Archive for January, 2013

This is going to be a short review. 1600 Penn is a new comedy about the life of a White House family.

I’m going to start with the bad things first. We don’t know (for sure) whether or not the President in this show is a Democrat or a Republican (not that it matters), or how long he’s been President.

His son, Skip, returns to the White House after seven years of college. This may just be references to the fact that he did visit the White House during his summer breaks, but if he was already living in the White House before he went to college, that would mean the President would be on his last year serving as President.

This may just be nitpicking to you, but I prefer having all of the information laid out. I’m also curious about the wife of the President (who is the stepmother to his four children). On Episode 3, the President reminisces with her about the time when she was campaigning for his governorship, and I wonder how long they’ve been married. A President who is a widower marries another woman at great cost. In the American President, starring Michael Douglas, there was a lot of insight as to how hard it is for a President to be single and ready to mingle.

Like I said, nitpicking, but I prefer to have all the information.

Unto the good stuff, now…

The show is damn good. It’s hilarious, and it features some fine acting. A lot of people don’t really think much of the acting of actors in comedies, but it takes a lot of work and talent to make your character’s witticisms seem natural. Josh Gad as Skip Gilchrist is impeccable. If the show were a car, he would be the engine. He brings life to the show.

That isn’t to say that the other characters are bland or too serious, but… He has a certain “spark”. -wink wink-

You’ll realize what I mean once you watch the first episode. I implore you to give this show a try. Why? The ratings are not good, although there are a lot of viewers online. What matters to the network, however, is television ratings. So, if you can, watch it on your Tv. If not, then just watch it online for the sake of laughing for twenty minutes straight.

See? I told you this would be short. Final verdict – 7/10

~J.A. Romano


P.S.: Just in case you have any ideas about it being bad because it’s in danger of cancellation… The pilot episode of Friends was almost shot down because one of the producers didn’t care for the concept. It’s been years since the finale, and people still watch Friends. I’m not saying they’re equal; just giving an example.

Firefly is the favorite show of almost every SFF fan, yet it was cancelled after thirteen episodes by Fox. The outcry by fans was big enough that a film called Serenity came out to tie up all the loose ends. Those are just a few examples of good and successful shows that were almost cancelled because of a few naysayers. Don’t let the naysayers affect your judgement. Don’t even let the yes-men (like me) affect your judgement. Just watch the show for yourself, and see if you agree with the naysayers or the handsome yes-men.


Let me clarify what I mean by old stuff. I mean stuff that’s about forty to fifty years in the past. That doesn’t make it bad. Not at all. It doesn’t make ‘old stuff’ ugly, or slow, or even old. Yeah, lost you there, didn’t I?

The thing is, there’s a way to get past being classified as an old thing. By the way, I don’t classify humans the same way I classify stuff like literature, movies, etc.

Ahem. Back to the main point, old stuff are quaint because of the simple fact that they are cooler in comparison to a lot of things. What do I mean? Take Strangers on a train, for example. Do you remember that scene

Scene from Strangers on a Train


There was actual tension in this scene. Will she die, or will she? Movies and literature nowadays are too blatant. There’s no subtlety, and people undermine the intelligence of most readers/viewers. Take the ending of the Dark Knight, for example. We could actually see what was happening. We could see that Batman was taking the fall to ‘protect’ Gotham.

And what do the writers (Nolan & Nolan) do? They have Gary Oldman condescend us by clarifying, “He’s the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs. So, we have to chase him, and uh… Put an ax to the bat signal… and we have to send some German shepherds… So, yup. That’s the ending, and we’ll see you in four years. Cool? All right, bye!”

You can’t tell me that you didn’t already know whatever Gary Oldman was saying. I recognize the “poetry” and “coolness” of his speech, but some things… are better left unsaid. It could have been introduced some other way, or they could have done nothing at all! We would have figured it out.

A fine example of not condescending your viewers would be the scene from Pulp Fiction where Butch escapes after his fight. You see, he secretly bet on himself, and won big. Now, he goes into a motel, and he talks with his partner. They don’t go, “Oh, Butch. I’m so glad you didn’t throw that fight, and that we’re super rich.”

“I know, wife, and now we are in a motel to avoid any hitmans that may seek to kill us.”

“Oh, Butch, hug me!”

Yeah. You see? That’s how it would’ve been ( not really ) if QT undermined us, and decided to clarify things. Real people don’t do that. Real people also ‘talk’ about random stuff. Like the opening scene of Reservoir Dogs where they’re talking about the meaning of Like A Virgin. Movies so rarely have good conversations… It’s sad, really.

