Introducing... The Brass Pestle

 I've recently begun work on another blog titled The Brass Pestle

It's primary goal is to essentially serve as a platform where modern aspiring writers may submit their work for unpaid publication, and hopefully receive some positive/helpful feedback.

Here's an excerpt from the About page:

"The Brass Pestle is an independent online publishing platform for previously unpublished, and published authors alike. Our goal is to foster enjoyment of, and promote modern day literature, as well as a culture of authors who may critique one each others works and improve together.We publish short stories as well as poetry. The best way to determine if your work is fitting for the blog is to read some of the others we’ve published! If you’d like for us to publish your work on the site, please visit the submissions page."

I encourage everyone who reads this post to check it out. There's some great work on  the site already, and it's thirsting for more! Feel free to submit via the submissions page.

Drexel's Week of Writing Conclusion

Well, as you might've guessed, the week of writing has been officially over for a few days now.

As a whole, it was an excellent experience, and provided excellent tidbits that may be utilized to enhance writing ability in a variety of ways.

I enjoyed reflecting on it, and surely hope I have the time to do a sort of week(ish) ling posting spree  again, in similar events, or as I stated in a previous post a specific topic on writing that is worthy of a week long dedication.

Nonetheless, it was great, and I hope anyone reading the blog has enjoyed my own reflections on Drexel University's 2012 Week of Writing, and hopefully derived some helpful information from them.

-By the way this is the first of the (from here on out) weekly Wednesday posts. Expect a much larger amount of content next Wednesday, this post was merely a formality of sorts, hah.

Drexel University's Week of Writing Event 3: Panel on Crime Writing

As of late the particular genre of "crime writing" has become quite popular among novelists and readers alike.  In an attempt to gain some insight to the genre's realm, Drexel University invited, Steve Volk(Author of Fringeology and writer/journalist for the Philadelphia Magazine), Albert DiBartolomeo(Author of The Vespers Tapes and Fool's Gold), and Michael Capuzzo(Author of The Murder Room and Close to Shore). All the invited guests have had great experience writing about crime, yet all approach it from the differing perspectives of fiction, nonfiction, and journalism. The panel that ensued included a solid number of well crafted inquiries, to which the panelists answered eloquently.

Due to the nature of the discussion, I've narrowed the covered topics to those that I believe fit to this blog, that is, those that particularly had to do with writing.

On the Nature of Crime and Human Attraction to it.

       This portion of the discussion began quite early on, and developed throughout the entirety of the event. I believe it was initiated with Dibartolomeo's sentiments that violence is an easy attraction for an audience when writing fiction. This in turn led to the very questioning of the fundamental reason as to why the average person finds crime and villainy so attractive. Steve Volk made a keen note that "The Joker is increasingly more popular than batman" and wondered, as we all did, what that indicates about our current society.  Eventually the group seemed to reach a consensus on the belief that the taint of crime lies within us all, however we learn to establish preventers, barriers of sorts that disallow us to succumb to our darker desires, in other words, moral fiber.  Capuzzo informed the audience that "psychopaths" are those with no such barriers, with unlimited options, no potential action they can take is seen as unallowable to them.  The group determined that crime's appeal is so great due to the very fact that we all posses criminal intentions and some point, but suppress them. Crime writing allows us to explore our dark fantasies, it offers a view into what may have occurred had we brought our devious plots into fruition on all of those occasions we've had them.
       Writers, especially crime or aspiring writers, should of course heed this information. It's undeniably useful when pondering where to go with a plot, or how to make a murderous character believable. The heart of crime is essentially the destruction of the aforementioned "barriers" that serve as our moral compass, and allow us to regard the effects we have on others. Therefore, in constructing a narrative it'd be wise to consider breaking a characters "barriers" as a means for inducing action. Take for example, Macbeth, in which Shakespeare's hero begins as a promising, good hearted thane of Glamis. Of course, Macbeth's barriers are broken down by the enticing prophecies the witches provide to him. Shakespeare provides MAcbeth with the particular motivation of power thirst. His barrier broken,  Macbeth begins down a gruesome path, and becomes a particular type of killer, one that was brought up in discussion which I shall soon address.

