My composing dream
- Thread starter MattMVS7
- Start date
- Pronouns
- They
- MarioWiki
- Roserade
Give 2257 A Cheese To Keep Him Happy!
2257 and 2257's sister meet again. He becomes very hungry towards her, starts to hear his stomach growl, and mentions putting cheese on some spaghetti with homemade sauce when he gets home. 2257's sister notices this and walks up to him. They meet face to face.
2257's sister: "2257."
2257: "Yes, 2257's sister?," 2257 quietly asks as though awaiting a proclamation of metric cheese measurements from 2257's sister.
2257's sister: "There's no cheese available to buy from the store until Monday," 2257's sister quietly and gently informs 2257.
2257: "Oh. Okay," 2257 states in a normal, casual tone of voice.
2257 and 2257's sister then have a normal conversation as they walk into the sunset.
~The End~
- Thread starter
- #28
Monika said:
I'm not sure what you're implying by creating a variation of my story. Are you implying that my story is so comical that it should be considered a meme where many people take my story and create their own variation of it as a means to carry on its comical legacy? But, if you're implying that my short story is awful, then remember to have a standard that's not too high nor too low. Having a moderate standard would allow you to praise and appreciate the comical greatness of my short story.
Shyghoul
Peace be with you, whoever you are.
- Pronouns
- she/her/they
I know this topic has been beaten to death lately, but something needs to be said. Something's inaniloquent apostles wring their hands with angst at the thought of someone like me scuttling something's peccable attempts to undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education. Let me cut to the chase: It cannot tolerate the world as it is. It needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, I fully intend to do whatever it takes to take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance, consequences be damned. Sure, something will likely retaliate by eroticizing relations of dominance and subordination, but I have long suggested we get my message about something out to the world. Something, however, rejects this suggestion as a ginned-up effort to undermine its authority. To that I say, something's Praetorian Guard appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction, yet I keep reminding myself that something says that it can override nature. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, They're not in here!?
One wonders how something can complain about horny dolts of one sort or another given that its own monographs also aim to ensure that there can never in the future be accord, unity, or a common, agreed-upon destiny among the citizens of this once-great nation. Something has remarked that it is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand I'll spell it out for you. For starters, only a person who knows what voyeurism is and has a moral belief that it is wrong and has a personal code that keeps him or her from joining in with it, even when there is personal risk and sacrifice involved, can truly pursue virtue and knowledge. I will do my best to be such a moral person despite the fact that what I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of a callow, fickle wacko. It's a fact.
If something had even a shred of intellectual integrity, it'd admit that as soon as the time is ripe I will urge lawmakers to pass a nonbinding resolution affirming that its huffy, pro-censorship scribblings are indicative of a politics poisoned by unreasonable streams of unilateralism, anarchism, and misoneism. This isn't just a public-relations move. It's a real move to get people to see that something will do everything in its power to get me to tear off all my clothes and run naked down the street. I don't have to take that lying down. That's why I'm going to tell you a little story about how something has planted its sidekicks everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance something's ability to interfere with the most important principles of democracy, but it also provides irrefutable evidence that it knows how to lie. It's too bad it doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying.
In something's writing, words and meaning have almost parted company. It is also worthy of note that something is astonishingly evil. However, as the Buddha remarked, there has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it. I'm sure that if the Buddha lived in modern times, though, he'd also comment on how there is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when something perverts hatred in order to scorn and abjure reason, it becomes clear that a lot of people may end up getting hurt before the final spasm of its rage is played out. In this case, one cannot help but recall that something demands obeisance from its grunts. Then, once they prove their loyalty, something forces them to twist the teaching of history to suit its batty purposes.
It's not necessarily difficult to put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity. We can begin simply by empowering the oppressed to control their own lives. See? I told you it wasn't necessarily difficult. We just need to remember that something and I are as different as chalk and cheese. It, for instance, wants to cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose. I, on the other hand, want to hone in on something's faults with laser-like precision. That's why I need to tell you that I feel no more personal hatred for it than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them.
