All those terms except “technical foul” apply to American football, so the Baron’s version of Calvinball is abnormally consistent. I think all of those terms plus every word in an unabridged Cantonese-Swahili dictionary also apply to cricket, but I’m not 100% on that.
James A. Michener wrote opening chapters to some of his books that could stand alone as dynamic “Nature vs, Nature” conflicts (e,g., the Pacific islands struggling to be born out of the sea in Hawaii). Maybe this old formula works best if we substitute “protagonist” for “Man”.
I think I’ve said it before. But I was once told the basic story comes down to: “1. Boy meets girl.” “2. Girl gets boy into pickle.” “3. Boy gets pickle into girl.”
Rock….you may soon experience being reminded for your bowdlerization of
Truby or somebody that WOMEN might also want to play this game, too, even to the point of being included in titles and outlines of concepts.
Although in point of fact, bunches of American women don’t seem to make it through
basic training. Foot problems. A few generations of high heels will do that….
yeah – we need a new pronoun that is gender-inclusive while still assonizing, consoniizing, with everything and rhyming with orange. ze and hir or zir ?
Oh, there are more basic problems than that with the aphorism, and the exclusion of women is central to the idea that the only stories that “count” are about conflict.
Have you considered a less conflicting way of dealing with situations like this? I propose whenever you read or hear ‘man’ you replace it with ‘person’ in your head. You can voice that replacement if it helps you feel good.
Also, I am interested in what you would use as example of a story without conflict. Stories about working together often fall under person vs nature. Love stories are often fall under person vs self. The only true conflict story in the list is person vs person.
Story without conflict? Maybe the 1960s “Yours, Mine, and Ours”. Then again, depending on who you label the protagonist (I label Lucille Ball’s character such, though arguments could be made for Henry Fonda’s character being the protagonist), you could probably frame it as a man vs self or man vs nature.
The problem is that the aphorism reinterprets everything in terms of conflict. Personal growth gets reinterpreted as “defeating” something-or-other, reconciliation to one’s limitations as being defeated by something or other. You talk about love-stories as being conflicts against self… but that’s a pretty modern love story. More traditional “literary” love stories tend (through this lens) toward pursuit and capture (or not) of the beloved, or the lovers’ conflict against the surrounding society, or competition for the beloved. Raising a kid gets reinterpreted as conflict with their nature, or with whatever bad thing happens in the course of their growth. And so on. But this shifts the attention away from intimacy and development, to focus on “what are they fighting?”. Even grief becomes a conflict instead of a passage.
The basic definition of a plot, in general, is that it involves some change for the characters involved. The idea that the change necessarily must be the result of a conflict, is superfluous.
I don’t think she’s trying to be polite. I think she’s making a stern demand. In a similar situation, I would probably also call someone “Mister” instead of using something more familiar, such as a first name (which we don’t even know for the Baron anyway).
Okay, we’ve now been primed via the size of the box and the name “Monstro”. Now the laws of narritvium and comedy state that once it opens, the final boss will be the size of a toaster oven. The rules of mad science state that it will still have enough firepower to melt a battleship.
The Whale?
Probably a kraken for copyright purposes.
The greatest thing would if it somehow turned out to be Foot.c
Yes. We covered that idea yesterday.
If it’s a dogfish, then technically it’s the version from original novel and therefore in the public domain, so Disney can’t sue.
Wouldn’t be the first “Pinocchio” reference in “Skin Horse.”
Please tell me Mistycorn sold the video rights to Netflix. I want to watch this.
Is that a Felix the Cat reference with Ginny’s first panel speech?
i.e. Poindexter to Felix
“Monstro”? “Bubbles”? Will Galloway Gallagher be joining the cast?
Didn’t his robot suffer from an inability to stop admiring itself in the mirror?
No; actually he was delighted by it…
I hope the Rock ’em Sock ’em robots get shown, or the brown metal “Martian Fighting Robot” I had as a kid…
All those terms except “technical foul” apply to American football, so the Baron’s version of Calvinball is abnormally consistent. I think all of those terms plus every word in an unabridged Cantonese-Swahili dictionary also apply to cricket, but I’m not 100% on that.
Well, Hitty’s busy, so they left out high-sticking, and Unity already ate the icing.