On the Writing Process with Particular Attention to Character


       Towards the discussions closing a final inquiry was made regarding each guest author's writing process. Albert DiBartolomeo was asked to describe his process with writing fictional crime novels first.  DiBartolomeo stressed his great focus on framing as the initial step in the writing process. He expressed the need for "consequential actions", ones that can put great stress on his characters and break them (Breaking the barriers).  Once the basic frame is complete DiBartolomeo begins crafting and developing the characters and their ties with one another, which he considers the driving force behind his novels. He finds his excitement not through the criminal actions present, as they may be considered common, but rather the relationships between those who commit the acts against each other, often of family ties, and how the events effect each character.
      Michael Capuzzo takes a similar approach to DiBartolomeo's but applies it  to the creation of interesting nonfiction narratives. Foremost he searches for a great story, much like the need for consequential actions that DiBartolomeo expressed.  He then, much like DiBartolomeo, develops interesting characters around the exciting plot. Capuzzo made an extremely intriguing point on the importance of interesting characters with the following statement; "Everyone knows a great story." In that respect, it is the characters that set a story apart, for everyone knows what makes an strong plot. Capuzzo also mentioned some archetypes of murderers, which I believe would be helpful when thinking about character creation;
The Power Killer- Kills in a thirst for power(to stay "on top", Macbeth),
The Ego Killer- Kills primarily from the view that he is always superior, causing lack of acknowledgement of such to be an insult.
The Vengeful Killer-  Kills in an act of revenge. A retaliation. (Allegedly OJ Simpson murder as revenge for the act of cheating in a relationship.)
The Sadistic Killer- One who kills for pleasure. Unlike the previous killers who have barriers that are broken from specific events, the sadistic killer's barriers are non-existent. He will go to any length to derive the pleasure he seeks. (Many serial killers and psychotics fit this bill)
     Lastly I'll cover Steve Volk's writing process, which differs quite a bit from the previous two authors as he is primarily a journalist, not a writer of novels, though he has written one entitled Fringeology. Being a journalist, Volk is heavily dependent on his many sources, that lead him to firsthand reporting opportunities. He often examines each story in relation to its potential fitting into the standard magazine/paper structure of 5 sections; Lead, Background, Return to present situation examined in the lead, Climax, and Conclusion. Volk used the analogy of a  chef choosing ingredients for a meal to describe his approach to the writing process. He likes to have a wide selection of events and information on a story to choose from, and determines what ingredients would make for the tastiest article. When describing his approach to writing his novel Volk claimed that it was very much the same as his article writing process, all the way down to the fitting of the work into a 5 section journalism format.
     The discussion on the writing process proved to be quite useful for myself, and I hope for other writers who attended the event. I hope as well that I was able to regurgitate some of the information well enough to be of use to readers of this site.  In summary, the discussion highlighted especially the extreme importance of character, and their structuring around plots. Prime information to have in mind that isn't strictly limited to the writing of crime works.

A Quick Note, Serialization of Posts

I've determined, in an effort to induce a bit of formality on the blog, to serialize posts. In other words, readers can expect a blog post on a certain day of the week, every week, in order to  allow for a more reader friendly environment, in which blog viewers know when to expect new content. Hopefully this will eliminate any shade of what I imagine is an annoying sense of sporadic posting, causing sporadic viewing, and all around confusion.  So here's the deal;

Wednesday's: Every Wednesday of the week, starting this week, shall be when I publish a main blog post for the week. However, if I have a multitude of content that I'd like to put out that week I may post some write up's on Monday's, Tuesday's, and Thursday's as well. Therefore...

Friday's: Shall house posts with links to all of the content published during that week, enabling  easy access to anything that may have been initially missed. 

