Paint a vulgar picture.

[shoi]

taht was very good but depressing... i had an image in my head taht was sorta like these

[IanCurtisWishlist]

empire-i'm going to take your suggestion, and possibly further develop this piece in my spare time. thanks for your suggestions btw, the title was taken directly from a song by the Smiths called Paint a Vulgar Picture--a song which I like alot. No harm in that though, since there are many people who look to music for writing inspiration. I may change the title, but right now this is a work in progress.

junkyard--it's not referring to all women. of course we can't make generalizations like this. that's like saying every muslim is a jihading terrorist, every christian is a bible-thumping intolerant ass, every kid who works at mcdonalds is a fat idiot with acne... but thanks for your compliments bro.

shoi- that's a nice picture.

[WeedFaerie420]

Before I start to critique I think it's only fair to just tell you a little bit about myself so you know where the criticism is coming from. I'm a college student and am close to getting my bachelors in English and Psychology (I have never gotten less than an A in any of my English classes in college). I do creative writing on my own, mostly poetry, pros and journaling. I had to read that over at least 4 times. The first time I honestly didn't like it and found it amateur. By my third time or so, I was able to see the effort you put into your writing style.
--At first I didn't like how you started with the female as faceless and then in the middle of it said the victim male was faceless also. It almost seemed like it was a slip and only one should have been. Now I see that she could have made him faceless. But why was she faceless and uknown to him and vice versa?
--The over generalizing really got to me. If you worked on this writing and developed a plot, and a greater depth to your narrator, the overgeneralizing and woman-hating theme may have been more understandable and less of a turn off.
--I think you should elaborate more on the Sympathy part. It seemed out of place and I don't connect it to the rest of your writing. Why did this woman desire sympathy, is that really the root of it all?
--This line: "Marx once said, 'Religion is the Opium of the masses'. For everyone else, there is love. If Marx was right, then love must be the heroin of the masses." That doesn't make sense and it seems you tried too damn hard to try to connect that Marx quote somehow to love. You're now saying there is either religion or love for people.

I agree with others who say you should pursue writing and you definetly have talent. The criticisms I made are all just my humble opinions and I hope you take them with an open mind and aren't offended. I didn't know what kind of responses you wanted from people since this is in a Sexuality Forum.
Good luck to you!

[IanCurtisWishlist]

i wrote this entire piece of writing off the top of my head. it's not woman-hating at all. it's supposed to convey a message of bitterness. it's not woman-hating. in this story, it could very well be labled as "man-hating" if I were to replace the man with the woman , and the woman with the man.

In using the term faceless, it's supposed to give a sense of depersonalization. in my observation, many relationships are somewhat depersonalized--meaning that neither person is very comitted to eachother. in other words, just "going through the motions" of a relationship. the words "i love you' are meaningless in many cases. In this respect, it's used more as a way to convey the tone of this piece.

in response to your comments where you said I was trying too damned hard to connect Marx's quote to love, I'm not really sure I see your point when you say I tried "too hard". This was the first thing that came to mind. Mind you, my educational background is being just out of high school with no college experience. This was the first thing that came to mind. In my personal opinion, religion is very similar to love. we look to our religions for support, in much the same way that we look towards our significant others for support. when god doesn't give us what we want, we might blasphamize him. when our partner's don't give us what we want, we might cheat on them. Secondly, religion, much like love, blinds people in the sense that it might otherwise affect our judgement. When couples are "in love", they might feel that the only thing they need to survive is their significant other. When people practice extreme blind-faith religion, they might resort to praying for a person's recovery ; abandoning modern medicine in favor of their blind faith. However , when it comes down to it, couples might realize that there is more to a relationship than just burning passion--like living together, sharing chores, etc. In return, many relationshps fall apart because of people's inability to live with one another--the flame has died out. In this context, we can also see where people have abandoned modern medical practice in favor of "faith healing"--which most always results in a loss of life. What is the point? the point is that , like religion, love also has certain "blinding" qualities to it. I can attribute this directly to the psychology of love. in my own personal opinion, love and the opposite sex are very much like a drug to us. some people compulsively seek "love", or affection from other people. once they have a taste for it, they can't get enough of it--the rush of intense emotions, raging hormones--the very reason why we seek out and crave "love". In any case, it's all a result of chemistry in the brain.

