#rules of success

[smartskill97]

20 Rules of Success That You Probably Don't Know

Understanding and applying these all rules of success are crucial for personal and professional growth. By learning and implementing these principles, you can increase your chances of achieving your goals and living a fulfilled life. In this blog, we will explore the golden rules for success in life and business, providing you with valuable insights to help you realize your dreams and find happiness.

[geezmarty]

drawing more taash/bellara. help

[heynhay]

playing dirty

[kev-day]

ok yesterday i saw a post about how kevin lost $10 in a bet about neil which was silly goofy and whatever but it got me to thinking about how actually kevin has so much faith in his people that i could bawl my eyes out.

[reality-detective]

8 rules for success! 🤔

[oldbutchdanielcraig]

ideal ship dynamic: guy who’s the most mentally unstable person you’ve ever heard of in your entire life x guy who wants to bang them so bad it has them saying things like “nothing wrong with that guy. they’re completely normal and sane”

[genericpuff]

What a lot of people don't understand about navigating the "real world" as a neurodivergent person is that we were told all the rules of society growing up that we naturally followed, only to find out later just how often neurotypical people are either breaking those rules or operating off completely unwritten ones to get themselves ahead and that somehow ND's are the "dumbasses" for not realizing that these unwritten rules and rule-breaking is the "norm" despite that norm going against all the rules and values that were drilled into us from birth that we were expected and predisposed to follow.

[quotelr]

Judging is preventing us from understanding a new truth. Free yourself from the rules of old judgments and create the space for new understanding.

Steve Maraboli, Life, the Truth, and Being Free

[rebel-wrath]

I'm something of a chaos goblin at heart, my DND alignment is always chaotic, and the only use I have for rule books is toilet paper, unless their on my kobo because that would not be comfortable. Or sanitary.

There is one rule I've found that cannot be ignored if you want to grow as a writer. Everything else you can burn. Show don't tell is great as long as you understand where to tell not show. Proper spelling and grammar can be ignored, if you understand how and can justify it. Don't infodump except when you are required to, because there's times when you have to. Don't head hop unless you're using a narrative style that allows you to head hop. Every rule except this one comes with caveats, and growth as a writer isn't measured in how well you learn the rules and can stick to them, but in how well you learn when they don't apply, and can write around them.

Don't believe me? The first Discworld novel starts with an infodump. It has to, because readers expect fantasy worlds to still be globes, and if you're breaking that rule you have to start by stating outright that you are breaking it. There are incredibly popular books filled with head hopping (the thriller genre especially). Even spelling can be ignored if you want to write in a dialect, or have a POV character writing the story who struggles with this.

I'm posting a serial story on here three times a week (Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday) under the tag #NofNA which repeatedly breaks rules that are constantly said to be inviolable. It works, because I write comedy, because my narrative style makes it work, and because I actively seek ways to break rules all the time.

So, what's the one rule that can't be broken? It's WRELA. And it's the most important writing rule there is, and the only one you should never break.

WRELA. Well, technically, W.R.E.L.A.

Write. Write something. Write anything. It doesn't matter what you write, and it doesn't matter how good it is. Write.

Read. Read your own work back. Read old pieces you wrote years ago, and the thing you just finished. Read it out loud. Read it to yourself. Read it to others. Read things others have written. Read comments, blog posts, movie reviews, short stories, fanfic, scripts, and novels. Read the back of the cereal box, the receipt when you buy something, the terms and conditions, the small print. Read skeets and subtitles and emails and the sms from your granny, God bless her.

Edit. Go over the work you have written, again and again if you have to. Edit it once or edit it 1000 times. That story I'm serialising? It took me fifteen years (on and off) and two lifetimes (when I believed I was cis and after I learned that I'm trans) to write, and the finished version is as different a book to the original as it was possible to be whilst still being about the same thing.

Learn. Learn from your writing, from your reading, from your editing. Don't learn the rules. Don't take what worked for Vonnegut or King or Aristotle and blindly apply it to your work. Learn yourself. Learn who you are, what your voice is, what you're trying to say to the world. Learn how to say it. Some of those rules from other writers might work well with you. Some of them won't. That's fine. Learn what makes you a better writer.

Apply. Put the things you learned from the last piece of fiction into the next piece of fiction you write. Then do it again. Learn from that and put that into the next and then again.

The next section is me using my writing to back up my previous statements. It's a bit "markety" because I'm discussing my writing. Feel free to skip it if you want.

Okay, let's back this up: NofNA, Noun of Noun and Adjective, is a fantasy comedy that satirises our world and parodies other books. I have a few chapters up already, if you want to read it. It's about a transgender princess who joins a magic mirror reality show called Heroic Quest in return for a magical gender transition (she's a trans woman). Structurally, it has similarities to Discworld novels (one thing I learned was footnotes are a pain in the ass). Another thing I learned was that I had to keep editing the narration because I wanted to directly comment on the story as the narrator and it wouldn't work.

