenes, because Ren interrogates Poe near the beginning of the film. However, I'm going to ignore that one for the time being because it cuts off halfway through the scene.

That having been said, it's a good example of a scene that didn't need to be on-screen. As Ren was leaving the room he states the information he learned from Poe; we don't actually need to see the process by which he dragged that information out of Poe's head. The one-line statement was much more efficient at getting the necessary information across to the audience than a full scene would have been, and it leaves everything else to our imaginations while still having shown just enough to advance Ren and Poe's characters.

Anyway, back to Ren and Rey. This is actually a really good interrogation scene, in my opinion, and we can start by pointing out one way in which it's superior to the Desolation of Smaug interrogation scene: it has a point both in and out of universe. Not only does it advance the characters and the story, but there's a reason for Ren to be interrogating Rey and he puts significant effort into pursuing the information he wants. He cares whether he gets the map from her. He actually tries to get it, and while he allows a bit of space in the conversation he's always driving towards that goal. Meanwhile, Rey resists him from hatred and spite to begin with and then also out of self-defence.

By the same token, the stakes have been set up: we know Ren is betting his reputation with Snoke on being able to get information from Rey, and we know that his methods have potential to harm Rey as well as just being violating. As a result, we know why it matters that she resists.

Now, it's true that Ren walks away before getting what he wanted from Rey. However, for one thing he doesn't kill her. He has the option to come back and carry on. For another thing, he walks away because she defeated him, not just because the scene had achieved its meta aims. For another, we saw him trying hard to get what he wanted despite her attempts to prevaricate and resist.

Now, I mentioned that there's some space in the conversation, and that's what I mean by the scene having some content other than what's needed for the plot. Structure-wise, this is building on the Midpoint (Rey's kidnapping), but all that's really needed for that is for her to now come face-to-face with Ren and begin developing her Force abilities. Here are some things we didn't need for that purpose:

Kylo Ren: You still want to kill me.

Rey: That happens when you're being hunted by a creature in a mask.

Kylo Ren: *Removes his mask*

That's the first time we come truly face-to-face with the antagonist, as well as continuing a theme of masks that's appeared a few times in this movie.

Kylo Ren: You know I can take whatever I want. *Almost touches her face, but she mentally pushes him away. He then crouches down beside her, touching her face* ... You're so lonely... so afraid to leave... At night, desperate to sleep... you imagine an ocean. I see it. I see the island... And Han Solo. You feel like he's the father you never had. He would've disappointed you.

Rey: Get out of my head!

A couple of bits of foreshadowing and some serious character points including what may be the creepiest moment in the movie.

Rey: ... You... you're afraid... that you will never be as strong as... Darth Vader!

Kylo Ren: *withdraws and leaves*

More character development as well as a major step in Rey's advancement.

The difference between this and the clutter in the Desolation of Smaug scene is that it means something for the characters and the story. It develops themes, it develops character, it foreshadows later developments. It's also actually relevant to the characters - no other two people could be substituted into this scene because of this extra content.

I... guess from the Desolation of Smaug scene we learn that Tauriel loves Kili, Thranduil's an asshole, and Legolas is in the movie? Invaluable.

Back at the top, I said that a well-written interrogation scene should be less about brute force and more about a carefully-crafted battle of wits with mind games and gouging deep into the characters. Well, technically the Force Awakens scene is... actually it's one step from being a rape scene, and that step is that Ren is violating Rey's mind rather than her body. This isn't a battle of wits, but of power. However, it's still got mind games: the way that Ren manipulates Rey's vulnerability and fear. It's still got character in every moment. The very fact that Ren reaches for mind-reading first tells us something: how different a character would he be if he looked at this captured scavenger with information he needed and his first option was to apologise for scaring her and then offer her money and a ride home in exchange for the map?

Back on point, back on point. This isn't about praising The Force Awakens. I think we can see from the comparison of those two case studies that regardless of style and regardless of which of protagonist or antagonist is interrogating or being interrogated, some points emerge:

The scene should have a point in the story: like any scene, it needs to advance plot, story, character, world, and preferably more than one.

There needs to be an in-story reason the characters are going to all this trouble. The author's knowledge that over the course of the interrogation some information will be revealed that will make it worthwhile is not good enough - Ren had an original reason to be questioning Rey even though he actually learned something else.

Consider salting the scene with as much other character development as you can stuff in. Every word counts. Silence counts, if used well.

Avoid clutter. Everything needs an internal and an external reason to be there, whether it's a power-play that also develops character or a deliberate diversion that shows intelligence and cunning.

On the topic of that last one, here's another example: Faramir's questioning of Frodo in The Two Towers. The book, that is. Now, I would still class this as an interrogation; Faramir's still asking questions and Frodo's not free to end the conversation and leave. Of the three case studies I've brought up, this is the one that is just words; there's no immediate threat to Frodo.

Faramir has a motive: he wants to find out who these trespassers are and what they're doing. Frodo has a motive: he wants to keep his quest a secret. This scene in a big way introduces Gondor as well as leading into the last friendly place Frodo and Sam are going to get before the end of the quest. It has some lovely character moments for Faramir and Sam in particular, and one of those things is how and when Faramir backs off.

Unlike Ren, Faramir isn't repulsed and defeated; he chooses to change the subject, divert the topic of questioning, and move on. However, that does not mean he's not keen on getting answers. For one thing, he has a lot of subject matter and the topic of what Frodo knows about Boromir's death is still very important. For another, he's started to guess at the sort of secret he might be getting close to, and even if he wants to know it himself he does not want it broadcast. His choice to divert shows that intelligence, and he returns to the topic later, more privately.

This exchange actually is a battle of words and cleverness, and the way the characters manoeuvre around one another shows that. It's also a demonstration that the character being interrogated isn't the only one who might benefit from carefully changing the subject!

Just before I summarise, I'd like to go into one more topic: lying. A lot of the time, it seems that the options available to the character being interrogated are 1) Tell the truth, or 2) Remain silent, and writers who do that are missing some interesting opportunities. Apart from anything else, I don't think it says much about the intelligence of the characters doing the interrogating when they just take everything they're told as the truth.

Narzug: We shot the hunky dwarf with a Morgul shaft. The poison’s in his blood; he’ll be choking on it soon.

Tauriel: ... Sure. OK. Who sent you?

Narzug: Wait, aren't you upset? I just told you that your One True Love is dying!

Tauriel: What, I'm just going to take your word for it? Give me some more related and verifiable information and maybe I'll be better able to conclude you're telling the truth.

Interrogation Remix #11

No, really, Tauriel had no evidence except the orc's word that Kili had been poisoned.

Actually, it probably contributes to the use of torture as a failsafe interrogation technique in fiction - nobody ever lies to make the pain stop!

Anyway, there are rational reasons for a character to not lie. For example, Frodo and Faramir were not enemies, Frodo's a painstakingly honest person by nature, and there wasn't really a lie he could tell that wouldn't cause a bigger problem, so it makes sense for Frodo not to lie to Faramir and instead to just refuse to answer him.

Furthermore, lies can be difficult to keep track of and a character may be aware that being caught in a lie could result in something worse than staying silent. For example, a character being interrogated by the police may feel that it's safer to say nothing than to risk (depending on circumstances) adding a definite perjury charge to his problems.

So while both of those are true, it would be cool to see characters lie under these circumstances a little more often. Again, these scenes should be as clever as you can possibly make them while staying true to the characters and their circumstances!

So, to finally summarise:

Think about five times before incorporating torture.

Motivation, motivation, motivation.

Like all scenes, an interrogation scene needs a reason to be a) in the story and b) shown on-screen/page.

There are lots of great opportunities for character development, especially through dialogue and power differential. Use them.

That having been said, if something makes the scene lose focus, it's clutter (unless the characters are doing it on purpose).

Consider all three options: truth, silence, and lies.

Here's to more interesting interrogation scenes!

#Thoughts on Action and Adventure Scenes #writing

9 notes · View notes

technoprophecy · 6 years

Photo

A Dog’s Way Home

We watched as a family the movie called A Dog’s Way Home, about a dog trying to find his long way home. The story is told from the perspective of the dog, which is often humorous, sometimes sad, and quite loving. My 11 year old liked it, but he only understood layer one of the movie. I was so happy about that fact, for the real undercurrent story was something else entirely.