I'm also juggling around the idea of doing "theme" weeks, in which one post regarding a specific topic shall be published everyday of the specified week. (Similar to this week's coverage of Drexel's Week of Writing.)

And that's about it. 

Remember, a new blog post every Wednesday!

Drexel University's Week of Writing Event 2: Philosophy and/as Literature

The second event at Drexel's 2012 Week of Writing was the first of, hopefully many to come, events during the week focused on philosophy. Philosophy and Literature have always had a significant connection, the subject this particular panel aimed to address. Drexel University invited members of the philosophy department at Richard Stockton College of New Jersey to present their thoughts on philosophy and literature and serve as panelists for the event.
   
       The first speaker, Melanie McLeod, focused her presentation on a basic introduction to philosophy, and the importance of critical thinking. Criticism, fostered by critical thinking, was defined in not one, but two categories; private face and public face. Private face refers specifically to the relationship between thought and reasoning, whereas public face boasts the relationship between language and reasoning. With this in mind, Ms. McLeod made the excellent point that literature acts as a display of both. The author first takes part in private face criticism, through the ideas the writer determines to explore through the literary work (clearly a concept that is open to critical though, such as man's selfish nature is a prerequisite.) The author then participates in public face through the use of language in written word, conveying his thoughts to others, who in turn are receptive and as a result likely participate in their own private face on the author's ideas. Therefore, literature promotes critical thinking.  An excellent defense against those pesky people who fail to see the point in literary study or production. (hah!)
        After the conclusion of Ms. McLeod's presentation Peter Hagen, another guest speaker from Stockton, began his. Mr. Hagen's presentation was excellent, and would be of keen interest,(I think) to writers and literature enthusiasts of all types. The presentation revolved around Mr. Hagen's own experience as a college advisor, and his efforts to utilize his degree and knowledge in literature to support his work in aiding students. He made point that all students, and on a larger scale, all people, are akin to unfinished texts, to be worked on and written. Mr. Hagen also professed that he had in fact seen some degree of manifestation of famous fictional characters, such as hamlet, in his clients. What I believe Mr. Hagen advocated with his speech was essentially the importance of literature, and it's accessibility for application to work and world philosophies. In addition, Mr. Hagen's sentiments served as a keen reminder to myself that a huge portion of writing has to do with observance. As writers we examine, and as Ms. McLeod stated, criticize the world around us. We take our observations in from our reality and utilize them, criticize them, and relay them.
       Both presentations were excellently executed, and provided a healthy dosage of insight. Dr. Roger Jackson was to present next, unfortunately I had to attend to other duties and could not remain for his presentation. If the previous speakers were any indication, however, I'm sure he delivered interesting ideas with the best of eloquence.

This concludes the coverage of Drexel University's Week of Writing 2012 events for today, 5/21/12. The next post on the Week of Writing shall be published on 5/22/12.

Drexel University's Week of Writing Event 1: Marathon Reading

The Week of Writing at Drexel University erupted today beginning with a Marathon Reading event. Writers who claimed victory in the preceeding Drexel Publishing contest were invited to read their works to a small audience. The pieces themselves were very good, and there existed a nice representation of both prose and poetry.

What was most interesting to note, however, was the degree of leniency and difference readers took when reading their work. Some took on an informal position, often adding verbal asides in the middle of their work, such as ones that provided some background on inspirations for their works or opinions.  Such asides are not present in the written text, and could be interpreted as an augmentation, that is some additional content, to the performance of reading the pieces not found in the act of reading the work.
         Yet such "agumentation" undoubtedly detracts from a potential structuring of the readings as performances. These asides, though related, break the narrative, in essence disrupting immersion. I think there's a value to both, and certainly the writers who read today demonstrated the truth to such a sentiment, but I am perplexed upon which may be better. Are informational asides during a reading valuable, and offer something extra to the listener? Or is the experience more enjoyable when the piece is read without a break from the narration and particular vocal fluctuations to enhance the narratives pathos?  Perhaps certain pieces, or authors even, are more suited to one of such reading practices more than the other?