Ogden Wernstrom: Perhaps they do apply to cricket, but no umpire would be so gauche as to utter any of them during a match.
What’s in the booooooox?
Bubbles?
Cousin Jeb the Abattoir?
I was somewhat hoping for a giant green boar called Thunder-H0G, or T-H0G for short.
Nick: Uh . . . can’t we talk this out?
T-H0G: T-H0G SMASH TALKY MAN!
Chris: I hope Nick isn’t ordained to come to a sticky end.
There are only 4 stories: Man vs Man, Man Vs Self, Man Vs Nature, and Man vs Green Giant in a corrupt arena match.
James A. Michener wrote opening chapters to some of his books that could stand alone as dynamic “Nature vs, Nature” conflicts (e,g., the Pacific islands struggling to be born out of the sea in Hawaii). Maybe this old formula works best if we substitute “protagonist” for “Man”.
I think I’ve said it before. But I was once told the basic story comes down to: “1. Boy meets girl.” “2. Girl gets boy into pickle.” “3. Boy gets pickle into girl.”
BEST CROSSOVER EVER I NEED THIS
Actually the recent version of Crystal kinda looks like Unity….
Rock….you may soon experience being reminded for your bowdlerization of
Truby or somebody that WOMEN might also want to play this game, too, even to the point of being included in titles and outlines of concepts.
Although in point of fact, bunches of American women don’t seem to make it through
basic training. Foot problems. A few generations of high heels will do that….
???????
Was this supposed to be a reply to Rockphed’s comment making a joke about narrative conflict? If so, you may be interested to know that they did not just now invent those terms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_(narrative)#Classification
yeah – we need a new pronoun that is gender-inclusive while still assonizing, consoniizing, with everything and rhyming with orange. ze and hir or zir ?
Oh, there are more basic problems than that with the aphorism, and the exclusion of women is central to the idea that the only stories that “count” are about conflict.
Have you considered a less conflicting way of dealing with situations like this? I propose whenever you read or hear ‘man’ you replace it with ‘person’ in your head. You can voice that replacement if it helps you feel good.
Also, I am interested in what you would use as example of a story without conflict. Stories about working together often fall under person vs nature. Love stories are often fall under person vs self. The only true conflict story in the list is person vs person.
Story without conflict? Maybe the 1960s “Yours, Mine, and Ours”. Then again, depending on who you label the protagonist (I label Lucille Ball’s character such, though arguments could be made for Henry Fonda’s character being the protagonist), you could probably frame it as a man vs self or man vs nature.
The problem is that the aphorism reinterprets everything in terms of conflict. Personal growth gets reinterpreted as “defeating” something-or-other, reconciliation to one’s limitations as being defeated by something or other. You talk about love-stories as being conflicts against self… but that’s a pretty modern love story. More traditional “literary” love stories tend (through this lens) toward pursuit and capture (or not) of the beloved, or the lovers’ conflict against the surrounding society, or competition for the beloved. Raising a kid gets reinterpreted as conflict with their nature, or with whatever bad thing happens in the course of their growth. And so on. But this shifts the attention away from intimacy and development, to focus on “what are they fighting?”. Even grief becomes a conflict instead of a passage.
The basic definition of a plot, in general, is that it involves some change for the characters involved. The idea that the change necessarily must be the result of a conflict, is superfluous.
Is it… Calvinball?
Is that a Dalek or something from Futurama fighting in the ring?
“Mister” Mistycorn?
Virginia is an American. We don’t bend the knee to no damn aristocracy!
‘Twas referring to him as “Mister” in the first place. He doesn’t seem the type you would call “Mister.” Even if you were trying to be polite.
I don’t think she’s trying to be polite. I think she’s making a stern demand. In a similar situation, I would probably also call someone “Mister” instead of using something more familiar, such as a first name (which we don’t even know for the Baron anyway).
This. Is. Calvinball!
Okay, we’ve now been primed via the size of the box and the name “Monstro”. Now the laws of narritvium and comedy state that once it opens, the final boss will be the size of a toaster oven. The rules of mad science state that it will still have enough firepower to melt a battleship.
Either that or it unfolds to be much _larger_ than the box and turns out to be pushover.