Old movies did not undermine us like that. Did they? I mean the really GOOD ones. And movies nowadays don’t rely on shadows or shoes or anything anymore. They simply point the camera straight at the heroes, and have them read from the basic script of plot driven catch phrases.


Do you see that image? That was no doubt a way so none of the viewers would feel uncomfortable. Problem with a lot of old movies, America (and the world in general) was uptight about showing any graphic violence and are even hesitant of giving HINTS of sex. But still, that shot and angle… Awesome. It’s downright awesome.

The beginning of Strangers on a train is a close shot of the shoes of the two protagonists. I notice that the shoes in the beginning of the Sting are frighteningly familiar to the shoes in Strangers On a Train, and this may have been a slight nod to the good movie. You see? That’s what they’re missing nowadays. No hints, no suggestions… Not even good music!

Martin Scorsese, with his movie Mean Streets, was the first ever to simply play a rock song. It was BRILLIANT. Yet, at the same time, it was a sort of dawn of a less… musically interesting age of movies. For example, there was a scene in Sunset Boulevard where an angry Joe Gillis (William Holden) is climbing the stairs, but you can only see his shadow. With each step, music accompanies it, enhancing the effect of suspense and apprehension. Don’t know about you, but hearing Sympathy for the Devil by the Rolling Stones as someone climbs the stairs menacingly just doesn’t have the same effect.


I’m not saying you need an orchestra for every movie, but if you have a huge budget… Why not? Movies like the Dark Knight and Inception have their own orchestras. Movies like the Hobbit, as well. But, at the same time, it’s not the same. Is it?

Ahem. Remember in Inception where those loud booming sounds start playing? Yeah, that’s pretty much every twenty minutes of the entire movie, isn’t it? It was used awesomely, but there was no subtlety. A movie like Inception had a lot of moments for subtlety, and it was missed! We all know Hans Zimmer could have easily managed some subtle pieces, but.. It just wasn’t the norm, was it?

My point is, new movies should look back to old movies, and see what they did for lack of good special effects, with restrictions on how they film forced upon them. I mean. Of course, there are some movies that manage this. Take Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, for example. Do you remember the scene where Sam hears a couple of orcs climbing the stairs? He’s out of sight, and he starts growling. The orcs can only see his shadow, and he looks HUGE. They’re all quaking in their boots now. That was quite clever, if you ask me.

What do you think? Honestly, I like old movies, and I like new movies. Each has faults that aren’t really anyone’s faults, but that does not make them bad. But, new movies shouldn’t have as much difficulty as old movies. They have loads of material to look back on. Old movies barely had any movies to take cues from, and had to do a lot of risky moves to make them great. Some of which flat out failed. New movies no longer have to do that.

They would be able to pay homage to some great movies of the past, as well as give younger viewers something to write home about. Me… I didn’t like old movies much. I mean, come on. Special effects, please? But I’ve grown to like them a lot. Yet, the problem is that some old movies really do show their age, and while a lot of ’em are brilliant, the younger generation just doesn’t want a movie where you’re aware of its age the entire time.

Yes, we ‘preserve’ movies, but can anyone say for sure that people will actually watch them in fifty years unless they’re a HUGE fan of movies? No idea.

Hopefully, my nephews and nieces (since I probably won’t be having children. I’ll just be the cool Uncle) will still watch The Godfather, the Untouchables, Goodfellas, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind DESPITE their age. That’d be really cool.

I’m holding off on writing reviews of movies for a bit, since I’ve found myself rather occupied on some life stuff. I do have the time to review shows, though. The Following is Kevin Bacon’s new series, and the first episode aired yesterday. I just finished watching the Pilot episode a few minutes ago.

I’d heard about this show back when there was no summary on its IMDB page, and from the poster, I assumed that it was going to be a buddy cop dramedy. Standard stuff, really. I’m a real fan of crime shows (or detective shows) and I was perfectly fine with the idea of watching yet another buddy cop show. But, that’s not what I got.

As you can see, the Following is about a brilliant serial killer with a devoted following – if you will – and Kevin Bacon plays a former FBI Agent who’s on disability after a tussle with said serial killer, Joe Carroll. You see, Kevin Bacon was stabbed in the chest, and his heart was damaged severely. Since then, he’s been forced to wear a pacemaker to keep his heart ticking and he’s currently living off on the royalties of his true crime novel about Joe Carroll.