Who doesn’t like a good story about a lovable dog right? I wish it was that easy, but that is not the world we live in today. We no longer live in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. I remember the original Disney The Incredible Journey about 3 pets looking for their master. So innocent, but no longer. We live in a culture now completely saturated with leftist ideology and LGBTQ brainwashing. So much so, that these things happen in front of us on the screen and now in real life without the majority of us even knowing or understanding what is taking place.

The dog’s owner in the movie is a likeable young white guy that eventually falls in love with a beautiful black girl. No problem there. Towards the conclusion, they are shown as a happy married couple. But along our circuitous way in the story, we are served a sometimes subtle and sometimes blatant smorgasbord of Hollywood’s myopic version of leftist America.

The very wimpy dog catcher is called a racist by our young black heroine because he is upholding the law of Denver that says no pitbulls are allowed in the city limits, and that is apparently the breed from which our star dog is derived. We are later given, by a sympathetic lady dog pound employee, a graying of the lines of what a pitbull actually is in reality. This of course gives the audience a reason to ask why is our innocent doggie being chased by the mean old wimpy man.

Later, not to mention the virtue signaling by minority groups in the cast throughout the movie, the wimpy dog catcher is man-handled, or should I say woman-handled by the dog owner’s mother. He is completely overwhelmed by her simply holding his wrist tightly, and her speaking toughly. She tells him that he will allow the doggie to be loaded up in a car, that will take our star far away to the state of New Mexico, so she won’t be caught a second time and euthanized. Yes, by the way, our doggie is a girl, and by the way, most of the likeable people in the movie are females. White guys don’t rate in Hollywood anymore, unless they are LGBTQ or somehow repentant for being a tough guy. Yet, without tough guys there would be no freedom because they fight our wars. Think about that one for a minute.

Moving the dog away from her home, of course, sets up the long distance journey home. Meanwhile, the wimpy dog catcher guy keeps looking at his wrist as if to say to the woman, owe you’re hurting my arm. The tetesterone in me wants to shout out, REALLY? That is all it takes for a law enforcement officer who fights pitbulls for a living to be shaken up and demoralized? Give me a break Hollywood.

By the way, most of the law enforcement in the movie are presented in a negative light for upholding the law. Laws are so passé to the Hollywood left, it makes you wonder why we even have laws in our society. They don’t do anything anyway, but only save lives, protect our private property, provide for the common defense, and keep our country together and in order. Who needs mean old boundaries and borders anyway? We are good without them, right?

Then during the long journey home, we are introduced to the homosexual couple, a white guy and a black guy. We are slowly shown that they aren’t just skiing buddies, but live together; celebrate together with a new bottle of champagne as a gift from one to the other for their book being published; and then we finally see their shiny wedding rings twinkle in the sun. Such a happy couple. There is no touching between them, but the message is loud and clear that this is the new normal for all of us to accept and even to celebrate as we do the marriage of the dog owner and his new pretty wife.

From a Biblical standpoint, this is complete hogwash. I have to wonder though if Christians watching this movie even batted an eye at this Hollywood masterpiece? We have been served up this wrotten feast so often we have become calloused to its true meaning. Face it. Christians have grown up with Ellen Degeneris in their living rooms, and they apparently like it. But for the sake of our children and posterity, we absolutely should do more than bat an apathetic eye. We need a full WAKE UP call to the church!

People, hear me on this. Our choices in life do absolutely have consequences. God tells us in Paul’s letter to the Romans that the homosexual and lesbian relationships, and all things LGBTQ, will end in the utter wrath of God and finally death. We must never forget, but remember what occurred in Sodom and Gomorrah. Before Paul began his ministry to Rome, he laid the Biblical foundation in chapter one by stating the facts boldly. God will give over the homosexual and the lesbian, (and we could add, all the LGBTQ alphabet), to their lusts and passions. The result of this giving over by God, is that their chances of ever recovering from their sexual addictions are slim to none. That is why it is so all important we as Christians need to tow the line, know the Word, and preach the Word in season and out of season.

There are no gray areas here, no ambiguity in Scripture on this issue of LGBTQ. Did you hear that? None whatsoever, Ellen Degeneris not withstanding. I understand there are many so-called Christians today talking about gay orientations and transgender orientations and all the LGBTQ+ alhabet orientations. But it is completelly false, and not even close to what Scripture teaches. LGBTQ is sin period, and there will be no self-identifying LGBTQ person in Heaven. That is a sobering thought. Professing Christian, if you still identify with LGBTQ, you won’t be with the family of God in Heaven. Listen to the Apostle Paul. He is the Christian’s timeless authority on this subject as he was inspired by God to write without error. We don’t need any Scriptural updates from the APA (American Psychological Association), which is human wisdom inspired by doctrines of demons.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

We wouldn’t ever say there is an adulterer orientation. Or a thief orientation. Or a swindler orientation. Would we? Or any other kind of orientation on this list. Yet, we are being told that there is an exception when it comes to the effeminate and to the homosexual. That God created the LGBTQ person with that identity, even that God blesses them. If so, then we might as well say God created the thief and the swindler, and blesses them; and God will steal you blind when the offering plate is passed next Sunday morning. That is complete nonsense.

Look further on in the passage. Paul goes on to say, “Such were some of you.” Did you notice the past tense? You were once identified this way before you came to Christ, but you are not this anymore. He goes on, “but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

There is no doubt in the matter, that once Christ washes us from all these sins, that we identify with these sins NO MORE. Therefore, the current popular teaching of supposed LGBTQ orientation is completely false, and dangerous. That is emphatic teaching people. Paul goes on to state in another place.

“Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

So let’s put this LGBTQ orientation teaching to rest people. The only victory for homosexuality is conversion to Jesus Christ period. Remember, it is LGBTQ that are asking for special status, not the others. So they and those that give them theological sanctuary need to hear what Paul is preaching. By the way, some do want to be washed, but the church is now telling them, no you are ok the way you are; you were made by God that way. In California law 2943 was passed that makes conversion therapy for homosexuals illegal. That is completely unbelievable, and what is more unbelievable is so-called Christian conservatives were pushing for this law to be passed, and it did pass both houses.

It is neither right nor good to continue on this false track that will lead no where good, but to our complete demise. There is no LGBTQ orientation, only sin. We should resist both the false gospel of Hollywood, and the false teachers in the church. LGBTQ is in reality a tragic life that is a kind of living death. Yet, we are being brainwashed to believe the total opposite, that it is somehow beautiful with twinkling wedding rings. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Our children absolutely deserve the church to be CRYSTAL CLEAR on our teaching on LGBTQ. Without the true church teaching boldly and courageously the time honored Word of God, our children are DOOMED!. Our children don’t stand a chance if we desert them now at their hour of utmost need. For them to grow up and believe that LGBTQ is normal in the movies and in real life; and being brainwashed to believe by those in the church that there are no consequences for sin, is calling God a liar, and inviting God’s judgment upon us and our nation.

When Abraham asked God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if there were just 10 righteous people, he discovered the stark truth when he rose early the next morning to observe the rising smoke of the cities, and their utter judgment and destruction.

Genesis 19:27-28 “Now Abraham arose early in the morning and went to the place where he had stood before the Lord; and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the valley, and he saw, and behold, the smoke of the land ascended like the smoke of a furnace.“

Tragically, there weren’t even 10 people who knew or cared about God’s Word, and even the children were swept up in the fire and brimstone and destroyed along with their wicked fathers and mothers.

What will we as followers of the Lord Jesus Christ and parents of our dear little ones decide? Are the children precious to us enough to stand and fight against the tidal wave of luke warm and compromised Christianity? Or will Christ spew us out of His mouth because we were neither hot nor cold? I beg you to join the fight, and raise the banner of truth in front of an evil and perverse generation before it is too late, even when that means confronting a hostile world and a denomination given over to heresy. Wake up church!