So I applied what I learned to the next book I wrote, Attack of the 50 ft Trans Woman.

This is a story about a Trans Woman who undergoes an experimental procedure to change gender. She grows to fifty feet, and the government sends the army after her even though she's done nothing wrong. So she heads to London to have a word with the Prime Minister.

But I knew what I'd learned from Noun of Noun and Adjective, I knew I wanted to narrate however I pleased. So the prologue makes it clear that the story is actually being told to you by an alien. As the alien narrator, I was able to interrupt the narration, go off on tangents, make jokes, and just generally be weird. It sounds like it shouldn't work, but it does. Even the huge dance scene near the end works. There's a scene from the POV of a terf, Karen, that doesn't have pronouns in it and was an absolute pain in the ass to write, but it works because the narrator is respecting Karen's insistence that Karen doesn't have pronouns. Therefore, no pronouns are used to refer to Karen in Karen's scene except the occasional first person when directly quoting Karen's tweets because Karen does not respect Karen's choice to not use pronouns for Karen.

Seriously one of the most difficult things I've ever written, but it backs up my point that you can ignore any rules you please if 1) you can justify it, and 2) you can pull it off. I ignored basic grammar itself there.

Attack of the 50 ft Trans woman is available from all major ebook retailers and a paper version is planned for later this year

Readers have told me it made them laugh, it made them sad, it made them angry. Since anger was the point, I can happily say it works.

It was also the most fun I've ever had writing and it took me a week to do the first draft. Remember, writing is meant to be fun, and when I applied what I learned from the previous book, I went from a book that took me 15 years from start to finish to a book that took only a few months.

So I took what I learned from Attack and I applied it to Bigoted Book Burners Bloodily Bludgeoned by Badly Burnt Books. I wanted to write about book burnings, and I decided the best genre for what I wanted to write was a horror. This story had a more traditional narration, but it's essentially two different stories told simultaneously, and has a bulleted list of content warnings a page long. The even chapters are the story of a kid growing up trans when the only parent she has is her terf mum. It was horrendous to write, there were days I could only manage a paragraph. I'm not looking forward to the edit.

The odd number chapters start with the book burning, with the grimoire of a witch being thrown on the fire, then causing all the books in the village to animate and kill people. It's a massively over the top splatterpunk extravaganza and is hilarious and the perfect antidote to the even number chapters.

What I learned from Attack was that I'm not a very reliable free flow writer. I need plans. And so every chapter of B5bB3 was planned before it was written. I could see how dark some scenes were, and it meant I knew where to balance them out with correspondingly funny scenes. I learned more about character agency and development.

And from B5bB3 I learned about building narrative tension, about holding off the horrible so it's not overwhelming until suddenly bang! it is overwhelming, and I'm applying that to TWTSQ, my current WIP.

B5bB3 will be out later this year, hopefully around June.

There's other books I've written, under various other names, but I'm only discussing the ones I write as Caledonia Fife. But everything I've written and everything I've read has taught me about writing, and I can honestly say that the books I'm putting out now, under this name, are so much incredibly better than the first book I put out in 2010 under a different name.

So if you want to be the best writer you can be:

Write

Read

Edit

Learn

Apply

THIS CHAPTER - IN PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

NEXT CHAPTER IS CHAPTER Two- THE INTERVIEW

ALL - Noun of Noun and Adjective

[probablybadrpgideas]

Rather then dice rolls or other such mechanics, an action succeeds or fails based on whether its a homestuck reference.

[katerinaaqu]

Finished Chapter 14 of The Song of Achilles and like you I already found one change that gets on my nerves. Why is Odysseus now the Prince of Ithaca? When he was already King by the events of the original poem? What was Madeline Miller’s purpose in demoting him from King to Prince?

This better have a payoff or else… without Odysseus being King I feel his 20 year absence from Ithaca has less serious consequences. I think without him being King of Ithaca, his wife’s suitors wouldn’t be so eager to replace him.

Well I will start with what me and other classics readers say, that Miller is extremely biased with certain characters and that shows in her writing (true she writes in a very beautiful way and has great expression but still...) so certain characters are depicted positively and others negatively (no surprise or news there) and she writes in a feministic way so certain characters in the background are bound to be disregarded or worse changed. However most people have come to know that her writing of characters is really inaccurate or that it comes straight from her imagination (see for example how in order to get her romcom aura we must see a "homophobic character" aka Thetis who acts almost as a villain, we see the stereotype of star-crossed lovers like Achilles and Patroclus (which is a trope she uses by combining elements from the original but ignoring the character development of others in order to fortify her message) etc.