The episode begins with Joe Carroll’s escape after the gruesome murders of a few prison guards. At this point, I realized that this would not be standard at all. In White Collar, the Pilot begins with the main character – Neal/Neil – escaping from jail. He eventually ends up as a consultant to the FBI’s white collar crime division.

Somehow, I don’t imagine this will work out much the same way. The episode relies heavily on sound and flashbacks. The use of Kevin Bacon’s heartbeat is used to great effect (after all, his heart is weak), and the show utilizes incredibly loud sounds in an attempt to shock you. There’s a scene, for example, where a character is looking into a mirror while having a flashback. There is literally no sound. Suddenly, a man in a suit appears behind her, and the typical horror movie BAM resonates as she jumps into a closet.

It’s not really a bother, but it’s worth mentioning that you won’t have ground breaking new techniques of shocking the viewer in this. There’s also a scene where Kevin Bacon crawls through a crawlspace in a closet – without a weapon – while the sturdy FBI Agent follows behind him.

Call me insane, but this doesn’t strike me as terribly realistic. Here we have a man who hasn’t been an active field agent for over eight years, whose heart could give out any second, and he’s on point? With no weapon?

Doesn’t strike me as overly realistic, if you ask me. The show’s portrayal of FBI agents and detectives also falls victim to the “Sherlock” Effect. Everyone is literally incompetent – except for either the love interest or the sidekick of the consultant – and the consultant guides them through every little thing.

It happens on several shows where they utilize the “consultant” angle. Castle managed not to make the detectives totally incompetent, same with the Mentalist, but… I’m afraid only one of the characters – the great admirer of Bacon’s character – really stood out as someone not completely… Stupid. I guess we’ll see, though, right? I can’t really fault a show for not showing enough character development in one episode. They’re not miracle workers, but it’s worth mentioning.

The show also uses a fair bit of literary name dropping. The serial killer, portrayed by James Purefoy, is a great admirer of Edgar Allan Poe and the romantic period. I don’t get it, to be honest. I was always more of a Lovecraft kind of guy, who was inspired by Poe. My sister, though, posses the Complete Works of Poe while I possess the Complete Works of Lovecraft, so it’s pretty even in our household.

The acting of the serial killer is pretty decent. Like I said earlier, the show uses a lot of flashbacks, and the flashbacks involving the serial killer says a lot about his character, even though we don’t really see anything from his perspective. I wager the writers of the show are saving an episode told from his perspective till later in the season.

I don’t think they would have scored well among viewers if they’d told it entirely from a serial killer’s perspective. And yes, while I know Dexter does the same, they are not on Showtime. Lots of parents would complain about their children accidentally stumbling into a scene where a serial killer is portrayed as sympathetic.

No. I don’t think they’ll be doing that until the show has been renewed for a second season. Now, what about the mystery at the heart of this show and the concept itself? It’s honestly great. It’s original, and somewhat unbelievable ( at times ), but it is entertaining. Again, I said they used the sound of Bacon’s heartbeat to great effect. At times, I really did feel tense, and it was only heightened by the echo of a human heart.

It’s also no doubt a nod to Edgar Allan Poe’s telltale heart (however farfetched or discreet they make it seem) and the episode was very well directed. All in all, this is a serious show. Deadly serious.

But is it good? Why, yes, it is. The concept is original, the tortured character of Ryan Hardy ( Bacon ) is great, and even the serial killer is… Interesting. There was a scene near the ending that I thought was rather stupid. You see, they identified an “apprentice” of sort of the serial killer, and they had his name and picture.

Yet, near the ending, they show a scene of him pretending to be a police officer, whereby the victim replies, “Why are you on patrol? I saw on the News that they caught the serial killer already.”

The problem with most serial killers is that the police do not know what he looks like, making it very difficult for the public to keep a proper and watchful eye. I mean. What if your neighbor is a serial killer? If a news anchor or police officer asks that, then the public will panic. But show them the face of the killer, and you see the people unite and watch out for one another. So, I thought it was rather stupid. Now, it could be that they showed it in the News, and the victim didn’t see that segment, but I find that hard to believe.

I mean, how would it go, exactly? “Well, we’ve caught a serial killer. Yup. In other news, here is a clip of a dog trying to sing-a-long to Home by Phillip Phillips.” – twenty minutes later – “By the way, here’s the name and picture of the serial killer’s apprentice. Now, here’s a clip of a car almost being towed. Back to you, Kent.”