In its annual report on sniffish incidents, the government concluded that I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to protect this planet for future generations. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why something used to maintain that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like it. However, after my last letter so eloquently put a lie to that, something and its brethren have busily if rather quietly gone to work on their palinodesamending here, canceling there, and generally trying to conceal the fact that the main dissensus between me and something is that I profess that most law-abiding citizens disapprove of something's methods. Something, on the other hand, maintains that the government should be beholden to special interests, campaign donors, and lobbyists. Last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince something that I have seen far too many people give up their old-fashioned mother-wit for something's capernoited maggots and nonsense. As I expected, it was thoroughly unconvinced.
Something deeply believes that everyone who is oppugning its vilipensive dissertations has a dark, ulterior motive for doing so. It may suit its world view to assume that the intentions of its corrivals are malicious, but unless something can read minds, it's difficult to impossible for anyone to verify that assumption. Hence, let me make the counterproposal that the reality is that I am not predicting anything specific. I just have a feeling, an intuition, based on several things that are happening now that something will create an atmosphere of mistrust in which speculations and rumors gain the appearance of viability and compete openly with more carefully considered theories in the immediate years ahead. It is painful to write such truisms, but something commemorates Ultracrepidarianism Awareness Week, as if that were a legitimate holiday.
Something is the type of organization that turns up its nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for it to alter, amend, abridge, and censor the record to point the finger of responsibility at others. So what are the facts and what is the truth about something? The most important fact is that it can't fool me. I've met nugatory pikers before so I know that we cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that we are passing a tipping point. The damage that something's patronizing epigrams have caused to our society is unlikely to be repaired or put into remission, much less reversed, even if we successfully unite rich and poor, young and old. So let's stay focused on providing light, information, and knowledge about its subhuman initiatives while never forgetting that I, not being one of the many lawless, intellectually challenged omadhauns of this world, am not trying to smear anybody. I just want to ensure that everyone knows that something keeps saying that the goodness of something is in direct proportion only to the amount of recidivism in said thing. For some reason, something's supporters actually believe this nonsense.
Vulgarity and intimidation appear prominently in something's froward monographs, so to speak. There are two things we need to do right away. First, we need to do something about the continuingmake that the escalatingeffort on something's part to convert once-great academic institutions into worthless diploma mills. Secondand this is critical so get out your highlighterwe need to discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic. Once those two things are accomplished we can finally start discussing how if something were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that it must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why it accuses me of admitting that lexiphanicism is a sine qua non for mankind's happiness. What I actually said is that something is on a crusade to get people to use the word hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian instead of phoneticogrammatical. You've no doubt noticed that this substitution makes no sense. Something is merely engaging in wordplay in an effort to deflect attention from its evoking a misdirected response to genuine unresolved grievances.
Something wants to bring incendiarism to this country in the name of anti-incendiarism. Alas, that's a mere ripple on the mutinous ocean of chauvinism in which something will drown any attempt to champion the force of goodness against the greed of malign guttersnipes. Many organizations lie. Something, however, lies with such ease it's troubling. I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to provide some balance to something's one-sided philippics. The take-away message of this letter is that I unmistakably find that pestiferous, conniving loobies are no different from dissolute something clones. Think about it. I don't want to have to write another letter a few years from now, in the wake of a society torn apart by something's nutty criticisms, reminding you that you were warned.
One wonders how something can complain about horny dolts of one sort or another given that its own monographs also aim to ensure that there can never in the future be accord, unity, or a common, agreed-upon destiny among the citizens of this once-great nation. Something has remarked that it is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand I'll spell it out for you. For starters, only a person who knows what voyeurism is and has a moral belief that it is wrong and has a personal code that keeps him or her from joining in with it, even when there is personal risk and sacrifice involved, can truly pursue virtue and knowledge. I will do my best to be such a moral person despite the fact that what I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of a callow, fickle wacko. It's a fact.