0 notes

gloriascott93 · 8 years

Text

Contradictions in the creator quotes

I now stand firmly corrected in my misassumption that the big reveal would mean we would revisit the entire show in light of the ending and see an intricate plan. An emotional context we the audience were meant to miss. I was right. As were others. Problem was, it was a sister all along. Unfortunately the sister rugpull rather than a romance rug pull is the less convincing story arc. What we got instead was a finale that makes in retrospect much of what preceded it seem nonsensical at surface level if we accept the finale as the “solution” or the definitive story. How did we get that wrong? I was never a conspiracy fan. It relied on too much “it can only mean one thing” from mountains of data. When the narrative and the claims of creators lying as a benevolent secret keeping was all that was necessary to see a romantic endgame. I opted always for a simple solution. The simplest most probable answer. And that was heavily reliant on my trust in Mofftiss as good storytellers and good show runners. That was for me my biggest error.

If this was not “gay” but “trash”, how did it to get to be *this* trash? How is it we were so wrong in predicting the endgame across various different theory camps of this fandom? What weaknesses on their part were we overlooking? Or not privy to? Or ignoring. Or not adequately assessing - so that coincidences were ironically a sign of laziness, or clever writing instead turns out to be poor writing - a series of tricks rather than a plan?

Because the end result is simultaneously infuriating and “Meh.” Two things that should not comfortably go together. A rug pull should leave you so impressed you don’t mind being infuriated. You applaud and shout, “oh you tricked me! Well done! How DID you do it?!” And yet, here we are.

Some fans are deciding to keep the faith - hoping for a final rug pull that will show they really were as good as we believed. I’m not there. I am opting to make a deduction and coming to a probable conclusion based on the data we have. No conspiracy. No cruel intentions. Just a series of unfortunate events.

For as much as I am loathe to say this, I think from an executive production point of view, the absence of someone like Steven Thompson means the absence of a critical third voice. I don’t know why he left but he should have been replaced by *someone*. Mofftiss were clearly given far too much credit and license. Where was the necessary script editing to rein in their now glaringly patent self indulgent natures? Keeping secrets to the degree they have, and being allowed to, has been proven a big executive error. Because no one was able to say hold on, how will this play out coherently? Virtually every single thing that frustrates the viewer from TEH on right through to the last frame of TFP could have been avoided if they had had a 3rd voice they listened to and who had the authority to thoroughly critique their plans. They were over indulged in all the wrong places.

TAB was a masterpiece but I suspect not for the reasons *they* think it was. They literally do not appear to have seen what it was they were writing. Or they did and defied the results on screen. Every critique I have, or have seen, comes down in the end to that. Letting them keep secrets from their cast and crew was a glaring warning that there was no one with the authority or the necessary expertise on board to keep them in check and join up the dots.

Moffat and Gatiss have clearly been working without an outside writer’s voice who has authority that they would listen to. Since TEH it has been a problem that only compounds. The errors build on themselves. It resulted in a finale that many critics and fans are unconvinced by for *multiple different* reasons. It was only at the end that we see just how much they were driving the show haphazardly and possibly the wrong direction.

There’s an analogy that comes to mind. One reason a manager is paid more than their secretary is that if the secretary makes a mistake their errors have less consequences in the grand scheme. You will likely notice their failings very quickly. The manager meanwhile has the ability to make errors that will not only have bigger impact but will not necessarily be immediately obvious. The more power you have the longer it will take for the true and full negative impact of your decisions to be realized. Because as a decision plays out it creates other decisions in a ripple effect that take time to play out. Of course you can offset this by critiquing the decisions before finalizing them, and thinking through what the consequences might be. If you don’t then what will happen? You can only trust the manager. You assume *they* have thought it through and assessed the potential flaws and risks and negative outcomes. That they have a plan to offset any negative consequences or prevent them from happening. Making sound decisions demands either a high level of self-critique or a system that lets criticism in. To test your plan. To raise the issue of unintended consequences. Not with an intention of blocking success but to *ensure* it.

This show was, I fear, failing at that far earlier than anyone really knew and I don’t think TBTB see it even now. A clear warning flag that many of us picked up on at the time was AA not being told Mary was going to be revealed an assassin. That was an error that not only impacted her performance (think of her as a secretary who realizing an error she didn’t even mean to make or even knew she was making then has to then self-correct on the fly). but it crucially should have signaled a much bigger managerial error that would have a series of far more fundamental negative results. That secrecy meant that no one else got to say, um… are you sure about this plot line? Have you planned any of this out adequately and considered the long term consequences on the narrative? Because if you head down this path you may not be able to undo it. You can’t just make it up as you go. Think this all out. How will this all fit? What ongoing story are you serving here? Where do you want to land?

But the manager was trusted rather than questioned. The only negative consequence was thought to be its impact on Amanda. No biggie. She’s a professional. She can recalibrate to accommodate the performance errors she unwittingly made. Tiny errors that Mofftiss assumed were no big deal, having incorrectly assumed that it would be a better surprise reveal if she was acting blind of what was to come. But that meant she was serving a different story than them. She had no choice but to. It put emphases in potentially the wrong places. Her fellow actors are in turn then reacting to her acting choices and she is reacting to them. But that notion that if they don’t know anything, or, “just assume your character knows nothing because it doesn’t matter”, is not how acting works. They didn’t trust her. I suspect they were doing this all along to their actors. Not actually trusting their skills or adequately hearing their own unfolding insights from inside the characters. So that the cast were acting repeatedly on false sets of assumptions. So too probably were the directors and crew. As a result, what shows up on screen is not what they all think they are making. They all think they are making a slightly different show.

And the widest gap is between what Mofftiss had in their heads and what was on screen. Next down the pecking order is what Martin and Ben thought they were doing. In light of TFP there are acting choices and editing choices over which take of a scene to use (going by the commentaries) that suggest there was no 3rd party with the authority to hear their conversations and say, have you considered that the actors understand the characters better than you do? If that’s true, how might they see the path they are on? Do you realize that if you use this take you are placing an emphasis you should then follow through on.

And no one had the power to point it out and not be shrugged off. So in retrospect, there are scenes that now seem totally overplayed or emotionally on the wrong foot. And the problem is, which ones were out of character in light of TFP? Because I think that’s up for debate.

This was a show attempting to be very clever and yet apparently was very much NOT thought through. The fundamental fan error was assuming stuff could not possibly be coincidence. Others went further and assumed not just endgame narrative but an incredibly intricate conspiracy that they were hiding in plain sight so the fans could guess what the end game was.

But that was never the only option. The one thing that kept getting sidelined was the possibility that they thought they all knew what they were doing but didn’t. That their plans were flawed. And that it wasn’t that they were intentionally writing a narrative that fans could subtextually read. Rather the creators could not see it. Which produced a ton of unintended coincidences. They wrote it and acted it and designed around it and scored it and could not see the wood for the trees. Because what Mofftiss said ultimately ruled at the end. And that is paradoxically *why* the love story works. Why there are so many coincidences. Because the story we read fitted the rules of storytelling even while Mofftiss tried to defy those very rules. To insist they weren’t telling it. They simply ignored what many others could see - the story they were telling in spite of themselves. They assumed their intent was more powerful a force. And in that burned the heart out of their own show. So that the finale focused on Sherlock and Eurus in a self indulgent Bond meets gothic horror genre fantasy when in fact this was always meant to be about Sherlock and John. Even platonically, they failed in TFP to deliver on that adequately. They shoved it to the side so it was virtually a subplot. The wrote the wrong kind of ending for a story they were all unconsciously writing, acting, directing, designing, scoring. The very heart of ACD’s stories. The bond between the 2 heroes. A love story, even if one that was limited in its physical or sexual expression.