Ahem. That may have been slightly exaggerated, but you do get my point, right? The last ten minutes of the episode, though, was spectacular. Loved it. That scene wasn’t enough to stop me from being enthralled in the last ten minutes, and the encounter between Ryan Hardy and Joe Carroll was awesome.

So. Final verdict – this is a great show. I haven’t come up with a rating system for shows yet, but for now, let’s call this a 7.9/10.

It’s serious, it’s thrilling, and it’s original. Should you go in expecting the Good Guys, Castle, Burn Notice? Nope. I wouldn’t even say to expect the Mentalist or Criminal Minds. But expect an interesting new show, and you’re cool.The-Following-Cast-Promotional-Group-Photos-the-following-32576269-3900-2700


~J.A. Romano


Posted: January 19, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Well, Vienna experienced great snowfall the past week. The last time it saw this much snow was  (according to my knowledge) about five or six years ago. Naturally, I did what any normal person would do. I utterly destroyed my sibling in a snowball fight.

Snowball fights, you see, entail not just throwing, but tackling, as well. And having outgrown my sister ages ago (don’t sound so disgusted ’bout it. She’s six years older), I naturally was superior in strength. Anyways, I’m compiling a little home movie for my Dad, and I’m enjoying it quite a bit.

Even though there’s some video evidence that proves I may have elbowed my sister and kicked her… I can edit it to make it seem like she was the one to do the dirty deed. Bet you wish you thought of that when you had a snowball fight with your sibling, hmm?

But I may post some footage here on the blog once I’m done doing some editing magic. Not all of it, since some parts are too awesome for anyone else to see (ahem, because they’re boring bits of people walking, y’see), but I’ll reveal enough that you’ll know I had a great time. 

Since I know how important it is for you people to know that I’m enjoying myself. Good day to you, folks!

~J.A. Romano

I haven’t actually seen any of his movies, but on the day that I wrote the post, “Movies, why do I like them?” I watched the movie, Hitchcock.

Let’s get the basics down first. The acting of Sir Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren are impeccable. I expected that going into it. Personally, the last thirty minutes of the movie showcased some damn fine acting on their parts.

Second of all. This is a bit of a dramedy. I read this review by Roger Ebert, actually, and he considered the subplot concerning the marriage of Hitchcock and his wife, Alma, to be a distraction.

But that subplot, in essence, was actually the plot of the entire movie. The movie is about their relationship during the filming of Psycho. I could see how it would be a problem if the summary and trailer told you: “This is only about the filming of Psycho. Nothing else.”

Yet, the problems with their marriage, in a way, is an attempt to humanize the character of Hitchcock. Let’s face it. You can’t really sympathize with a man such as Alfred Hitchcock from the get-go. Because we don’t know how hard it is to make movies, and if it only showed that part of him, we’d all go: “Well, he just jeopardized his house for a movie? Ridiculous!”

And we wouldn’t be able to sympathize with him as much. Whereas, the combination of his marital problems (something most regular folk and strange folk alike experience at one point in their lives) helps to make it an overall more… human experience.

This is also the type of movie where you would have to listen to fully appreciate it. It’s pretty funny at times, and rather deep at others. For me, it just has the right amount of seriousness and comedy that I can watch it whenever I want. I have trouble watching comedies like Grown Ups – no matter what mood I have – and I have trouble watching movies like the Godfather or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind if I’m feeling… well, light hearted?

But I enjoy it when I see a movie that uses just the right amount of both that makes me want to watch it whenever – despite my mood.

I have trouble, however, giving it a 10 star review or something like that, though. Just as I have trouble saying, “The Avengers is one of the greatest movies!”

(I can’t even say it’s an especially great movie. Don’t know why, but it’s missing something. )

This movie, same as above, is missing something. It lacks the uniqueness and originality of new characters altogether, although it compensates by having us go, “OHH. Janet Leigh thinks Hitchcock is less controlling than Orson Welles?”

It would have benefitted if it utilized some name dropping. Of course, name dropping makes it less accessible to the younger generation ( I being one of them), but would the younger generation really watch a movie about a British fellow in his mid-sixties directing a really, really old movie that doesn’t even have any explosions?* But, it could emphasize the fact that some of these actors have worked with actors that some of the viewers idolized as children. Or their parents’ idolized when they were kids, as well. Maybe some more emphasis on the fact that Hitchcock directed a lot of movies that cemented Cary Grant as a really great actor, and that they featured Ingrid Bergman. The woman from Casablanca. It just didn’t take enough advantage of those things.