If something had even a shred of intellectual integrity, it'd admit that as soon as the time is ripe I will urge lawmakers to pass a nonbinding resolution affirming that its huffy, pro-censorship scribblings are indicative of a politics poisoned by unreasonable streams of unilateralism, anarchism, and misoneism. This isn't just a public-relations move. It's a real move to get people to see that something will do everything in its power to get me to tear off all my clothes and run naked down the street. I don't have to take that lying down. That's why I'm going to tell you a little story about how something has planted its sidekicks everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance something's ability to interfere with the most important principles of democracy, but it also provides irrefutable evidence that it knows how to lie. It's too bad it doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying.
In something's writing, words and meaning have almost parted company. It is also worthy of note that something is astonishingly evil. However, as the Buddha remarked, there has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it. I'm sure that if the Buddha lived in modern times, though, he'd also comment on how there is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when something perverts hatred in order to scorn and abjure reason, it becomes clear that a lot of people may end up getting hurt before the final spasm of its rage is played out. In this case, one cannot help but recall that something demands obeisance from its grunts. Then, once they prove their loyalty, something forces them to twist the teaching of history to suit its batty purposes.
It's not necessarily difficult to put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity. We can begin simply by empowering the oppressed to control their own lives. See? I told you it wasn't necessarily difficult. We just need to remember that something and I are as different as chalk and cheese. It, for instance, wants to cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose. I, on the other hand, want to hone in on something's faults with laser-like precision. That's why I need to tell you that I feel no more personal hatred for it than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them.
In its annual report on sniffish incidents, the government concluded that I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to protect this planet for future generations. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why something used to maintain that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like it. However, after my last letter so eloquently put a lie to that, something and its brethren have busily if rather quietly gone to work on their palinodesamending here, canceling there, and generally trying to conceal the fact that the main dissensus between me and something is that I profess that most law-abiding citizens disapprove of something's methods. Something, on the other hand, maintains that the government should be beholden to special interests, campaign donors, and lobbyists. Last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince something that I have seen far too many people give up their old-fashioned mother-wit for something's capernoited maggots and nonsense. As I expected, it was thoroughly unconvinced.
Something deeply believes that everyone who is oppugning its vilipensive dissertations has a dark, ulterior motive for doing so. It may suit its world view to assume that the intentions of its corrivals are malicious, but unless something can read minds, it's difficult to impossible for anyone to verify that assumption. Hence, let me make the counterproposal that the reality is that I am not predicting anything specific. I just have a feeling, an intuition, based on several things that are happening now that something will create an atmosphere of mistrust in which speculations and rumors gain the appearance of viability and compete openly with more carefully considered theories in the immediate years ahead. It is painful to write such truisms, but something commemorates Ultracrepidarianism Awareness Week, as if that were a legitimate holiday.
Something is the type of organization that turns up its nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for it to alter, amend, abridge, and censor the record to point the finger of responsibility at others. So what are the facts and what is the truth about something? The most important fact is that it can't fool me. I've met nugatory pikers before so I know that we cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that we are passing a tipping point. The damage that something's patronizing epigrams have caused to our society is unlikely to be repaired or put into remission, much less reversed, even if we successfully unite rich and poor, young and old. So let's stay focused on providing light, information, and knowledge about its subhuman initiatives while never forgetting that I, not being one of the many lawless, intellectually challenged omadhauns of this world, am not trying to smear anybody. I just want to ensure that everyone knows that something keeps saying that the goodness of something is in direct proportion only to the amount of recidivism in said thing. For some reason, something's supporters actually believe this nonsense.
Vulgarity and intimidation appear prominently in something's froward monographs, so to speak. There are two things we need to do right away. First, we need to do something about the continuingmake that the escalatingeffort on something's part to convert once-great academic institutions into worthless diploma mills. Secondand this is critical so get out your highlighterwe need to discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic. Once those two things are accomplished we can finally start discussing how if something were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that it must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why it accuses me of admitting that lexiphanicism is a sine qua non for mankind's happiness. What I actually said is that something is on a crusade to get people to use the word hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian instead of phoneticogrammatical. You've no doubt noticed that this substitution makes no sense. Something is merely engaging in wordplay in an effort to deflect attention from its evoking a misdirected response to genuine unresolved grievances.