They tried to refocus at the end on John and Sherlock and in their fast cut blink and you miss it montage they made yet another massive error. A huge one. They gave Mary the voice that rightly belonged to go back to John - the Boswell, the blogger, the original storyteller. So he could explain what he and Sherlock are. They did it in TAB. Sherlock understood that in TAB. That John’s public narrative is not the truth. That there is an emotional story the public doesn’t see. An emotional Sherlock the Strand reading or blog reading public doesn’t see. They should have let Sherlock’s intuition and unconscious insight be proven right in real life in the 21st century. They should have replayed that aspect of TAB in the real world. Instead, confusingly, they did the exact opposite - so much so John couldn’t tell if Sherlock was faking his own self destruction. He couldn’t tell the story if he tried. He needed a second opinion. A big clue that they had made a mistake - the same mistake that led them to introduce Mary’s DVD messages:

Mary was never the storyteller. But they tried to make her one. It was a very flawed decision. One of so many. All interlinked. And all ultimately as result of not thinking it through. They stopped serving the core story and served themselves on a personal fan boy level. They tried to be clever and completely missed the emotional context which they claimed was what this show was supposed to all be about. At a surface textual level. And a brief montage of the future feels like a rushed and inadequate pay off to that original intent. With the wrong narrator - with Mary as our intermediary - we are now inexplicably kept more at a distance from them than we were at the start. After going through hell with them.

I suspect that around TRF they began to lose the plot. They began to think details don’t matter. Even though they then discovered fans were weaving intricate explanations for how sherlock lived they persisted in letting details go. Waving it all off to please themselves and evade scrutiny. Mistake. All the contradictions in cast and crew commentaries and interviews point to that. And fans, me included, assumed they were smarter than that. We kept trying correct the story to make it make sense by assuming they must be telling a different story. Problem was we didn’t give enough air time to imagining a trash ending and looking for clues of what it might be. We wrote far too generous meta. We gave them way more credit than they were due. They really weren’t the storytellers we thought they were. They were just fan boys amusing themselves for a rug pull that was in the end not very interesting or as original as they think. And certainly not groundbreaking. Rather than correcting what everyone else got wrong, they hatched up an inadequate plan and made poor decisions. Everyone else put far too much trust in them as writers. And it all culminated in an ending that throws up huge retrospective questions about swathes of what preceded it. It potentially breaks the story so that a rewatch will not make sense.

I see little or no reason to come to any other conclusion. It fits all the rules of probability. They just weren’t good enough writers. They put ego before the heart of the narrative and were indulged by too many others.

There may be other probable conclusions. But the least generous is the most sense making one to my mind right now. It requires no leaps of logic.

#the final problem

1K notes · View notes

journalsandlogsofimpossibilities · 6 years

Text

Crime-related slang:

baby grand: heavily built man

barrel house: illegal distillery

beef: a complaint or to complain

behind the eight ball: in a difficult position, in a tight spot

belt: a drink of liquor

bent car: stolen car

bit: prison sentence

boiler: car

box: a safe or a bar

box job: a safecracking

brace (somebody): grab, shake up

bracelets: handcuffs

bull: a policeman or law-enforcement official, including FBI

bump off: to murder, to kill

burn powder: fire a gun

button man: professional killer

call copper: inform the police

caper: a criminal act or robbery

century/C: $100; a pair of Cs: $200

cheese it: put things away, hide

chewing gum: double-speak, or ambiguous talk.

Chicago lightning: gunfire

Chicago overcoat: coffin

Chicago typewriter: a Thompson sub-machine gun

chilled off: killed

chisel: to swindle or cheat

chump: a person marked for a con or a gullible person

clean sneak: an escape with no clues left behind

clubhouse: police station

chopper: a Thompson sub-machine gun

chopper squad: men with machine guns

clam: a dollar

cool: to knock out

cooler: jail

crab: figure out

crushed out: escaped (from jail)

daylight, as in "fill him with daylight": put a hole in, by shooting or stabbing

dib: share (of the proceeds)

don't know from nothing: doesn't have any information

dope: drugs, esp. cocaine or opium

drill: to shoot

drop a dime: make a phone call, sometimes meaning to the police to inform on someone

droppers: hired killers

drum: speakeasy

duck soup: easy, a piece of cake

dust out: leave, depart

Edisoned: questioned

embalmer: a bootlegger

fog: to shoot

fuzz: the police

gat: gun

glaum: steal

goog: black eye

goon: thug

grifter: con man

grand/large: $1000

hatchet men: killers, gunmen

heat: the police

heater: gun

heavy sugar: a lot of money

heeled: carrying a gun

highbinders: corrupt politician or functionary

hinky: suspicious

hock shop: pawnshop

hogs: engines

hot: stolen

ice: diamonds

jam: trouble, a tight spot

juice joint: speakeasy

kale: money

kick off: die

lay off: cut the crap

lead: bullets

lead poisoning: to be shot

left holding the bag: to be blamed for something

line: a false story, as in “to feed one a line.”

made: recognized

moll: a gangster’s girl

nailed: caught by the police

newshawk: reporter

on the lam: fleeing from authorities

on the level/on the up and up: legitimate, honest

orchid: an expensive item

packing heat: carrying a gun

paste: punch

patsy: person who is set up; fool, chump

peaching: informing

pen: penitentiary, jail

pigeon: stool-pigeon

pinch: to arrest or to steal

plug: to shoot

pull a Daniel Boone: to throw up

put the screws on: question, get tough with

quiff: prostitute or promiscuous person

rap: criminal charge

rat: inform

rats and mice: dice, i.e. craps

real McCoy: the genuine article

Roscoe: gun

rotgut: bootleg liquor

sap: a fool, an idiot

scratch: money

scratcher: forger

shyster: lawyer

sing: make a confession

sitting pretty: in a prime position

snake charmer: a woman involved in bootlegging

snitch: an informer, or to inform

squirrel: to hide

stiff: a corpse

take someone for a ride: to take someone to a deserted location and murder them

tiger milk: some sort of liquor

tighten the screws: put pressure on someone

tip a few: to have a few drinks

torpedo: a hired thug or hitman

trip for biscuits: wild goose chase

trouble boys: gangsters

under glass: in jail

wearing iron: carrying a gun

whisper sister: female proprietor of a speakeasy

white lightning: bootleg liquor

Slang Bill uses most or others use most to talk about him:

all wet: incorrect

attaboy!/attagirl!: well done!

blow: (1) a crazy party (2) to leave

cash: a kiss

cash or check?: do we kiss now or later?

cast a kitten/have kittens: to have a fit

cat's meow: great, also "cat's pajamas" and "cat's whiskers”

choice bit of calico: attractive female, student

copacetic: excellent

dame: a pretty woman

dapper: fine appearance for a man's clothing

dish: a pretty woman

get a slant: take a look

giggle water: booze

hair of the dog: a shot of alcohol.

half seas over: drunk, also "half under."

hotsy–totsy: pleasing

icy mitt: rejection

Jane: any female

keen: attractive or appealing

kisser: mouth

know one's onions: to know one's business or what one is talking about

“let’s blouse!”: “let’s blow this popsicle stand!”

off one's nuts: mentally imbalanced

off the track: describes a person who becomes insanely violent

Oliver Twist: a skilled dancer

pan: face

panic: to produce a big reaction from one's audience

piker: A coward

pos-i-lute-ly: absolutely, affirmative

prune pit: anything that is old-fashioned

quilt: a drink that warms one up

screwy: crazy

sheba: girlfriend

skirt: a pretty woman

spifflicated: drunk

spill: to talk

streeted: thrown out of a party

tasty: appealing

tight: attractive

vamp: (1) an aggressive flirt (2) to seduce

what’s eating you?: what’s wrong?

windsucker: a braggart

wrong number: not a good fellow

ya follow?: do you understand?

you slay me!: that’s funny!

