home authors guest shorts graphical shorts


Really, truly fantastic poets, novelists, essayists, and all other kinds of near perfect writers possess within them a true passion for their work which is disbursed throughout the final product. What I mean to say is, elite writers include a lot of themselves in what they create. There is a lot of the author himself in the final object, "within these pages please find the man himself" that kind of thing. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but you understand.

In regards to Graylick Dramblegumper and his most distinct flaw as a writer and person; his true self is missing. The characters displayed the normal gambit of the human condition such as valor, love, hate, hope, dreams, jealousy and whatnot, but not one of them had any real soul, no spark of life. This method of writing can be used as a literary device if one wishes to convey bleakness, or a void, or something which one typically associates with sterility, such as gauze. Due to the type of books he enjoyed writing, the adventurey type, Graylick didn't pay much mind to the single dimension, the vacuousness of his characters. In fairness, they were normally dodging and jumping and escaping from dangerous places by the skin of their teeth and such activities leave very little time for personal exploration, but if they stood still long enough it would be plainly obvious that these characters were mere husks, devoid of humanity.

In the circle of peers which served as Mr. Dramblegumper's most honest and caring critics, this soullessness was seen as a very distressing shortcoming. This shortcoming was not only reflected in the work, but as I mentioned, in the man as well. This was something which he struggled with both as an artist and person. It simply wasn't in him to 'be' him, on the page or otherwise.

When at last he was able to produce a book to which he was able to infuse his very heart and soul, it was discovered that the heart and soul of Graylick Dramblegumper were utterly disgusting. It seems Graylick Dramblegumper is without peer in the category of "the least attractive things anyone should wish to be". Let me please restate this another way, for it cannot be in the slightest bit downplayed - Graylick Dramblegumper turned out be so awful, so devoid of value as a person, so absolutely foul, putrid, feculent, and horrible, people who read the book in the which characters reflected his heart and soul so perfectly died from reading it. Like Monty Python's 'funniest joke', people were literally dropping dead in their chairs. It wasn't just the words that killed the reader, it was what those words said, or meant, about Graylick Dramblegumper - the man turned out to be quite toxic.

Date Written: March 20, 2005
Author: Templeton Dink
Average Vote: 4

03/28/2005 Klause Muppet (4): Graylick Dramblegumper for President!
03/28/2005 The Rid: I requre three more hours sleep before I can read these 463 words.
03/28/2005 Will Disney: i think you're developing something interesting here, first time guest author, but i must say that you could have pared this thing down a bit and explored your theme in fewer words.
03/28/2005 Mr. Pony (4): Here's what I think: You can't reference Monty Python without referencing Monty Python. That said, I thought this was rich and interesting and authentic, and oddly pointless for an essay with such a clear mission.
03/28/2005 Klause Muppet: And now for something completely different...
03/28/2005 Partytime: Question 3: The author's discussion of Graylick Dramblegumper can best be described as: A. Irate yet reverent. B. Irreverent yet relevant. C. Irrelevant yet roguish. D. Ironic yet rogatory. E. Just A,C, and E.
03/28/2005 Litcube: I've seen this scrawled on a bathroom stall.
03/28/2005 Mr. Pony: Good call, Partytime--I had the same thought that you're implying.
03/28/2005 Partytime: Pony, Awesome job agreeing with me. And now I concur with you on the four stars!!
03/28/2005 Partytime (4): See
03/28/2005 qualcomm: i'll need to see another writing sample from this author to determine whether or not the horrible style herein is intentional.
03/28/2005 qualcomm (4): ah. afternoon short provided said sample.
03/28/2005 anonymous: The style is intentional but the mistakes were mistakes, I thought Autoformat would check spelling. The afternoon short is not mine.
03/28/2005 Will Disney: no spell checking - sorry. anyone have a .NET spell checker we can "plug in"?
03/28/2005 qualcomm: yeah i got a spell check for you: it's called a public education!!
03/28/2005 Litcube: Ka-ZING!
03/28/2005 Jon Matza (4): Fine, odd 1st effort.
03/29/2005 TheBuyer: I don't know what to think. It's bouncy.
03/30/2005 John Slocum (4): snow = templeton dink? enjoy mindless repetitive quality. Not just anyone could do it.
04/6/2005 The Finch: Templeton Dink would appear to be a Canadian.
The Finch