It was an interesting event, not to mention a chance to hear some great writing.

Coverage of Drexel University's "Week of Writing"

This week Drexel University, more specifically Drexel Publishing Group (http://drexelpublishing.org/), will be hosting a multitude of events dedicated to the art of writing. This week there shall be a slew of blog posts on the various speeches, open mics, and guest panels held during the week of writing.

Hopefully these events will provide some substantial ideas to comment and develop on.

 Expect the first post on this week's happenings on Monday!

Writing Theory: Drafting the "Throwaway" Draft

The "Throwaway" Draft is often the first draft, or initial ideas one has for a written piece. Apparently, William Faulkner used the following metaphor for drafting, "Building a barn in a tornado." While I haven't been able to verify if this is an actual quote from Faulkner, the truth it holds is not detracted, and it's very much one I agree with. It essentially harps on writing some interpretation of your ideas for a piece immediately once you have them, for the longer you sit idly on them, the faster they dissipate. But what about the approach to writing the actual "throwaway" or initial draft?
Well, firstly the throwaway draft does not have to be a display of excellent writing or expression by any means. In fact, I find that all of my throwaways are quite atrocious, that is, after all, why they are called "throwaways". Their purpose is solely to put your idea to paper, to facilitate further thought on the idea, help it foster and develop.
John E. Schwiebert provides some excellent tips for throwaway draft writing in Reading and Writing from Literature; Third Edition. While the book primarily focuses on analytical essay writing, I find the advice he provides applicable to many different writing forms.
Here's a short excerpt of a list of tips he provides;

"-Focus yourself by jotting down your working thesis
-Write quickly for a limited time period (twenty to thirty minutes works well)
- Make sure the draft has a beginning and an end, however sketchy
-Do not concern yourself with getting the correct phrasing...as fumbling over these matters will break your train of thought
-Whenever you get stuck and can't think of a word, phrase or, scentence, leave a blank and push on. If you are undecided between two different words or phrases, include both and seperate with a slash... Aim to achieve overall shape for the piece and worry about the details later."- Schwiebert

Good notions to keep in mind while writing initial drafts on projects. The only one I would perhaps dispute is the suggestion of having time limitations. I prefer to simply write and let my thoughts on the subject flow throughout the writing until they come to a halt. This of course causes the necessity of longer review time to determine what parts of the draft shall remain than perhaps a time limited throwaway draft would, but I would advocate it nonetheless.
Regardless, it's important to write a throwaway draft for all of the potential ideas you have a desire to write on, and it's important to write about them asap, without care of how sloppily the draft may be written.
Check out John E. Schwiebert's book Reading and Writing from Literature for further draft writing tips, as well as some great tools for writing analytical essays pertaining to literature.

Source: Schwiebert, John. Reading and Writing from Literature. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2005. Print.

A Short Note About "Theory"

You, the reader, may notice that a post contains the tags either "Writing Theory" or "Maddening Theory", and I'd quickly like to explain the difference between the two. Posts labeled "Writing Theory" shall be posts entailing well established theories on writing and potentially my thoughts on them. "Maddening Theory" labeled posts are posts that contain the ramblings of my brain on writing theories that are, to my knowledge, original.

Hopefully this provides some clarity on the labeling.