Slang Dipper uses most or others use most to talk about him:

applesauce/horsefeathers: flattery, nonsense, e.g. "Aw, applesauce!”

balled up: confused, messed up

cake-eater: a lady's man

canceled stamp: A shy girl at a dance or party

flat tire: a bore

grummy: sad

Jake: OK, fine, e.g. "everything's Jake.”

mill: typewriter

milquetoast: a timid person

Mrs. Grundy: a priggish or extremely tight-laced person

so's your old man - expression of sarcasm

wise head: a smart person

wurp: a killjoy

Slang for Pacifica:

bearcat: a fiery girl

egg: a person who lives the big life

handcuff: engagement ring

high hat: a snob

insured: engaged

middle aisle: to marry

Miscellaneous slang:

and how!: very much so!

ankle: to walk, e.g. "let's ankle!”

bank's closed: no kissing or making out, e.g. "sorry, mac, bank's closed"

bent: drunk

berries: (1) perfect (2) money

bushwa: a euphemism for “bullshit"

canned: drunk

chin: conversation; chinning: talking

chin music: gossip

clammed: close-mouthed (clammed up)

coffin varnish: bootleg liquor - often poisonous

darb: a great person or thing

dimbox: a taxi

dimbox jaunt: a taxi ride

dip the bill: have a drink

dogs: feet

dry up: shut up, get lost

ducky: very good

dud up: to dress up

edge: intoxication, a buzz

fella: fellow (as common in its day as “man," "dude," or "guy" is today)

flogger: overcoat

fried: drunk

get in a lather: get worked up, angry

get sore: get mad

go chase yourself: get lost, scram

greenland: a park

grungy: envious

hit on all sixes: to perform 100 per cent; from "hitting on all six cylinders"

iron one’s shoelaces: to go to the restroom

jaw: talk

lay off: cease action

level with me: be honest

mac: man

mitt: hand

nifty: excellent, great

now you’re on the trolley!: now you’ve got it, now you’re right

ossified: drunk

owl: A person who’s out late, a night owl

petting: making out

piffle/bunk/hokum: baloney

pipe down: stop talking

punch the bag: small talk

rain pitchforks: a downpour

razz: to make fun of

Reuben: a country bumpkin

rhatz: how disappointing, or “darn!”

rub: a student dance party

rummy: a drunken bum

says you: disbelief

scram: ask someone to leave immediately

screw: get lost, get out, etc.

smoked: drunk

spiffy: looking elegant

stilts: legs

swell: (1) good (2) high class

tell it to Sweeney: tell it to someone who is gullible

that's the crop: that's all of it

0 notes

robertrluc85 · 6 years

Text

10 Ways to Exploit Human Nature and Write Amazingly Appealing Headlines

Sucks, doesn’t it?

You know how important headlines are. You know the success of your blog hinges on your headlines. And you know that yours aren’t getting the job done.

Your blog posts just sit there collecting e-dust because your headlines barely get clicked.

So what are you doing wrong?

What are your headlines missing?

Well, chances are your headlines don’t exploit your audience’s human nature enough.

If you want your headlines to connect with your audience, you need to exploit their drives, their instincts, and, at the risk of sounding cynical, their utter self-absorption.

In fact, if you want to write better headlines, you should take lessons from those who exploit human nature on a daily basis — con artists, sleazy politicians, and anyone who manipulates people to further their own agenda.

You just have to be careful not to cross over to the dark side.

Let me explain…

Why You Must Write Headlines Like a Skilled Manipulator (Even If That’s Not Your Style)

Con men will say whatever you want to hear to get inside your wallet. Sleazy politicians will make any false promise and tell any half-truth if it means they’ll get your vote.

These skilled manipulators know exactly which buttons to push to get people to do what they want. They’re rotten scoundrels — and you, my friend, could stand to be more like them.

“What? I don’t want to be a scoundrel! I don’t want to manipulate anyone!”

Relax. I’m not saying you should.

As bloggers, we’re not in the market of manipulation — but we are in the market of persuasion. And there’s only the finest of lines between the two.

Think about it. The goal for both is to convince people to do what you want them to do. Con men want you to give them their money, while politicians want you to give them your vote. You want people to click your headlines and read your posts.

The only difference is that manipulation implies a degree of deception, while persuasion does not.

It’s no wonder the success of both relies on pushing the right buttons.

Want to find out what those are?

Keep reading.

How to Push the Right Buttons and Make Your Headlines Irresistibly Clickable

We all respond when certain buttons are pushed.

When we lose someone we love, we cry. When something pisses us off, we raise our voice. And when we open a bag of Cheetos, that sucker is empty ten minutes later.

It’s not exactly the same for everybody, but no matter how we respond, we will respond.

It’s in our nature.

And if you want to write headlines that appeal to your audience and get them to respond with a click, you need to know how to push the right buttons.

So let’s find out how to push those.

#1. Promise to Grant Their Wishes

Okay, this one’s familiar, right? You’ve probably heard your headline should offer the reader something they want.

But as familiar as it is, too many bloggers get this one wrong. They focus their headline on something they want their audience to want, or something they think their audience should want.

When you use this appeal in your headlines you have to ask yourself, “If I asked my audience what they wanted most right now, would anyone give this as an answer?”

Compare these, for example:

10 Crucial Steps to Writing a Stellar Business Plan

How to Write a Business Plan That Makes Investors Beg to Give You Their Money

At first glance, the first one doesn’t look half bad. But if you asked an audience of entrepreneurs what they wanted most right now, would anyone answer, “I want to write a stellar business plan”?

Doubtful, right?

On the other hand, they might well answer that they want investors to fund their business.

That’s the difference.

Questions to Ask:

What does your audience want most of all right now?

Where does your audience want to be in the future?

What do they want to have? Who do they want to be? What do they want to accomplish?

What are some smaller goals your audience could achieve today/ this week / this month that would bring them closer to that future?

What are some immediate problems your audience wants to have solved?

Examples:

How to Write a Business Plan That Makes Investors Beg to Give You Their Money

How to Get Your Beach Body in Shape and Rock Your Bikini This Summer

10 Ways to Turn Unruly Kids into Well-Behaved Little Angels

#2. Give Them a Scapegoat

“It’s not your fault.”

Those are four words everybody loves to hear when they feel like they’ve failed or made a mistake.

Because let’s face it, we all hate feeling like a failure or screw-up. Our egos would much rather shift the blame elsewhere so we can keep feeling good about ourselves.

So when your headline offers readers a valid excuse for not achieving their hopes and dreams, they’ll eat that up like warm chocolate pie.

Questions to Ask:

What is your audience trying but failing at?

What are some outside forces that hold your audience back?

Who or what can your audience blame for their lack of success?

Examples:

Why Investors Are Petrified to Fund New Businesses Right Now

How Supermarkets Brainwash Us into Buying Junk Food

10 Ways Class Overcrowding Is Killing Your Kid’s Grades

#3. Point the Finger of Blame

You can also take the opposite approach. Instead of pointing the finger at someone else, you can point it at your reader. You tell them their failures are all their own fault.

This appeals to the same basic desire as before — the desire not to feel like a screw-up. We’ll do anything to avoid mistakes and get things right because we want to avoid making fools of ourselves.

If we’re doing something wrong, we want to know so we can fix it.

Questions to Ask:

What common mistakes does your audience make?

How is your audience holding itself back?

What mistakes do they already suspect they’re making?

Examples:

10 Clear Warning Signs Your Business Idea Sucks

7 Common Dieting Mistakes That Make You Gain More Weight Than You Lose

How Pushy Parenting Can Hurt Your Children’s Grades

#4. Call Upon Their Tribal Sense

We are social creatures with an instinctual drive to belong. We don’t live in tribes in the same way our ancestors did, but this drive still exists in us nonetheless. These days, we use personal attributes to define which tribes we belong to.

For example, you might be a man, 40-something, married, entrepreneur, father, and theater fan. Or you might be a woman, 20-something, single, blogger, writer, and book lover.

These are all different kinds of “tribes” you might be part of. Calling one out in your headline will get the attention of anyone who feels like they belong to it.

But that’s not all. You can also use tribes to which your audience aspires to belong — the ones they wish they were a part of but aren’t quite yet. For instance, if you aspire to be a six-figure entrepreneur or best-selling author, any headline that mentions these tribes would get your attention too.

Questions to Ask:

Which labels and attributes would your audience use to describe themselves?

To what groups does your audience aspire to belong?

Examples:

20 Startup Secrets from Top Silicon Valley Companies**

7 Shocking Facts Every Dieter Should Know

15 Everyday Things Skinny People Do Differently

7 Scary Thoughts Only Dads Will Understand

The Single Mom’s Guide to Getting Regular Me-Time

*Notice how this headline states both the tribe the audience belongs to (Startups) AND the tribe they aspire to be part of (Top Silicon Valley Companies).

#5. Scare the Living Crap Out of Them

Fear and anxiety are powerful emotions. Everyone has experienced them at some point in their lives. They’re primal instincts that can override our brains and make us forget about everything else around us.

