<General statement regarding how the story
-
<General statement regarding how the story will turn out.> Followed by <Introduction of protagonist.> Then an <Open-ended description of a hilarious or dangerous situation...>
5 -
<Radio or other media reports major plot point to protagonist.> Meanwhile, <antangonist states expositional monolague to justify actions.> When <protagonist flash-backs to meeting
5 -
the Rubber Chicken God and is handed the Golden Cleaver of Shtick> and then <antagonist relays a bullet point discussion on how the trap works> the hero then < injects
6 -
poison into the villains arm
2 -
he buckled with delight. The needle
2 -
pulling thread by itself was magical. As he watched in awe, his shirt was repaired to better than new condition. Now he was ready to meet the king.
7 -
The bubbles appeared from the left corner of the stage and then, lo and behold, Lawrence Welk (aka "The King") strode in, flourishing his wand (or whatever). "Ana one, Ana two..."
6 -
Ana conda!" The orchestra started in, but were so startled that they collapsed in a heap. There were several violin-related injuries. They would have to call in a plastic surgeon
6 -
for the facially less than attractive conductor. The violins were stretched off the stage only to be later made into toothpicks. The audience was unaware of the lack of care given
5 -
to entertaining them. Once again, the facade that is avaunt-garde, bordering on blatant dadaist (on the side that was), had victoried over confusing who was philistine or not.
6
- Started
- 2012-05-11 19:43:12
- Finished
- 2012-12-06 11:34:33
7 Comments
Want to leave a comment?
Sign up!
Zetawilk Dec 06 2012 @ 11:37
I think as a writer sometimes you just have to improvise verbs out of nouns, especially when working with a character limit. I was annoyed that "avant-garde" wanted to correct to "avaunt-garde" and STILL claimed itself to be incorrect. So much for the spell-check. I'm just leaving it as "avant-garde" from now on because my memory is telling me that's how Calvin (from "And Hobbes") spelled it. Incidentally, TheFreeDictionary (sorry for the advert) claims "spelt" is valid--under two definitions.
Zetawilk Dec 06 2012 @ 11:38
But that's okay, because the error I made was in the usage of the word "over" making it appear as though they won AGAINST confusing who were the true philistines, not BY confusing who were the true philistines. There's always that one more mistake, isn't there?
49erFaithful Dec 06 2012 @ 11:59
Epilogue:
jaw2ek Dec 06 2012 @ 12:07
Is THIS witty enough for ya? :-)
SlimWhitman Dec 21 2012 @ 15:24
49erFaithful Dec 21 2012 @ 23:30
Chaz Dec 22 2012 @ 20:28