Crafting Characters: Character Creation and Relation to Theme Part I

When writing any narrative character is imperative. Many a narrative rely on strong characters, as well as strong character presence. While one can most certainly argue that it is possible to have a very entertaining and profound narrative with minimal characters and character presence, it is undoubtedly uncommon, as well as a daunting task.
       Therefore, I certainly think it's important to spend time mulling over potential methods for creating interesting, purposeful, and realistic(Or unrealistic if that's your game) characters. In this particular post, I shall address a theory of tackling character creation that I have recently scavenged from the notches of my brain.
        I do believe, that one viable methodology for creating characters is to create them with the narrative's theme in mind.  Theme, moral, purpose, etc.; call it what you may, essentially I proclaim that a rather reasonable way of creating characters is to mold them around the piece's  main idea. 
      I have put to words 3 character "types" I have concocted that I believe could be applied to many pieces of literature, and used to drive creation of interesting characters, all of which serve a purpose, none being left unneeded. Of course, while I have presented 3 types, the vastness of possible variations, interpretations, archetypes, and effectiveness of this technique are insurmountable. Regardless, I believe the best way to provide further clarity on this idea of mine is through example, and so I shall give one.

"Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder"

Let's say a novelist has determined to write a novel that is set to convey support of the idea that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." (A strikingly simple sentiment, especially for a novel, but for the sake of the example we shall use it.) Now, our novelist has chosen his idea, but how will he convey it? Let's say the plot is made present to him first. He has decided that someone will go through great adversity regarding Italian Renaissance Paintings and his viewpoint of them.  Yet he is still in need of a conflict, in order to make for an interesting narrative; here implementation of the technique begins.

Hinderance, Manifestation, Facilitation/Thwarting,


The above are a few potential character outcomes usage of this little theory may provoke. They are archetypes of sorts, though even the minutest of difference can change a characters relation to the theme, and so I am hesitant to label them such, or even assume that building character's around theme relation even results in the formation of archetypes.
       Nevertheless, the above are a few exemplary words that may come to aid you when contemplating character and theme relation. Returning to our "Beauty in the eye..." novelist, let's say the determination has been made that the main character shall be an Art Historian. Next, our novelist may think of the character's relation to the theme, "How will he affect the presentation of the theme?" "How will the theme affect the character?" "To what degree will the theme and character affect each other?" our novelist then comes to the conclusion that he want's this character, being the central character, to support his idea. Here we approach the solidification of the character and how our novelist may approach it.

Character of Manifestation


As stated, we have determined that our novelist fancies his lead character to support his theme on beauty. Thus, he is creating a character of manifestation that is, one that embodies the theme. As can be imagined, the theme should be displayed through this character. This fosters though on possible traits and actions the character can take to achieve this goal. For instance we may want to make our character accepting and open to others ideas. Perhaps he can vouch for the beauty of a struggling artist's painting. Regardless, the traits should cause a character of manifestation to, well, manifest the theme of the story. To what degree is varied.

Character of Hindrance

Yet what if the novelist had determined he actually wishes for his character to present an opposition to the idea he is presenting in his work? This would of course, render the character to be on of hindrance going against the theme's conveyance. An obvious character of hindrance would be a narratives antagonist. It'd be quite simple to have the protagonist support the theme, and have the antagonist hinder it, causing the theme's supporter to ultimately triumph. However, the protagonist could very easily take the position of hinderance as well. This of course opens potential narrative paths, such as a change in the protagonists out look and theme relation from one of hinderance to one of manifestation. 
     In the case of our example, determining a character of hinderance then allows us to determine some traits that would establish the character's negative relation to the theme. For example, the character could view art very objectively and feel that the techniques deemed most advanced, produce the most beautiful work, causing an elitism over the beauty of pieces of art.

Character of Facilitation/Thwarting


The character of facilitation fuels progression toward the theme. However, unlike the character of manifestation is not by any means an embodiment of the theme, nor does the character necessarily subscribe to the novelist's theme. Contrarily, the character of thwarting holds a similar relation to the character of hinderance. While the thwarting character often detracts focus toward the theme, he is not necessarily an opponent to the theme. Both of these character types allow for further narrowing of traits and most especially narrative. Such characters may provide bursts of side conflicts or action, and cause some shrouding of the theme, and perhaps introduce alternate views.  For instance, the main character of the novelists story could be one of facilitation; the character does not completely manifest the idea within his traits, but perhaps has some that drive the narrative toward the theme, such as a thirst for fine art, causing the character to view many differing pieces of differing beauties.