So imagine the power of a headline that stokes your readers’ biggest fears and anxieties.

Is their worst nightmare coming true? Are they right to be afraid? They’ll have to click to find out.

Questions to Ask:

What is the worst possible future your audience can imagine?

What are they afraid will happen if they [do X]?

What do they fear is already happening?

What situation does your audience dread finding themselves in?

Examples:

10 Pitching Mistakes That Make Investors Laugh Behind Your Back

15 Exercise Routines That Will Ruin Your Feminine Curves

7 Warning Signs Your Kids Are Having Unprotected Sex

#6. Put Their Worried Mind to Rest

While scaring the daylights out of your readers is fun, it’s not the only way you can use fear in your headlines. You can also take the opposite approach.

Just like your mom used to do when you were scared as a child, tell them there’s nothing to be afraid of.

Promise they can avoid the situations that cripple them with anxiety. Promise they can keep their nightmares from coming true. Promise they can take their desired actions without the disastrous consequences.

If your headline promises to relieve their fears, they’ll want to find out more.

Questions to Ask:

What is your audience worried about that they shouldn’t be worried about?

How can your audience prevent their fears from coming true?

What situation does your audience dread that you can make less scary for them?

Examples:

How to Raise Money for Your Business (Even if You Suck at Pitching Investors)

12 Exercises That Burn Off Fat Without Ruining Your Curves

5 Cringe-Free Ways to Teach Your Kids About Safe Sex

#7. Help Them Be Lazier

Let’s face it. If given the choice, we want to get stuff done quickly and easily, so we have more time to relax and do the things we enjoy.

Unfortunately, we often get stuck with tedious or complicated tasks that take a lot of time and effort to complete.

Can you help your audience simplify or fast-forward through those tasks? Use this promise in your headline.

Questions to Ask:

What does your audience find complicated?

What’s a recurring task your audience finds tedious?

What’s a recurring task that takes up too much of your audience’s time?

What’s a recurring task that your audience wishes they could skip?

Examples:

Can’t Stand Bookkeeping? Use This App to Get it Done on Autopilot

10 Simple Paleo Hacks: A Cheat Sheet for the Overwhelmed Beginner

How to Soothe a Crying Baby in 15 Seconds Flat

#8. Confirm Their Worst Suspicions

Have you ever watched a movie where you guessed the twist before it happened? Didn’t it make you feel smart for seeing it coming way before anyone else?

That’s the emotion we want to evoke with this appeal. Everybody loves having their suspicions, theories or opinions validated with some cold, hard proof. Let’s face it, we just love being proven right. (It beats being wrong!)

So when a headline promises to give us that validation, we want to know more. Because having uninformed opinions is one thing, but having facts to back them up — that’s catnip.

Questions to Ask:

What does your audience suspect is too good to be true?

What activity does your audience suspect doesn’t actually work?

Who does your audience suspect is lying to them, and what about?

Examples:

Why the Four-Hour Work Week Is a Foolish Pipe Dream

10 Fad Diets That Never Lead to Lasting Weight Loss

7 Lies Colleges Will Tell About Their Graduate Employment

#9. Demolish Their Conventional Wisdom

Breaking with conventional wisdom is a powerful way to grab attention.

When everyone repeats a certain idea, we’re prone to accept it as true. And the more we see an idea repeated, the stronger our belief in that idea becomes. At some point, we treat these beliefs as common sense.

But we don’t always get it right, do we? And when you can point out how everyone else got it wrong, you’ll shock people out of their comatose state.

They’ll either be curious to find out whether you can back up your claim, or eager to prove you wrong. But in either case, they click.

Questions to Ask:

What conventional beliefs does your audience hold that are flat out wrong?

Which established methods are holding your audience back?

What preconceptions does your audience have that hold them back?

What commonly peddled advice is misleading your audience?

Examples:

10 Reasons You Should Ship a Shitty Product

How to Lose Weight on a McDonald’s Diet

Why You Should Never Force Kids to Finish Their Plates

#10. Hate on Your Common Enemies

You may have heard this phrase before: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And it’s true. Shared animosity is a powerful unifier.

So when your headline takes aim at someone (or something) your audience hates, they’ll feel like you’re on their side. They’ll want to find out what you have to say because, as mentioned before, people are always looking for confirmation.

It’s a powerful appeal, but try not to become an outright hate-monger. Remember, we’re trying not to cross over to the dark side!

Questions to Ask:

Who does your audience hate?

What groups of people does your audience hate?

What companies does your audience hate?

What products does your audience hate?

What activities does your audience hate?

What situations does your audience hate?

What events does your audience hate?

What else does your audience hate?

Examples:

How to Silence Those Uppity Investors Meddling with Your Business

10 Reasons Why Dieting Is Torture Worse Than Waterboarding

Parents Must Finally Unite to Destroy All Legos

Exploit Human Nature and Get Your Headlines Clicked

As a blogger, you know that understanding your audience is key to your success. But that goes deeper than understanding their unique struggles and interests. You must also understand their very nature.

You must know what makes people tick. You must know what drives them. You must know which buttons to push to make them click your headlines.

Go through the list above and answer all the questions. That will give you a list of topics to write about.

Put each one in a headline template, add a power word or two, and you’ll end up with amazingly appealing headlines.

If you push the right buttons, your audience can’t help but respond.

So go ahead and push those buttons.

About the Author: Robert van Tongeren is the former Associate Editor of Smart Blogger. He has also helped countless of our students get published on big blogs like Huffington Post, Tiny Buddha and Fast Company. Want to shape up your headline skills fast? Sign up for his free weekly headline repair.

The post 10 Ways to Exploit Human Nature and Write Amazingly Appealing Headlines appeared first on Smart Blogger.

from SEO and SM Tips https://smartblogger.com/headline-writing/

0 notes

sandranelsonuk · 6 years

Text

10 Ways to Exploit Human Nature and Write Amazingly Appealing Headlines

Sucks, doesn’t it?

You know how important headlines are. You know the success of your blog hinges on your headlines. And you know that yours aren’t getting the job done.

Your blog posts just sit there collecting e-dust because your headlines barely get clicked.

So what are you doing wrong?

What are your headlines missing?

Well, chances are your headlines don’t exploit your audience’s human nature enough.

If you want your headlines to connect with your audience, you need to exploit their drives, their instincts, and, at the risk of sounding cynical, their utter self-absorption.

You just have to be careful not to cross over to the dark side.

Let me explain…

Why You Must Write Headlines Like a Skilled Manipulator (Even If That’s Not Your Style)

Con men will say whatever you want to hear to get inside your wallet. Sleazy politicians will make any false promise and tell any half-truth if it means they’ll get your vote.

These skilled manipulators know exactly which buttons to push to get people to do what they want. They’re rotten scoundrels — and you, my friend, could stand to be more like them.

“What? I don’t want to be a scoundrel! I don’t want to manipulate anyone!”

Relax. I’m not saying you should.

As bloggers, we’re not in the market of manipulation — but we are in the market of persuasion. And there’s only the finest of lines between the two.

The only difference is that manipulation implies a degree of deception, while persuasion does not.

It’s no wonder the success of both relies on pushing the right buttons.

Want to find out what those are?

Keep reading.

How to Push the Right Buttons and Make Your Headlines Irresistibly Clickable

We all respond when certain buttons are pushed.

When we lose someone we love, we cry. When something pisses us off, we raise our voice. And when we open a bag of Cheetos, that sucker is empty ten minutes later.

It’s not exactly the same for everybody, but no matter how we respond, we will respond.

It’s in our nature.

And if you want to write headlines that appeal to your audience and get them to respond with a click, you need to know how to push the right buttons.

So let’s find out how to push those.

#1. Promise to Grant Their Wishes

Okay, this one’s familiar, right? You’ve probably heard your headline should offer the reader something they want.

But as familiar as it is, too many bloggers get this one wrong. They focus their headline on something they want their audience to want, or something they think their audience should want.

When you use this appeal in your headlines you have to ask yourself, “If I asked my audience what they wanted most right now, would anyone give this as an answer?”

