Board Thread:Writer's Workshop/@comment-26537256-20160716142055/@comment-29015383-20160717110914

Cappka wrote: Ok, because this can only just get worse, I'll just apologise for not being very clear with my comments, and ignore the fact you implied I was pretentious. I really don't want any hostile tension between myself and anyone on this site.

I honestly never wanted this sort of attention, so let's end it now. EmpyrealInvective, I already tried implying the intended interpretation of the story (the title "His Insanity", " **** " e.g., also, it was the main point of my confusion) so the reader could connect the first and second sections, so what else could I do to imply this? The make-up and style of the story itself was done to represent the protagonists insanity, and is something I don't really want to entirely erase. What would be the best course of action? I'm not Empy, but I'll pop in again regardless.

First of: "and ignore the fact you implied I was pretentious." Is NOT a good way to apologise. If anything, this sounds insulting and comes across as 'I'm tired of this arguement so I'm just going to say sorry so you shut up about it eventhough I don't mean it.'. Instead a simply, 'I'm sorry for causing this misunderstanding.' would have sufficed.

Second, titles can be misleading and sometimes they have a double meaning. In fact, I love titles that can be interpreted in many different ways. A title is a means to convey a general idea and to grasp someone's attention. It is not meant as a storytelling tool to be used in the story to tie things together. You should draw a very clear line to connect the first and second part. Show us clearly that the courtroom happens inside the protagonist's head. You don't have to outright say that it does, but show the effects of it and the aftermath. How does the killer stand around as the debate is going on? What changes in his position? Does he remain active or does he space out while his mind struggles to come to a decision? Also, make sure to return something from the first section into the second one such as the courtroom verdict.

Insanity does not represent randomness. What we consitute as insanity or mental illness is a different way of thinking than the norm. Some of the most insane and psychopathic individuals in the world have very clear, logical, and methodical thought patterns. It is simply not 'normal', thus they are 'different' with their thinking aka 'insane'. Even the raving lunatic that shouts about the bugs in his mind has a thought process that makes sense. To HIM. The courtroom thought process makes sense to the protagonist so since we are inside the protagonist's head, it must make sense to us.