~zack-sr

As per my lastest deviation, I was wondering about the prospect of non-sequitur humor in Nature of Nature's Art.

Of course, this kind of humor would have been sequestered towards the very end of the book, away from the main story.

The response was generally positive from my younger readers.

I'm curious as to how the humor would affect older readers. ~wheresmytea responded positively, and she is near my age.

But I was wondering about the flexibility of older readers. If they like the story, can they "come back" to a point of neutrality in order to enjoy humor that goes off in the opposite direction?

It can be a serious issue. As we get older, our ideals solidify. It may not be so easy to laugh at something we treasure as we become older. If an older reader can enjoy the story, is it worth the risk to depend on such a reader to be able to laugh at something he or she personally enjoyed? Or should I assume that we have the ability to laugh at ourselves?

On the other hand, as ~Buruzu hinted, the two can play to each others' strengths, and give contrast to one another.

With these points in mind, would your opinion change?

It can be important to laugh, but I'm not sure it's worth the expense of being considerate.

Although again, there are a lot of different types of people in the world... It might not be possible to account for all of them.

What do you think?

Lunch is a perpetual problem for me.. what to eat for lunch?

These days it has been a fried rice often. I make it in a wok. But it became boring after a couple of times. So I started to experiment. I'm having a wasabi-chicken-string beans-maple syrup fried rice now, it's very tasty!

What is your favo[u]rite food?

Looks like I recently passed a year's worth of work on 10%+. I'm a little disappointed that it isn't finished by now, since I have so many other stories to tell. I'll try to keep future stories shorter and more controlled. Scripts should help to keep story structure from wandering onto tangents too much.

However, some of the best moments in 10%+ came as improvisations. Quintet's "Quartet" was completely unexpected, as was the prolonged trial and Fiat's rousing defense, which hints at the birth of the insanity plea for animal law. It's been amazing to take the story this far, and in such directions. Far beyond the fight scene exercise I'd initially indulged in. I'll be excited to see the end.

And then, some more interesting stories!

I just discovered this work by chance. ~park1988's works. Jegal Fist!

If you like fight scenes, this is exceptionally well done. Amazing portraiture and posing.

[link]

Koreans in particular, take a look at this, because, it is in korean.

This is a kind of applicative psychology entry.

I just thought of this. In terms of having one person act aggressive towards another person, should the burden of restraint be on the aggressor, or on the recipient?

Normally, I understand that we would have no aggressive people. But aggression is a compulsion. It must be either statisfied or processed. Should the aggressor take that extra energy to process aggression, such as through catharsis (art), or should the recipient process that aggression for them through receipt?

As I understand it, aggressive people are aggressive because they can't afford the energy required to process some kind of deep aggression, the kind that drives them to attack other people. In sympathy, should the recipient take on that burden? Or will he or she also be unable to process that extra load... and in return pass it on to someone else?

We're talking about the ability to break a karmic chain here.

Maybe it's not so much a question of "if", but a question of "is it possible?" (We can't change people directly. As a result of this realization, should we account for them? Or deny/destroy them? Could you account for someone?)