That being said, Miller's style seems to me like she uses SOME elements of the original, blasts them out of proportions, altering it to be more simplified to fit a romcom setting and re-writes the rest to fit the characters. I am not 100% famliar with her books given how I haven't read them in the full but I have seen stuff around and read some passages so take this hypothesis with a grain of salt but this seems to be the case to me. So in this case it is clear that Miller doesn't see Odysseus in a very positive light (given what she goes with to her other novels as well) so yeah her trying to lesser his importance or the status in the story seems more than just a possibility to me.

So here goes my reply, sorry if this is long:

In this case she seems to take advantage of the fact that in translations there is no distinct difference in the text between the word "prince" or "king" in the homeric text (both are being stated by the term άναξ (anax->wanax, from mycenean greek as well) and is being used to speak on the ruler that has under his command the ships and the army. That is to be said some of the commanders of the greek army had living parents back home and Odysseus was included among them. It seems like Laertes was in a way retired since indeed Odysseus seemed to be a king in his own right, in fact Penelope even insinuates he had been so for a long time, given how she tells Antinous the story of his father who arrived to the palace begging Odysseus for his own life, possibly implying that Odysseus was a ruler of his own right more than 20 years prior, possibly before Antinous's birth or during Antinous's childhood or infantry. On the other hand some people seem to separate his father from Odysseus by naming Laertes "King of Cephallenians" and Odysseus "King of Ithaca" aka that technically Laertes is the king of the entirety of the kingdom (Ithaca, Cephallonia, Acarnania etc) and Odysseus's juristiction is Ithaca. Personally I do not fully support that last one given how Odysseus is the only one who seems to be in charge even if Laertes is still alive. It seems that the tradition in Ithaca was a bit more family-like in terms of ruling and the king retired from his duty because of age, letting the younger and more capable son to rule (potentially Laertes is an exception and gave the authority to Odysseus because he thought he was more capable ruler than himself. Odysseus possibly proved his worth during the internal conflicts with the Taphian pirates or in conflict in Messinia [when he received his bow in his youth as a gift])

It also seems to be backed up by how by n large they got married within the kingdom (Eurylochus is from the same kingdom, from the small island of Same and marries Odysseus's sister Ctimene, the suitors of Penelope all come from within the kingdom from different principates and regions). Laertes and Odysseus seem to be exceptions to the rule since Laertes marries Anticlea, daughter to the great thief Autolycus who lived in Parnassus and Odysseus who married Penelope from Sparta) So it seems that the kingdom is more like a "family business" than actually some kingdom with expansive or military construction (unlike Mycenae or Sparta) so it doesn't seem impossible that there is either a tradition for the old ruler to quit and pass the throne to the next generation rather than wait for his death to pass authority or that if one did it wouldn't seem impossible. It also seems that other kingdoms are not necessarily the same as modern kingdoms either. Icarius is still alive when the events of the Odyssey take place. We don't know if Tyndareus also is alive or not, from what I remember, in Homer's writing so it is not clear what kind of rules exist to that realm. Could it be also that the ruler is not only of age (able to grow a beard aka around the final 20s or early 30s) but also marriage that gets them ready to rule? Like Menelaus is a ruler of Sparta by marriage, Odysseus rules as a sovereign ruler because of his marriage? It could be although again the suitors of Helen were often called "kings" in literature, it doesn't seem to be the case given how most of her suitors are either young (Ajax, Menelaus, Antilochus was also mentioned or even Diomedes in some sources even if the two of them would be literal children at that time) or sons of existent rulers let's say Odysseus. So it is possible that marriage AND coming of age play their part in succession. It gets a bit confusing as well since Odysseus leaves order to Penelope that she has to wait till her son is of age (when his beard grows) to pass him the throne, if he hasn't returned till then. Does Odysseus imply that his son would rule if he was of age, regardless of his death or is he implying that they first have to confirm he is dead before Telemachus takes over? It is indeed an enigma but then again the case of Odysseus is complicated; he goes to a war that he doesn't know if he is gonna return from and according to some readings and traditions, he was repared to be off for a long time as well from an omen he heard so his case with Telemachus seems to be an exception rather than the rule given the extreme conditions they deal with.

Either way yeah it doesn't seem that Odysseus is not a ruler in his own right in any shape or form in the Iliad or the Odyssey despite the fact that Laertes was still alive throughout the entire process. Either because it was a consistent tradition or because Laertes made an exception, it seems that Laertes was not an active ruler by the time Odysseus left for Troy and as I said it seems that Penelope implies Odysseus was already a ruler capable of giving pardon to someone (Antinous's father) or command armies (Taphian pirate incident, Messina, Troy) so yeah it doesn't seem that Odysseus is considred "a Prince" like for instance his brother-in-law Eurylochus or the Suitors and their families but he seems to be a king in his own right; he is the one who has the duty to send away the suitors; he is the one to command the army and he is the one to call the counter-attack in the Odyssey against the retalliation of the families after the murder of the suitors and not Laertes.