Compare these, for example:

10 Crucial Steps to Writing a Stellar Business Plan

How to Write a Business Plan That Makes Investors Beg to Give You Their Money

Doubtful, right?

On the other hand, they might well answer that they want investors to fund their business.

That’s the difference.

Questions to Ask:

What does your audience want most of all right now?

Where does your audience want to be in the future?

What do they want to have? Who do they want to be? What do they want to accomplish?

What are some smaller goals your audience could achieve today/ this week / this month that would bring them closer to that future?

What are some immediate problems your audience wants to have solved?

Examples:

How to Write a Business Plan That Makes Investors Beg to Give You Their Money

How to Get Your Beach Body in Shape and Rock Your Bikini This Summer

10 Ways to Turn Unruly Kids into Well-Behaved Little Angels

#2. Give Them a Scapegoat

“It’s not your fault.”

Those are four words everybody loves to hear when they feel like they’ve failed or made a mistake.

Because let’s face it, we all hate feeling like a failure or screw-up. Our egos would much rather shift the blame elsewhere so we can keep feeling good about ourselves.

So when your headline offers readers a valid excuse for not achieving their hopes and dreams, they’ll eat that up like warm chocolate pie.

Questions to Ask:

What is your audience trying but failing at?

What are some outside forces that hold your audience back?

Who or what can your audience blame for their lack of success?

Examples:

Why Investors Are Petrified to Fund New Businesses Right Now

How Supermarkets Brainwash Us into Buying Junk Food

10 Ways Class Overcrowding Is Killing Your Kid’s Grades

#3. Point the Finger of Blame

You can also take the opposite approach. Instead of pointing the finger at someone else, you can point it at your reader. You tell them their failures are all their own fault.

If we’re doing something wrong, we want to know so we can fix it.

Questions to Ask:

What common mistakes does your audience make?

How is your audience holding itself back?

What mistakes do they already suspect they’re making?

Examples:

10 Clear Warning Signs Your Business Idea Sucks

7 Common Dieting Mistakes That Make You Gain More Weight Than You Lose

How Pushy Parenting Can Hurt Your Children’s Grades

#4. Call Upon Their Tribal Sense

For example, you might be a man, 40-something, married, entrepreneur, father, and theater fan. Or you might be a woman, 20-something, single, blogger, writer, and book lover.

These are all different kinds of “tribes” you might be part of. Calling one out in your headline will get the attention of anyone who feels like they belong to it.

Questions to Ask:

Which labels and attributes would your audience use to describe themselves?

To what groups does your audience aspire to belong?

Examples:

20 Startup Secrets from Top Silicon Valley Companies**

7 Shocking Facts Every Dieter Should Know

15 Everyday Things Skinny People Do Differently

7 Scary Thoughts Only Dads Will Understand

The Single Mom’s Guide to Getting Regular Me-Time

*Notice how this headline states both the tribe the audience belongs to (Startups) AND the tribe they aspire to be part of (Top Silicon Valley Companies).

#5. Scare the Living Crap Out of Them

So imagine the power of a headline that stokes your readers’ biggest fears and anxieties.

Is their worst nightmare coming true? Are they right to be afraid? They’ll have to click to find out.

Questions to Ask:

What is the worst possible future your audience can imagine?

What are they afraid will happen if they [do X]?

What do they fear is already happening?

What situation does your audience dread finding themselves in?

Examples:

10 Pitching Mistakes That Make Investors Laugh Behind Your Back

15 Exercise Routines That Will Ruin Your Feminine Curves

7 Warning Signs Your Kids Are Having Unprotected Sex

#6. Put Their Worried Mind to Rest

While scaring the daylights out of your readers is fun, it’s not the only way you can use fear in your headlines. You can also take the opposite approach.

Just like your mom used to do when you were scared as a child, tell them there’s nothing to be afraid of.

If your headline promises to relieve their fears, they’ll want to find out more.

Questions to Ask:

What is your audience worried about that they shouldn’t be worried about?

How can your audience prevent their fears from coming true?

What situation does your audience dread that you can make less scary for them?

Examples:

How to Raise Money for Your Business (Even if You Suck at Pitching Investors)

12 Exercises That Burn Off Fat Without Ruining Your Curves

5 Cringe-Free Ways to Teach Your Kids About Safe Sex

#7. Help Them Be Lazier

Let’s face it. If given the choice, we want to get stuff done quickly and easily, so we have more time to relax and do the things we enjoy.

Unfortunately, we often get stuck with tedious or complicated tasks that take a lot of time and effort to complete.

Can you help your audience simplify or fast-forward through those tasks? Use this promise in your headline.

Questions to Ask:

What does your audience find complicated?

What’s a recurring task your audience finds tedious?

What’s a recurring task that takes up too much of your audience’s time?

What’s a recurring task that your audience wishes they could skip?

Examples:

Can’t Stand Bookkeeping? Use This App to Get it Done on Autopilot

10 Simple Paleo Hacks: A Cheat Sheet for the Overwhelmed Beginner

How to Soothe a Crying Baby in 15 Seconds Flat

#8. Confirm Their Worst Suspicions

Have you ever watched a movie where you guessed the twist before it happened? Didn’t it make you feel smart for seeing it coming way before anyone else?

So when a headline promises to give us that validation, we want to know more. Because having uninformed opinions is one thing, but having facts to back them up — that’s catnip.

Questions to Ask:

What does your audience suspect is too good to be true?

What activity does your audience suspect doesn’t actually work?

Who does your audience suspect is lying to them, and what about?

Examples:

Why the Four-Hour Work Week Is a Foolish Pipe Dream

10 Fad Diets That Never Lead to Lasting Weight Loss

7 Lies Colleges Will Tell About Their Graduate Employment

#9. Demolish Their Conventional Wisdom

Breaking with conventional wisdom is a powerful way to grab attention.

But we don’t always get it right, do we? And when you can point out how everyone else got it wrong, you’ll shock people out of their comatose state.

They’ll either be curious to find out whether you can back up your claim, or eager to prove you wrong. But in either case, they click.

Questions to Ask:

What conventional beliefs does your audience hold that are flat out wrong?

Which established methods are holding your audience back?

What preconceptions does your audience have that hold them back?

What commonly peddled advice is misleading your audience?

Examples:

10 Reasons You Should Ship a Shitty Product

How to Lose Weight on a McDonald’s Diet

Why You Should Never Force Kids to Finish Their Plates

#10. Hate on Your Common Enemies

You may have heard this phrase before: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And it’s true. Shared animosity is a powerful unifier.

It’s a powerful appeal, but try not to become an outright hate-monger. Remember, we’re trying not to cross over to the dark side!

Questions to Ask:

Who does your audience hate?

What groups of people does your audience hate?

What companies does your audience hate?

What products does your audience hate?

What activities does your audience hate?

What situations does your audience hate?

What events does your audience hate?

What else does your audience hate?

Examples:

How to Silence Those Uppity Investors Meddling with Your Business

10 Reasons Why Dieting Is Torture Worse Than Waterboarding

Parents Must Finally Unite to Destroy All Legos

Exploit Human Nature and Get Your Headlines Clicked

You must know what makes people tick. You must know what drives them. You must know which buttons to push to make them click your headlines.

Go through the list above and answer all the questions. That will give you a list of topics to write about.

Put each one in a headline template, add a power word or two, and you’ll end up with amazingly appealing headlines.

If you push the right buttons, your audience can’t help but respond.

So go ahead and push those buttons.