[WeedFaerie420]

it's not woman-hating at all. it's supposed to convey a message of bitterness. it's not woman-hating. in this story, it could very well be labled as "man-hating" if I were to replace the man with the woman , and the woman with the man.

in response to your comments where you said I was trying too damned hard to connect Marx's quote to love... In my personal opinion, religion is very similar to love. we look to our religions for support, in much the same way that we look towards our significant others for support. when god doesn't give us what we want, we might blasphamize him. when our partner's don't give us what we want, we might cheat on them. Secondly, religion, much like love, blinds people in the sense that it might otherwise affect our judgement. When couples are "in love", they might feel that the only thing they need to survive is their significant other. When people practice extreme blind-faith religion, they might resort to praying for a person's recovery ; abandoning modern medicine in favor of their blind faith. However , when it comes down to it, couples might realize that there is more to a relationship than just burning passion--like living together, sharing chores, etc. In return, many relationshps fall apart because of people's inability to live with one another--the flame has died out. In this context, we can also see where people have abandoned modern medical practice in favor of "faith healing"--which most always results in a loss of life. What is the point? the point is that , like religion, love also has certain "blinding" qualities to it. I can attribute this directly to the psychology of love. in my own personal opinion, love and the opposite sex are very much like a drug to us. some people compulsively seek "love", or affection from other people. once they have a taste for it, they can't get enough of it--the rush of intense emotions, raging hormones--the very reason why we seek out and crave "love". In any case, it's all a result of chemistry in the brain.

My point about you using the Marx quote was that it wasn't worded right. If it isn't clear to the reader but you can explain it well with your above response to me, then that just means you need to clarify and elaborate or re-word that part.
Also, as for the incorporation of the Marx quote, you didn't say that religion is much like love; they weren't being similarily compared although that may have been your intentions. You said, "Marx once said, 'Religion is the Opium of the masses'. For everyone else, there is love. If Marx was right, then love must be the heroin of the masses." "for everyone else, there is love." <--You put the two (religion and love) in an either/or, one or the other position. Maybe if you said instead something like: "Marx once said, 'Religion is the Opium of the masses'. If Marx was right, love, like religion, must be the heroin of the masses". Do you get what i'm saying now? You just need to clarify that it is a comparison based on similarity and not a "one or the other" statement. Saying, "for everyone else", reads as: for those who don't have religion, they have love.

You never addressed what I said about sympathy:

"--I think you should elaborate more on the Sympathy part. It seemed out of place and I don't connect it to the rest of your writing. Why did this woman desire sympathy, is that really the root of it all?"

Yes, you're right, if you switched the male to the female, it could be then be deemed a "man-hating" tone, that just means that there is a gender hating component and you saying that is admitting to it. The fact is you decided to make the victim male, and so it is "woman-hating" in tone, especially with the overgeneralizations. You said you were going for bitter, and that is how it read.

[birdgirl73]

WeedFaerie, do you have any ambitions toward ever teaching writing? I see in your discussions with Ian very good critical thinking skills and an ability to take good writing and make it better. That's a rare gift, my dear, and one you need to be aware you have. I'll be eager to hear where you hope to go with both your verbal and critical skills because I think you'll get a lot of mileage out of one or both of them.

Ian, I hope you'll keep writing more and more. It's such good therapy, I think, and you clearly have a knack for it.

It's been 20 years since I taught writing/English but only a couple of weeks since I left a job as a writer. I hope y'all don't mind my butting in with comments to both of you!

[shoi]

WeedFaerie, do you have any ambitions toward ever teaching writing? I see in your discussions with Ian very good critical thinking skills and an ability to take good writing and make it better. That's a rare gift, my dear, and one you need to be aware you have. I'll be eager to hear where you hope to go with both your verbal and critical skills because I think you'll get a lot of mileage out of one or both of them.

Ian, I hope you'll keep writing more and more. It's such good therapy, I think, and you clearly have a knack for it.