*Not a lot of them would. It’s a sad fact, and I am in no way insulting their intelligences, but… Still. Even I, the most pretentious member of the younger generation, still hesitates about watching really old movies. First of all, they most likely (actually, they really won’t) have the eclectic dialogue of movies like Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and In Bruges. And that’s what I really liked about those movies. They talked. Like real people.

So many times, I end up watching a movie where the dialogue is simply a tool to keep the plot going. Sometimes, I’d rather have, “I don’t tip waitresses,” than a sturdy, “Well, let’s go rob that jewelry store.”

That’s a reference to Reservoir Dogs, by the way.

I especially enjoyed the fact that I discovered a lot about American cinema before Hitchcock’s movie, Psycho. Before his movie, a toilet had never been shown on camera in the entire history of American cinema. Also, it was the bloodiest movie at the time.

Bear in mind, that the “stabbing” scenes don’t even show the knife breaking flesh. That is genius.

And for that reason, I give this movie a 7.5/10.

It is a great movie. I’d ask you to think before watching it, but after that one second of hesitation, do it. 




(Note: The asterisk is a continuation of my original point about the younger generation not watching a movie like this without ample reason. Y’see, I get sidetracked really easily. )

Actually, I’m not going to talk about why I like them. Well, I won’t ramble on about it. But I’m going to talk (or write, depending on how you look at it) about which is better: television shows or movies?

Hm. It can be argued that shows are superior because shows require a gripping storyline or dialogue or a great cast of characters to keep people tuning in every week for a new episode. But, it can also be argued that movies are superior because they have to cram in an inordinate amount of character development/introduction within a limited time period (movies are preferably shorter than three hours, y’see) and have to set up a lot of plot threads as well.

So how can you figure out which is better? No idea. If I knew that… I’d still be writing this. I mean. I like movies because I get to watch a movie with a one million dollar budget and then watch a movie with a 250 million dollar budget and go, “I liked the first one more.”

For example. I watched Step Up Revolution today. Part of it, at least. Couldn’t get through the movie. Story was awful, characters were awful, dialogue was awful, but the dancing was superb. Its budget was 33 million dollars and it grossed 140 million dollars from the Box Office.

That’s a lot of money, isn’t it? I think the movie’s a success, then! But then compare it to Pulp Fiction… Oh, wait. Hold on. I’m not saying we compare the plots. No. They’re completely different. It would be unfair. But let’s compare the budget, shall we? Pulp Fiction had an 8.5 million dollar budget and it grossed 213.9 million dollars from the Box Office. That’s not counting the amount of DvD’s it has sold. Or the fact that the script converted to a book was one of the Top 10 Bestsellers in the UK Publishing History. 

So. I like movies for the simple fact that they cost money, but the quality is just as important as if it were a book. I mean. I could make a book by myself. It would take a year and a half and it would leave me a zombie for a few weeks, but I could do it. For free, too. That is, unless I do research that requires a very fat wallet. 

Movies, I am told, takes money. I could technically make a movie right now, but I have no actors, no production crew, or anything. I only have a writer and a director and a faulty video camera.

And I’m the writer and director, by the way.

And the writer is an incompetent fool. 

So, movies take a lot of effort. They require a script (which is sort of easier than a book, but it’s still writing), it requires actors (Preposterous, I know), and it requires a load of other things. That’s what makes it interesting to me. 

You put all these things together for two hours of viewing pleasure, and it may or may not work out. It’s technically a gamble. 


So, if you make movies… It most likely means you have a lot of guts. Can’t be denied. Anyways, I watched four movies today. I watched In Bruges. Great movie. I watched Step Up Revolution, but like I said, couldn’t get through with it. Dancing was great, though. I watched People Like Us. Great movie. Chris Pine and Elizabeth Banks are great actors. 

What’s the fourth movie you ask? No idea. Maybe I’ll tell you tomorrow after I watch it. That’s nonlinear storytelling right there. I know. I’m utterly brilliant. Or utterly stupid.

Either way, you’re still reading this. What does that make you? Hm? 

Anyways. I was really happy to see the Likes of my last post. Wonder how I got so many. But I hope I get a few more Likes on this one. Sayonara!