So to close this already long answer yes among the many changes Miller imposes in her book to fit her narrative, it seems that she takes advantage of modern day perspectives of rule and succession (aka the sovereign ruler's death before the other takes over) plus the fact that there is no distinct word between king and prince in the ancient texts to call Odysseus "a Prince" possibly to decrease his status (similar to how ancient writers mentioned Odysseus not being legitimate son of Laertes but a bastard son by Sisyphus) so yeah it does seem like it as you said given how Miller doesn't seem to be fond of Odysseus as a character. But that would be my hypothesis. Either that or Miller simply doesn't want to consider a different rule of succession than the modern one she and her readers are familiar with aka a king becomes king only after his father's death. Which is ironic though given how many people mention Odysseus "a king" even if they know or possibly because they forget Laertes is still alive.

Hope this helps

[whateverthought]

House of the Dragon AU where Rhaenyra is raised as a boy, her birth kept secret for a while because she's sickly and Aemma has already lost a few miscarriages and a stillbirth and it doesn't matter too much since Aemon is Heir and Jaehaerys is still alive and Rhaenys is the one with eyes on her, but after Baelon becomes Heir everyone learns Viserys has a kid and when He dies and -another miscarriage,- Viserys becomes King he tells people he has a son, a small lie in all the chaos to smooth things over, to seem like a better prospect. At least till he gets an actual son. And then Aemma dies.

Otto proposes that his daughter, friends with the Prince already, be betrothed to Rhaenyra since betrothing her to Viserys wouldn't put his blood on the throne per se but the Prince? And he gets to override Daemon getting His blood on the throne? Que the Baby Problem(TM)

Que the Baby Problem. How do these lesbians women procure heirs for the throne? Rhaenyra's blood would have to be passed on, since any child born from Alicent wouldn't be a dragonlord but Rhaenyra being pregnant would make their hoax harder to keep up, having kids who look too different will cause rumors and if no one ever saw Alicent pregnant they'd start to wonder. That being said, I quite like them sharing the experience. And Rhaenyra has proven to be reckless and Alicent is easily swayed by her.

So we need a Hightower man and a Valyrian man. In comes Gwayne Hightower, a man in his 30s unmarried and with no children of his own in a medieval times equivalent. A man who essentially raised his nephew for his sister and cared enough about her to reassure her she was a good mother. I'm unsure who would step in for Alicent, Laenor- if he fell in love with Gwayne and had a Queers Help Queers relationship with the girls? But what would he get out of it? He couldn't be a Sworn Shield like Gwayne, Daemon? Too possessive, too power hungry, too obsessed with Viserys and hating Hightowers. Maaaybe Viserys since he does know and would do anything for Rhaenyra, and at least this way his other kids wouldn't threaten his first-born's claim to the throne and subsequently start a Succession Crisis.

Either way, when Rhaenyra is having her first child, she would have their first child so there's no confusion over who gets to be heir (if Alicent had a son first but Rhaenyra's first child was also a son it'd cause emotional problems cause they're both her sons buuut...) and Gwayne is a much easier solution to the problem. And they can hide away in Dragonstone and make excuses about Rhaenyra being overprotective because of her mother. The next would be Alicent's, to show the court that yes, Alicent is the one getting pregnant. And so on and so forth, their children would then be betrothed to each other to unite their blood.

Just Rhaenyra and Alicent, 'King and Queen' and their Sworn Shield Ser Gwayne Hightower and the other one, maybe a dragonseed who's Gwayne's lover? Wacky little medieval lesbians having a rollercoaster ride of a time making a family and running from court, the Velaryons, and Otto and Daemon.

[somethingsomethingstarward]

topaz is autistic but she is specifically autistic in the "social interactions are a game and i am going to win" way

[spaciebabie]

at first getting diagnosed with cptsd was like, "yay my trauma has been validated (it always was valid)!" and i really thought that was going to be it, but then i started to do research as i do whenever i realize i have something and learned that!! the way i experience socialization is!! quite horrid actually!!

[clowndensation]

i like seeing the roys in pain because i enjoy feeling bad emotions, and watching as characters are forced to continue surviving through atrocities performed both by and against them, creating an echo chamber of suffering that ultimately flays their monstrous shells and reveals the humanity writhing and sobbing underneath. you like seeing the roys in pain because they're rich assholes, and rich people don't deserve happiness. we are not the same.

[shorthaltsjester]

tragic that it’s only happening in what is certainly endgame episodes but bells hells really feels like a party and they’re being like. decisive and cohesive and feel like they’re actually committed to fulfilling the task they’ve agreed to take on and i am eating it up