To Conclude

Once character relations to the theme are established, it is relatively easy to begin thinking of traits that support their relations with the theme of the story, as well as fit the characters into typical narrative roles. In turn, the novelist may think of traits that alter the characters relation to the theme, making relations and characters undoubtedly more complex.

Part II shall address fitting these characters based on theme relation into the narrative, building the narrative around them, and molding these basic characters into dynamic, narratively and theme integrated roles.

PoeWar Article: "Defining Characters By Their Roles"

For those unfamiliar, PoeWar is an online writer's resource center run by John Hewitt, and is, in my opinion, a great site for fellow writers to visit. The site provides an abundance of tips on various writing facets, ranging from character building, to poetry, as well as practical freelancing and job acquisition information.

This particular article tackles character building from some traditional narrative roles. It introduces the reader to popular character archetypes and facilitates further thought on character building with it's closing questions. It's a handy article to consult when thinking about how a character fits a role, or what purpose a character serves, in a narrative.

http://poewar.com/10-days-of-character-building-defining-characters-by-their-roles/

If this article happens to pique an interest in character building, more character building articles can be found on the main site, as well as many other articles that may prove to be useful in reinforcing one's writing techniques.

http://poewar.com/

Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov; Fyodor Pavlovitch and the Nature of Wretchedness.

The Brothers Karamazov, Author Fyodor Dostoevsky's final novel, is often placed among the finest pieces of western literature. Within the tome's pages Dostoevsky addresses an immense span of taxing philosophical ideas on human nature and the intangible. While the entirety of Dostoevsky's novel is exceedingly noteworthy, I have determined, in this post, to specifically focus on the character of Fyodor Pavlovitch, and his role in conveying Dostoevsky's ideas of the wretched, the wicked ones, the "evil" doers, and what drives them. Throughout the novel the very nature of "scoundrels", as it is so often put within the pages, is consistently questioned, examined, and brought to light. Dostoevsky utilizes Fyodor Pavlovitch to portray thought provoking examinations of cruelty, and in the process molds what I consider to be one of the most interesting antagonists ever written.
     
           I implore you not to read on if you are quite particular about your novel reading experiences remaining pure, and have yet to read The Brothers Karamazov. While this is not a summary by any means, I have included quotes from the work, and do not wish to at all spoil anyone's experience with the fantastic novel.