The post 10 Ways to Exploit Human Nature and Write Amazingly Appealing Headlines appeared first on Smart Blogger.

from Julia Garza Social Media Tips https://smartblogger.com/headline-writing/

0 notes

jansegers · 7 years

Text

Simple English Word List

SIMPLE1540 : a simple English wikipedia word list based on the XML export of all articles related to the nine major groups: Everyday life, Geography, History, Knowledge, Language, Literature, People, Religion, and Science and retaining all word forms appearing 7 times or more in this corpus. The total number of words in this corpus is well over the 100.000 words. a A.D. ability able about above absence abstinence abstract academic academy accent accept access accord account across act action active activity actual actually ad add addition adherent adjective adult advance advice affect after again against age agnostic agnosticism ago agree agreement agriculture air alcohol all allow ally almost alone along alphabet also although always amateur amendment among amount an analysis ancient and angel animal annals anonymous another answer anthropomorphism any anyone anything aphasia appear apple apply approach archaeology architecture area argue argument around arrange art article artificial artist ask aspect associate association astronomy at atheism atheist atomic attack attempt attribute audience author authority available average avoid award away B.C. baby back background backpack bad bah balance band baptism base basic basis battle BCE be bear beautiful beauty because become bed bee before begin behavior behind being belief believe believing belong below best better between beyond bias biblical bibliography big billion biological biology birth bit black blind blood blue body book born both bottom boundary box boy brain branch bring brown buffalo build building bull burn business but by c. ca. calendar call can cancer canon capital caption car carbon card carry case cassette cat category cathedral catholic cause cell center central century cerebral certain change chapel chapter character chemical chemistry child china China choice choir choose chronicle church circumcise circumcision cite citizen city civil civilian civilization claim clan class classical cleanup clear clergy click climate close closer clothes clothing coast coauthor code codex cognitive col cold collection college colonization colony color column com come commentary commission common commonly communicate communication communion communist community companion company compare competition complete complex compose composer computer concept conception concern condition confuse confusion congregational connect connection conquer conquest consciousness consider consistent constitution construct construction contain contemporary content context continent continue contrary control convention conversation conversion convert cook cooking copy core correct could council country course court cover covered create creation credit crime critical criticism crop cross crust cultural culture current currently daily damage dark data date day dead death debt decadence decadent decide declaration decline deconstruction deep define definition deity demonstrate denomination department depth describe description design detail determinism developed development device devil diagnosis dialect dictionary die difference different difficult difficulty diphthong dipstick direct directly dirt disagree disambiguation disbelief discipline discover discovery discussion disease disorder distance distinct distinction distinguish distribution divide divine do doctor doctrine document dog don't door down Dr. dream drink drown druid due during dynasty each earlier early earth easier easily easy eat economic economics economy ed edge edit edition editor education effect eight either electric electricity electronic element elevation else emperor empire encyclopedia end energy engine engineering enlightenment enough enter entertainment environment environmental epic episode equal era error especially establish etc. etymology even event eventually ever every everyday everyone everything evidence evil evolution evolve exact exactly example except exchange exist existence expansion experience experiment expert explain explanation express expression external extinct face fact failure fair faith fall false family famous far fast father feature feel feeling female feudal few fiction field fight figure file find finding fire first fish fit five fix flow folk follow food for force foreign foreskin form formal former fortune fought foundation founded four fourth frame framework free freedom frequently friend from front fruit full function functional further future gas general generally generation genre geographer geographic geographical geography geology geometry germ get give glass global go god gold golden good government grammar great greatly green ground group grow growth guide guillotine hair half hall hand handbook handicap handle happen happens happiness happy hard have he head heading health hear heat heaven help hemisphere her here heritage hero high highly him himself his historian historical historiography history hold holy home homo hope hot hour house how however human hundred hunter hypothesis hysteresis I ice icon idea identify identity if illiteracy illiterate illusory image importance important impossible improve in inc. incense include increase indeed independence independent indigenous individual industrial industry influence information inquiry inside instead institute institution instrument instrumentation intellectual intelligence interlinear internal international internet interpretation into introduce introduction invent invention involve iron island issue it IT itself job join journal journalism judge just keep key kill kind king kingdom know knowledge la LA label lack lake lamp land landlocked landscape language large last late later law lead leader leap learn learned least leave legacy legal legend let letter level lexeme library life light lightning like likely limited line linguistic linguistics link liquid list literacy literary literature little liturgy live local location logic logical long longer look lord lore lose lot love low lower mac machine magazine magic magnetic magnum mail main mainly major make male mammal man mankind manuscript many map march March mark market mass material mathematical mathematics matter may May me mean meaning meant measure measurement meat median medical medicine medieval mediterranean medium meet member memory men mental mention mercury message metal method mid middle might migrate migration military millennium million mind minister minute misconception miss model modern modernism modernist moment money monologue monophthong month monument moon moral morality more morning most mostly mother mount mountain mouth move movement much museum music musical musicians must my myth mythology name narrative nation national nationality native natural naturalism naturally nature near nearly necessarily necessary need negative neither neologism network neurogenesis neuron neuroscience never new news newspaper next night nine no non none nor normal normally not note nothing noun novel now nuclear number object objective objectivity observation observe occupation occur ocean octane of off offer office official officially often oil old older on once one online only open opera opposite or oral orbit order org organization organize origin original originally orthography orthology other others our out outer outside over own oxygen p. pack pagan page paint palace paper paradigm parent parish park part participant particular particularly party pas pass past pasta pattern pay peace peer penguin penis people per percent percentage perception performance perhaps period peroxide persecution person personal personality perspective persuasion pet phenomenon philosopher philosophical philosophy phoneme phonetic phonetics photo phrase physic physical picture piece pilgrimage place plan planet plant plat plate play please poem poems poet poetry point pole police policy political politics polytheism polytheistic popular population position positive possession possible possibly post power powerful pp. practical practice praise pray prayer precise predict prediction prehistory present preserve press prevent priest primary principle print printing private probably problem process produce product production professional program project pronounce pronunciation proof property prophet propose prose proselytism protection protein provide province psychological psychology public publication publish publisher publishing punishment pure purpose put pyramid quantum question quickly quite quote race racial rack radiation radio rain range rate rather read reader real realism reality really reason receive recent recently reclamation recognize record recreation red ref refer reference referred reform reformation regard region reign rejection relate relation relationship relatively relativity reliable relic religion religious remain remember remove renaissance replace report republic request require research researcher resource respect response result resurrection retrieve return revelation revert review revision revival revolution rhetoric rich right rise ritual river rock role room royal rule ruled ruler run rural sacred sacrifice safe saga sage saint salad same sample satellite saw say schizophrenia scholar school science scientific scientist scope sea search second secondary section secular see seek seem selection self sense sent sentence separate sequence series service set seven several sexual shall shaman shape share she short should show shrine side sign significant silence similar simple simply since single situation six size skill skin slavery sleep slightly slow small smell smith snake so social society sociology soft soil solar soldier solid soliloquy some someone something sometimes song soon sortable sound source space speak speaker special specie specific speech speed spell spirit spiritual spirituality split sport spread square st. stage stain standard star start state statement station statistic statistical statue status stick still stone stop story strange strap strong structure struggle stub student study stutter style subject successful such sugar suggest sun sung sunlight superior superiority supernatural support suppose supreme sure surface survey surveyor sushi sustainability sustainable sweat symbol symbolic system table take talk tam tan task teach teacher teaching technique technology tectonics teeth tell temperature template temple ten term terminology territory tertiary test testament text textual than thank that the their theism them themselves then theology theoretical theory therapy there therefore thesaurus these they thick thing think third this those though thought thousand three through throughout thumb thus ticket tight time title to today together toilet tolerance toleration tongue too tool top topic total towards tower trade tradition traditional train translation transport travel treat treatment tree trench trial tribe tried trig true truth try turn twentieth twenty two type typical typically ultimate ultraviolet under understand understood union unit united universal universe university unknown unsortable until up upon upper urban urbanization usage use useful usually valley value van vandalism various vassal vegetable verb verbal verse version very video view violence virgin visit vitamin vocabulary voice vol. volume vowel vs. wale wall want war warm warmer wash waste water wave way we weak wealth wear weather web website weight well what when where whether which while white who whole whom whose why wide widely wild wilderness will window wisdom wise witch witchcraft with within without witness woman word work worker world worship would write writer writing wrong yam year yellow you young your

China, March and May made this list because china, march and may are on it and I didn't want to decide in favor of the common noun or the proper noun; all other proper nouns have been omitted (even the ten other months that met the criterium of appearing more then 6 times). #SimpleWikipedia #SimpleEnglish #wordlist #English #words #level1540 #Inli #nimi #selo1540

#SimpleWikipedia SimpleEnglish wordlist English words level1540 Inli nimi selo1540

0 notes