Bricks and Water

She was sexy, and looked like Laura Vandervoort, having a face that looked as if it'd been punched heavily and yet was sexy anyway. 

Very sexy anyway, in actual fact.

She doesn't have children. The story's not necessarily less better if she does, but, let's go this route anyway.

The politician would wake up. They'd brush their teeth. They'd have a shave (aren't politicians more sexy, for having a shave - not necessarily a reference to the outcome, just intended to pertain to the actual time of experience, the time of shaving). They'd get dressed, into their politician clothes.

As a child, as a teenager, the politician William Mont had regularly waited for his parents to leave the house, where they'd perhaps gone to the local supermarket, or to the local town centre, so that he could sneak into the main bedroom and try on his father's business suit. And feel sexy with it on.

The philosophical idea, the philosophical meaning of putting on the shirt, jacket and tie - not just the time of wearing them, but, the actual time of putting the items on (yes, you guessed it, just like shaving!) - was that Freddy Krueger was coming to get ya. 

As a child, as a teenager, the politician William Mont would view Nightmare On Elm Street. The 1984 classic. Time after, set amongst those sorts of times of ocean psychology, William the politician would reflect on the actual ideas, the actual literary themes of Freddy Kreuger. The innate sexiness, the innate sexuality of putting on the business suit, of putting on the glossy tie and white shirt and jacket was somehow linked to Krueger's own art.

That wasn't all. Once mommy and daddy had gone, either to the local supermarket or the local town centre, the routine would switch on. Anyway, the story digresses.

William Mont, having brushed teeth, shaven shower gel, eaten breakfast, and indeed switched on once again, his time for Washington D.C. and all its other politicians, would set about vacating his D.C. apartment. 

Ready to politics.

F**k the truth. F**k the spirituality, that all politicians are supposed to dress like the 60s hippie counter-culture movement, regardless of the counter-culture movement's members. Just f**k that classification of spirituality.

William Mont, on his way, to the Capitol Hill complex, is about to go into a DVD store just before arriving at the Capitol Hill complex.

Which, indeed, is precisely why and how the Laura Vandervoort sexy woman is able to begin the process, of kicking the s**t out of the politician, William Mont.

Why, as it happens? The spirituality has just been fucked, so just why is it, that Mont can feel good and sexy about going into the DVD store as a prelude - not a literary prelude - to his job at Capitol Hill?

Anyway, in the store, wearing his nice suit and tie and American flag badge, the politician William Mont sees the Laura Vandervoort woman fall over a pile of DVDs. To which Mont wonders (just wonders, doesn't behave it - just thoughts, thoughts thoughts): is it okay, for him to think that it's funny, that the Laura Vandervoort individual crashed into and fell over the DVD pile on the basis that she's sexy?

Thoughts! Thoughts! It's just thoughts. The event is real, i.e. the sexy Vandervoort look-a-like having crashed into and fell over the pile of DVDs, but, it's just thoughts in regards to Mont's reaction.

Mont "reacts". He, having too much reflected on his behaviour of finding satisfaction, admittedly a spontaneous type of behaviour, with the Vandervoort LAL crashing and falling over, actually gets seen. He actually now moments later gets seen by the Vandervoort LAL possessing a mild face of humour.

Yes, indeed.

Yes, indeed.

Yes, indeed.

Time for payback.

Does God exist? The historical status, of the routine of asking the question, is exempt from sociological deconstruction. In other words, when people ask, it is insurmountable that they are asking not of the William Mont-DVD store humour context, but of some bullshit boring context.

Anyway. William Mont. he needs to go to work. His team of staff are to draft up a legislative piece on immigration rights, for which he is due to appear on the senate floor in order to promote and said document. Time for f*****g around is over.

The sexy LAL, having gotten up, and having noticed the malfunctive facial expression by Mont, starts the process.

Mont is about to leave, cherishing his childhood routine of feeling sexy in business suits, meant to be just worn by daddy, and thus, he feels a kick and punch to his body, causing the whole store to collapse.

Mont and LAL get up, now surrounded by rubble, and begin their arcade beat' em up fight across Washington D.C.

How though? How was it, that LAL managed to cause an entire capitalist infrastructure of DVDs, of DVD shelves, of store desks and till counters to fall, just from punching and kicking the politician?

Whatever the answer, whatever the result of the inquiry, into the cause and powers of the LAL woman, the rest is history.

To defeat the LAL, Mont was going to have to rely on just his cherishings. 

On his childhood sexuality.

Good luck Mont. 

Reviews

[JayG]

• She was sexy, and looked like Laura Vandervoort

1. Assuming that the reader knows who Laura is, and has a mental picture of her is a mistake.
2. Our protagonist isn’t important enough to have a name? Seriouly? Right here is where this would be rejected by any publisher.

• having a face that looked as if it'd been punched heavily and yet was sexy anyway.

1. Sorry, but Laura Vandervoort’s face does NOT look like it'd been “punched heavily.” So this unknown “she” can’t look like her.
2. Because the reader has no clue of where we are in time and space, what’s going on, or, whose skin we wear, who cares what she looks like? The reader MUST have context as the words are read or they turn away right then.

• Very sexy anyway, in actual fact.

You already told the reader she’s sexy in the previous sentence. We can’t see her, so...what’s the difference between sexy and very sexy? Damned if I know. But that aside, no one cares what YOU think. You’re neither on the scene nor in the story. So who cares what you see as sexy? It’s what those she interacts with who matter. And we’ll know they think she’s sexy by-how-they treat-her.

The problem you face is that you’ve fallen into the most common trap in writing. You’re treating the reader as if they’re a member of the audience as you “tell” them the story, expecting them to hear the emotion you’d place into YOUR performance as they read. But they can’t.

You expect them to know where you’d use gestures to visually punctuate, body-language to amplify or moderate emotion, and facial expression to illustrate emotion. But they can’t, because what you’ve given them is your storyteller’s script, which they would have to perform as-you-would, for it to work. But, again, they can’t.

For centuries, writers have been refining and expanding the skills of writing fiction because nothing else works. The pros use them, and readers expect to see the result of using them.

Look at yourself. Every book you’ve chosen since learning to read has been professionally created and edited. What are the odds that you, without digging into the necessary skills of the profession are going to avoid the traps? And without knowing how to fix this one, all you can do is reword it with the same, let me tell you a story, skills.

My point is that you want to write. You have the story and you've demonstrated the necessary perseverance. Add the necessary skills to that and there you are.

And to do that, an excellent place to begin is with Debra Dixon’s, GMC: Goal Motivation & Conflict. It’s a warm easy read, that often feels like sitting with Deb as she talks about writing.

https://dokumen.pub/qdownload/gmc-goal-motivation-and-conflict-9781611943184.html

And for an overview of the traps and gotchas lying in wait for the hopeful writer, you might want to chack some of my articles and YouTube videos.

Jay Greenstein

Articles: https://jaygreenstein.wordpress.com/category/the-craft-of-writing/the-grumpy-old-writing-coach/
Videos: https://www.youtube.com/@jaygreenstein3334

- - - - - - - - - - -

“Good writing is supposed to evoke sensation in the reader. Not the fact that it’s raining, but the feeling of being rained upon.”
~ E. L. Doctorow