       The most essential of statements regarding Fyodor Pavlovitch occurs within the novel's second book, within the 6th chapter. At this point, his eldest son, Dmitri Fyodorvitch Karamazov, presents the statement "Why is such a man alive?". It is this very statement that underlines the reason for Fyodor Pavlovitch's existence, to explore the origins and nature of wretchedness.
        Fyodor is foremost introduced as "one of those senseless persons who are very well capable of looking after their worldly affairs, and apparently, after nothing else." an important detail, as it allows for further delving into the motives behind the wretched character's actions, and the reasons I consider him such a formidable antagonist. Dostoevsky does not stifle the character by writing off his ambitions as nothing more than pure maliciousness against his fellow characters, but rather allows Fyodor to foster conflict through actions pandering to his sensualist self. Indeed, his sensualism, is discussed often in the novel, as is the concept of sensualism itself and it's presence in all of the characters. Fyodor Pavlovitch is, in the simplest of terms, selfish. His son Dmitri, with whom he has quarrel in The Brothers Karamazov, particularly speaks of the bliss he feels, as well as his love for life, after the fury of events in which his act of violence is committed against Grigory. "I've loved life too much, shamefully much...And yet I'm tortured by the thought that I'm a scoundrel, but satisfied with myself. I bless the creation." This sentiment of Dmitri's on the baseness of his nature, and his self centered, sensual view of life, is embodied also within the character of Fyodor.  It is this very intense love of life, and acceptance of one's own wretched nature that fuel's Fyodor's cruel actions, if only to ensure the continual satisfaction of his sensuality.
       Therefore, malignancy is out of the question. Yet, the new inquiry becomes, "what causes Fyodor's sensuality to make him a good antagonist?" In what way does it cause him to invoke conflict with others? We can decipher such information partly from the text, "at the same time he was one of the most senseless, fantastical fellows in the whole district. I repeat it was not stupidity- the majority of these fantastical fellows are shrewd and intelligent enough- but just senselessness, and a particular national form of it. " But what is this senselessness Dostoevsky describes? It has been established that it not stupidity, nor is it inability to deal with common "worldly affairs", rather, I believe this particular "senselessness" to be that of disregard for others. This stems from the ideas expressed in book six of the novel, in which Father Zossima declares the belief that all men are responsible for one another. This is what I find to be Fyodor's "senselessness". The old man lacks any sort of responsibility felt toward his fellow men, sparking much of his wretchedness, such as the abandonment of his sons. It is this nature that clashes with Dmitri, who feels his father owes him, owes him a debt of land, owes him the responsibility of care that he never provided. Fyodor's antagonism lies rooted in his extreme individualism, and lack of any form of servitude or care taking to any of the other characters.
       And so, Dmitri's question rises again, "Why is such a man alive?", a man who has no inclinations of responsibility to his fellow man. Unfortunately, an examination of Fyodor Pavlovitch himself can not provide us an answer to this question. However, his character does provide insight on the nature of debauchery. Though Fyodor is a wretch, he is not a villain, he is, as stated, by no means malicious. In fact, it could even be argued that Fyodor had never once had a thought of malice against another, nor had he perpetrated one with presentiment. Rather, Fyodor is just how Dostoevsky so often describes him, sensual. He is no more than a man with desire, a man whom, unlike many, does not fall into maliciousness thought on the basis of achieving such desires, yet disregards others in achieving them.
      I do believe Fyodor is a wonderful antagonist, even endearing due to his apparent lack of malignancy. His character of course, brings to light a few questions about writing. Is such a character effective at portrayal of theme? Is the build up of conflict caused by such a character plausible? Most importantly, is malignancy necessary in the creation of a suitable antagonist? Is Dostoevsky's idea on this particular antagonism sound? What makes for a better antagonist, one whom is malicious outright, whatever it may be against, or one such as this, fueled by other traits that cause conflict in relation to other characters? I believe further examination of Fyodor Pavlovitch, as well as other antagonists that perhaps have minimal malice in their hearts, would certainly foster some creativity regarding the subjects of antagonism and conflict.
          And to close, a quote from the novel,
"As a general rule, people, even the wicked, are much more naive and simple-hearted than we suppose. And we ourselves are, too."

Sources: Dostoevsky, Fyodor The Brothers Karamazov 122 Fifth Avenue New York, NY: Barnes and Nobel Books, 2004(first published between 1879 and 1880). Print.

The Foreward

To my readers, who are, at this point in time, non-existent (but shall, with all good fortune come to exist.) I present to you an introduction to this humble blog, "Silent Rhetoric". Now, as with anything, I have brought this blog into our ever-expanding digital world for a purpose. It's primary objective is to serve as a forum of sorts, a place for discourse on the art of writing, through writing, that shall hopefully facilitate it.

As you may notice, I am, as of now, the only author, the sole possessor of the intangible pen with which I craft this note. However, how am I to take on the immense task of analyzing, improving, innovating, and exhibiting the vast discipline of written word on my own? Well, I pray that I shall not have to, and certainly hope that in due time I shall be contacted by others with a unyielding interest in the art, willing to aid me on this quest. 

Be not anxious however, for now, I hope that my audience may extract enjoyment from my writing at the very least, and perhaps, if I am lucky, may learn a bit from my innocent musings, and engage in discussion on the various subjects I desire to explore. Though it is my wish indeed that other contributers eventually join this little exploration of mine.

Well, I think that should suffice. Let's get right to it.