Something wants to bring incendiarism to this country in the name of anti-incendiarism. Alas, that's a mere ripple on the mutinous ocean of chauvinism in which something will drown any attempt to champion the force of goodness against the greed of malign guttersnipes. Many organizations lie. Something, however, lies with such ease it's troubling. I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to provide some balance to something's one-sided philippics. The take-away message of this letter is that I unmistakably find that pestiferous, conniving loobies are no different from dissolute something clones. Think about it. I don't want to have to write another letter a few years from now, in the wake of a society torn apart by something's nutty criticisms, reminding you that you were warned.
rollerC
Bob-omb
- Pronouns
- Use name
Monika said:
^^^ Comedy and music are not alike in the way you're thinking. Anyone can be funny--it's actually one of those things that humans do naturally, look for comedic windows. Music takes a whole lot of skill, way more than comedy does. As someone who dabbles in both (but doesn't consider themselves good in either), my experience is that comedy is much easier because it is significantly more subjective than music. Someone out there will find x joke funny, regardless of its quality; this is something so basic that the Sims doesn't require you to have some sort of "comedy skill" to make a joke in a conversation. Music, however, takes a great deal of learning and dedication. They cannot be compared in any sense.
I also don't know why you claim you're a "natural comedian". All of your jokes in this thread have been very dry and simply examples of irony, not humor on par with a career comedian.
MattMVS7 said:
Then why don't you try that instead of making huge narcissistic posts about music in a Mario community? Any serious and legitimate criticism or help someone tries to give you, you brush off. This is why people aren't taking you seriously anymore. You ask for help, but you don't accept it, and use "standards" as your reasoning. People have different standards. You can pick and choose the criticism you receive, but you will never get someone whose standards are on your level.
Music always sounds good in your head. It takes skill to flesh it out on paper, skill that you can only learn from others.
Also, rather than responding to memes, how about you quote some of the people who are actually trying to help, like MayanRyan?
- Thread starter
- #32
Roller said:
The real way to determine whether my scenes are comical and if any fully developed music I share in the future is good is to make it popular. If many people love it, then it was good. So, it would have met the reasonable standard. But, if many people don't like it, then it was never good.
- Thread starter
- #34
Roller said:
If I were to make my works popular to a community of people with high standards, chances are, many people would not like them. But, if I were to make these works popular to a community of people with a reasonable, moderate standard, then, chances are, many people would love them. So, according to a moderate standard, my works would be great. But, according to a high standard, they wouldn't be great.
I personally prefer people with the reasonable, moderate standard because these are the types of people who can praise and appreciate things in life whether they be works of art or anything else. The issue I'm having here is with people with unfair assessments of artwork because they can't praise and appreciate their greatness. In short, my goals is to not even bother with people who have these high standards and to instead share my works to people who can appreciate them.
rollerC
Bob-omb
- Pronouns
- Use name
The issue with that is that you're basing "high standards" off of your own standards, and proceeding to place yourself beside celebrated artists/comedians. If you label your standards as "moderate standards", then anyone with actually fair standards who tries to help you or give you criticism, you'll brush aside.
And what is wrong with people with high standards critiquing your work anyway? Regardless of standards, criticisms only serve to make you a better musician or comic. Don't you want to make your works good to people of all standards? Or do you just want people to praise you no matter what? If you want the latter, I suggest presenting your works to close friends who will go along with everything you do, and not the broad Internet, which holds a huge variety of people, personalities, and "standards".
And what is wrong with people with high standards critiquing your work anyway? Regardless of standards, criticisms only serve to make you a better musician or comic. Don't you want to make your works good to people of all standards? Or do you just want people to praise you no matter what? If you want the latter, I suggest presenting your works to close friends who will go along with everything you do, and not the broad Internet, which holds a huge variety of people, personalities, and "standards".