~J.A. Romano

Well. Before I start ranting and screaming and arguing about the importance and dangers of plotting, I’ll tell you what I’ve done today. You see, this counts as the “Other Things”. See how I fooled everyone and lured people into reading this on the pretense that I may say something interesting or preposterous about writing? Brilliant, isn’t it? I watched a movie today. It was the Silver Linings Playbook, written and directed by David O. Russell. It was a romantic comedy, but I have trouble labeling it a Rom-com. The Bounty Hunter is a romantic comedy. Crazy, Stupid, Love is a romantic comedy. Heck, even the Change-Up can be considered as some sort of a romantic comedy. But the Silver Linings Playbook is on a whole new level. First of all, it’s enjoyable to watch.

I hate to break it to everyone, but I don’t like movies where I have to force myself to watch it. I like movies that make me laugh occasionally without stooping to utter ridiculousness. You know? This movie starring Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence made me laugh. That’s why I liked it.

The plot was good. Great, even. It had a very big tinge of realism, but managed to make the ending lovable. That’s the problem with realism. Romance + Realism = Titanic. 

I know. I’m reaching for the tissues even as we speak. But you get my point. So, I wanted to write about plotting and realism. How real do we actually want to get? 

At the beginning of your book, you have to decide three things. 

1. Tone

2. ….

3. …

I have no idea what the other two points are. Oh, you’ve mistaken me for someone that actually knows a lot about writing. Hah. It’s okay. You’re not the first one to make that mistake. When I started my book, the Line of Corruption, I knew one thing. Gritty. I wanted it brutal and real. That’s it. Absolutely no idea what the names of the characters were going to be. My main character, Ambrose, was originally named Ryder. And a character whose name struck fear into the hearts of many men was named Simon. That does not strike fear into me. I don’t care if he murdered a million people. When someone says Simon, I go, “Forgot the says. Don’t have to do it!”

Anyways. So, who am I to preach to everyone about thinking about everything extensively? I’d be a hypocrite, if so. When I was nearing the end of my book, however, I got a new writing program. It’s called, Scrivener. And it allowed me to start separate “folders” and I would write in ‘Notes’ what that chapter was going to entail.

So. I plotted everything from page 171 to… The last chapter? 

I was feeling pretty smug about myself. Y’know, it’s a big deal. Plotted everything. The next issue was writing those events. And let me tell you, it….




… failed miserably.

Or I should say, I failed miserably. I started my book on the foundation of spontaneity, and even though that foundation crumbled beneath the huge building of mismatched sentences after a week or two… There was a certain freedom to it. It was fun! I wasn’t restricted. In fact, if I had plotted ahead, I wouldn’t have gotten the plot I have today. And it is, in my opinion, better than my original intention. The plot worked out organically and it’s… In my eyes, it’s perfect for the book. I phrased it that way so that no one will go, “WELL, AREN’T YOU FULL OF YOURSELF?”

Because you can hate the book, but the plot would still be for the book. Hah. Yeah. You just got lawyered.

The one thing I understand about plotting is the danger of doing it too much. I think of my characters as semi-real. I don’t start chapters, knowing exactly what everyone will say. All of the conversations in my book are absolutely spontaneous. None of them were planned. I wrote them all on the spot. That could end in disaster, but it has succeeded in hooking my interest.

For someone like me who was not really determined to do anything prior to my first two books, that’s something. That is really something. So, I just want everyone to know that your book isn’t bad if you didn’t plan a plot beforehand. People have different methods of writing. 

I spend a minimum of thirty minutes writing every day. And my word count varies from 346 words to 2.1k. I wrote 869 words just before this in twenty minutes. I don’t force myself to write entire chapters. I just write. And hopefully, it’ll make sense.

Way I see it, if I write in a story every day for an entire week, and I don’t even enjoy a single moment of it… I’m doing something terribly wrong. The characters may be off, or the prose is not up to my standards, or the font is bad. The latter, actually, has happened to me quite often. 

Goddamn Scrivener. It keeps defaulting to Cochin, and Helvetica is so droll. Testing out Baskerville right now, but it’s not really blending well. Do you know of any good fonts? Please comment. 


Now. I need to go write since that’s the only way I can come up with a proper plot. Yeah. Sad, isn’t it? G’night, folks! And I did tell you all that I’d have more posts coming. But if you don’t like this… I never did promise that they’d be interesting, did I? Mhm. Loophole~


Yours Truly,

J.A. Romano