It's been 20 years since I taught writing/English but only a couple of weeks since I left a job as a writer. I hope y'all don't mind my butting in with comments to both of you!

i agree with bird abt ur criticisms and such.... even tho im not the person writing they seemed helpful and very write :stoned:

[IanCurtisWishlist]

My point about you using the Marx quote was that it wasn't worded right. If it isn't clear to the reader but you can explain it well with your above response to me, then that just means you need to clarify and elaborate or re-word that part.
Also, as for the incorporation of the Marx quote, you didn't say that religion is much like love; they weren't being similarily compared although that may have been your intentions. You said, "Marx once said, 'Religion is the Opium of the masses'. For everyone else, there is love. If Marx was right, then love must be the heroin of the masses." "for everyone else, there is love." <--You put the two (religion and love) in an either/or, one or the other position. Maybe if you said instead something like: "Marx once said, 'Religion is the Opium of the masses'. If Marx was right, love, like religion, must be the heroin of the masses". Do you get what i'm saying now? You just need to clarify that it is a comparison based on similarity and not a "one or the other" statement. Saying, "for everyone else", reads as: for those who don't have religion, they have love.

You never addressed what I said about sympathy:

"--I think you should elaborate more on the Sympathy part. It seemed out of place and I don't connect it to the rest of your writing. Why did this woman desire sympathy, is that really the root of it all?"

Yes, you're right, if you switched the male to the female, it could be then be deemed a "man-hating" tone, that just means that there is a gender hating component and you saying that is admitting to it. The fact is you decided to make the victim male, and so it is "woman-hating" in tone, especially with the overgeneralizations. You said you were going for bitter, and that is how it read.

okay fair enough. i'll elaborate on the sympathy part.

when i was writing this, i was bitterly reflecting on a broken relationship. when i was first becoming involved with this girl, it seemed like her world was shattered, and she was very ... eh, how should i say it.. "needy", i guess the word is. I felt as if she was reaching out to someone; the someone being myself. It's just a personal reference. she was looking for sympathy, and that is what I gave her. If I were writing a short story, or fiction, then I would see it fit to elaborate more , as it would become necessary plot details. However in this piece of writing, I was just calming my nerves. a writing exercise, I suppose. but i do see your point.

In response to the marx issue, I can see your point here also. when I wrote "for everybody else, there is love", i was making reference to people who aren't religious. I like your rendition better though; it's more clear, and it conveys my intent.

i appreciate the constructive criticism. it's better than people flaming my work had i taken the time to try to make this a masterpiece, i would have probably re-worded some of it. mind you , this was written in less than 15 minutes... if that sounds unbelievable, you should see me on a keyboard typing at well over 110 WPM

Birdgirl--your comments are welcome also. i dont mind at all!

on a final thought, one could see this piece as a personal inner monologue. I typed this as I thought it. That is to say, I didn't spend much time correcting anything. I just typed as it flowed from my thoughts. you know what i mean?

[shoi]

okay fair enough. i'll elaborate on the sympathy part.

when i was writing this, i was bitterly reflecting on a broken relationship. when i was first becoming involved with this girl, it seemed like her world was shattered, and she was very ... eh, how should i say it.. "needy", i guess the word is. I felt as if she was reaching out to someone; the someone being myself. It's just a personal reference. she was looking for sympathy, and that is what I gave her. If I were writing a short story, or fiction, then I would see it fit to elaborate more , as it would become necessary plot details. However in this piece of writing, I was just calming my nerves. a writing exercise, I suppose. but i do see your point.

In response to the marx issue, I can see your point here also. when I wrote "for everybody else, there is love", i was making reference to people who aren't religious. I like your rendition better though; it's more clear, and it conveys my intent.

i appreciate the constructive criticism. it's better than people flaming my work had i taken the time to try to make this a masterpiece, i would have probably re-worded some of it. mind you , this was written in less than 15 minutes... if that sounds unbelievable, you should see me on a keyboard typing at well over 110 WPM

Birdgirl--your comments are welcome also. i dont mind at all!

on a final thought, one could see this piece as a personal inner monologue. I typed this as I thought it. That is to say, I didn't spend much time correcting anything. I just typed as it flowed from my thoughts. you know what i mean?

i usally write as a flow of thoughts and it comes out making little to no sence

[IanCurtisWishlist]

i usally write as a flow of thoughts and it comes out making little to no sence

hahaha yeah i guess that's why some people need clarification hehe