- Thread starter
- #36
Roller said:
I am already admitting that I'm not the best comedian. So, I am not placing myself next to famous artists and comedians. But I still think my scenes are comical. Yes, constructive criticism should be offered when it's deserved. But praise should also be offered when it's deserved. To just have criticism without the praise or praise without the criticism would be unfair. As far as standards go, the goal is to have a standard that's not too high nor too low. That's why I agree with the moderate standard. Having a moderate standard can still encourage growth. Even though the high standard encourages growth, it leaves very little room for praise and appreciation.
PanchamBro
Stay determined, Walkazo.
- Pronouns
- he/him
- MarioWiki
- PanchamBro
Agreed. I've taken criticism when it comes to my art, which allows me to get better with it.Roller said:
- Thread starter
- #41
Roller said:
If a person just offers one without the other, then that, to me, says the person is disregarding and dismissing any criticism that is deserved if that person only offered praise, or that the person is dismissing any praise that is deserved if he/she only offered criticism. I consider it to be an insult because the latter completely dismisses any greatness that is worth appreciating in a work of art.
The former dismisses any improvements that need to be made. I will just give an example to show how the latter is unfair and insulting. For example, if someone on American Idol sang quite well with some flaws, then if Simon Cowell just displayed his rude attitude and only offered criticism, then that would be plain rude and unfair. However, if he also offered the praise that was deserved, then that would be the right thing to do.
You only give praise when you can really find anything good about something. You don't just praise whatever you see to make the creator happy. You praise something to let the creator know of what's positive in a certain art piece, and let them know keep in and what to improve or leave out.
Always expect feedback, but don't expect people to just shower with praise or either bombard it with criticism. You can only know about people's opinions once they have provided feedback. Before said feedback is provided, you have the right to judge your own works of art however you want, however you can't impose your opinion on everyone else. You just might like different things people here do, and that's ok honestly, as long as you don't complain about our standards by saying they're "too high". They are different, but not necessarily high.
I don't know how to talk anymore, I shouldn't keep talking to no avail.
Always expect feedback, but don't expect people to just shower with praise or either bombard it with criticism. You can only know about people's opinions once they have provided feedback. Before said feedback is provided, you have the right to judge your own works of art however you want, however you can't impose your opinion on everyone else. You just might like different things people here do, and that's ok honestly, as long as you don't complain about our standards by saying they're "too high". They are different, but not necessarily high.
I don't know how to talk anymore, I shouldn't keep talking to no avail.
- Thread starter
- #44
Lucario said:
People can have a different style of comedy or music which prevents them from appreciating the greatness of certain types of comedy or music. So, having a high standard isn't the only thing that prevents people from praising and appreciating works of art. As for standards though, I think the moderate standard should be the universally agreed upon standard because, like I said before, it's neither too high nor too low. It's just right.
rollerC
Bob-omb
- Pronouns
- Use name
Well, unfortunately, that renders basically your whole post moot because no one is going to have the exact same standards you have that you consider "moderate standards", as that's really subjective. You might as well have not shared at all if this is the basis for all your responses to people's posts.
- Pronouns
- she/her
- MarioWiki
- Mario
Roller, we've went through similar "serious talk" with this guy before. I suggest you don't waste your breath on him, but you can make an example out of MattMVS7 of what NOT to do. I suggest you also take the "meme" route too and try not to waste too much time on him unless you have a really good joke or something.
- Thread starter
- #48
Roller said:
I thought there was a low, moderate, and high standard that was objective because I thought there was a way to objectively determine what works of art are good, magnificent, bad, or horrendous. If these objective standards don't yet exist and it's currently subjective, then surely there must be a way to objectively determine them.
- Thread starter
- #49
Princess Mario said:
Don't worry. I have taken the suggestion and criticism of others here into consideration. It's just that I'm not yet ready to learn how to compose. That's why I'm not talking about ways of improving my music. Instead, I'm stalling some time by talking about everything that I've been talking about. It's important for me to talk about anyway. So, that's why I'm talking about it.