About Writers, Uncategorized, Writers Co-op

Writing for Fun

“These silly writers let their imaginations run away with themselves.”
– Nicole Kidman as Satine in Moulin Rouge!

It being Monday morning, I naturally selected my “writing cup” for morning coffee and thought about my WiP, only to remember the online game I had been playing over the weekend. I had promised people there I would write a song for our pirate guild. Well, why not call that writing? Toulouse-Lautrec painted posters of ill repute. Marshall McLuhan and his anthropologist friend Edmund Carpenter knew peoples for whom living is itself art. Why should a writer limit expression to a book-yet-to-be-published? Why avoid the fun of being silly?

This is ingame (silly) writing.

The Pirate Song

Against convention we rebel,
To sail the sea of briny foam.
We drink with demons straight from hell
And chase their asses home!

The waves be drunk and so are we,
The moon be high and so are we.
We’re sinful dirty pirates
And we’re sailing to be free!

We’ll blow yer ship to smithereens,
Board yer women & belay yer men.
We’ll sink yer bloody brigantines
And haul yer treasure to our den!


So flee the hull that flies the skull
Or Davey Jones will pick yer bones.
Cannon balls and boarding brawls
Are winsome cheers to buccaneers!


I can’t be the only writer who also writes just for fun.
What about you?


20 thoughts on “Writing for Fun

  1. This is fun! I can hear a rousing accompaniment. I particularly like the bit about the waves being drunk because of the several layers of wordplay. It also reminds me of the line from Hitchhiker’s Guide about the effects of time travel.
    Ford: “It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.”
    Arthur: “What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?”
    Ford: “You ask a glass of water.”


    Liked by 3 people

  2. mimispeike says:

    What you talkin’ bout, GD? Every bit I write is for fun. Sly wrote this to his lady-love, a monkey with a huge nose, that she hates:

    Where does your foremost fascination lie?
    I tell you, Mistress, not where you suppose.
    You are magnificent of brow and eye,
    but I rejoice, above all, in your nose.

    Abundance of the snout is no vile thing,
    an aperture odd, no horrific flaw.
    Cavernous nostrils suck the scents of spring
    more readily than dimple dents. What law
    requires that a nose be slim, or pert,
    to be admired, to be reckoned fine?
    High handsome is less sturdily alert,
    admiring, above all, a divine profile.

    The buttonholes, so meek, so sleek, so pink,
    just darling, do not snort with the same greed
    to savor life in all its sweet and stink,
    as yours does, ma’am, and charmingly indeed.

    A chiseled symmetry, it does not do
    for a merry force of nature such as you.
    Your thug has more exuberance than those
    lady-like honkers. Celebrate your nose!

    And: (This will show up in the Piper of Hamelin episode)

    Tom he was a piper’s son,
    he learned to pipe when he was young,
    but all the tune that he could play
    was, ‘O’er the hills and far away.

    He played that tune with such a skill,
    the mice could hardly remain still.
    He piped, and they would have to dance,
    they joyfully would twirl and prance,
    and follow gladly in his wake,
    and know too late their mad mistake.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Oh, I’ve been known to rap-tap out a political protest limerick or two for my own rueful amusement. . . .

    There once lived a lizard named Coulter,
    So vile her bile would choke her,
    Into vomiting forth,
    All manner of froth,
    Hate-filled, abhorrent and . . . well, “Coulter”.

    It came to Glenn Beck in a dream:
    He was the tippiest-top of the cream,
    Of paranoid shock-jocks,
    Freaks, psychos and cock-blocks,
    “Lonesome Rhodes” come to life off the screen.

    See the white man: angry, fat, loud;
    Haranguing an ignorant crowd,
    Of book-hating brain-dead,
    Misogynist homophobe dickheads.
    El Rushbo! Fer cryin’ out loud!

    Fox News: the power and might
    Of all things hetero, Christian and white,
    Called Obama a Kenyan,
    Communist anti-Christ Muslim,
    An elitist socialist. Err . . . not the right height.
    It became very clear at the end:
    Alito would kill what our forefathers began.
    Ruling with Scalia & Roberts,
    Kennedy & Thomas:
    “Corporations are people, my friend!”
    A chump of a birther named Trump,
    A mad, sad addle-brained grump,
    Declared Obama was foreign,
    Kenyan and horned,
    Snapped Obama: “Birth certificate.” WHUMP!
    There once was a man from Nantucket,
    Whose dick was so long he could suck it.
    He gave it a lick,
    Frowned at his dick,
    Said, “Now if Kim Kardashian can have her own reality show . . .”
    A pale ’un from frozen Alaska,
    Chirped to Katie, “Ya hey dere, I’ll ask ya—
    Got wolves in da hall?
    Moose-lims on da prowl?
    I’ll helicopter shoot ’em, you bet’cha!”
    Here lies a gun lover named Fred,
    Who shot himself dead in the head.
    It was all in good fun,
    But son-of-a-gun!
    Polishing his Glock cleaned the clock of dead Fred.

    Liked by 3 people

    • GD Deckard says:

      LOL Carl! I had no idea you rued so many groups. Conservative talking heads, white men, heterosexuals, corporations, the ignorant, half the Supreme Court, Christians, gun owners -to label a few. Helicoptering hunters, I get. Kim Kardashian I know little about & wish I didn’t. Lonesome Rhodes I saw & remember as a powerful drama but forgot the political overtones. Not that I disagree & not that I don’t have my hates. I just don’t think in terms of groups.

      But to each his own. I have friends with strongly divergent views about one group or another and I’ve learned two things. Their views are important to their identity but they will unite with opposing groups to face a common threat. In short, they’re human & as a whole, I like this most quarrelsome species.

      Bob Vs The Aliens is ultimately about human behavior forged in near-extinction events and how those behaviors play out in the long march back to civilization. Some behaviors can only be explained in terms of survival (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) while others, although deemed crucial in the moment, are no more important than the style of one’s clothes.

      Thanks for the verses. You are a thought provoking writer (& that is high praise.)

      Liked by 1 person

      • Carl E. Reed says:

        @GD: I rue the kind of white, conservative, Christian, “straight” male who practices supremacist ideology: I am a member of the master race; I am a principled war-on-the-poor conservative whereas you are a blathering bleeding-heart “libtard”; my Judeo-Christian god is bigger than your god; my sexuality is normative whereas yours (homosexuality or bisexuality) is perverse and deserving of public shunning, shaming, and–oftentimes (historically speaking)–death. The thing is, many of these check boxes apply to me: white, male, etc. But I am not a bigot. My limerickian satire was aimed at bigots. Powerful, hate-mongering, impactful bigots who preach a gospel of contempt and social ostracism for others outside their particular controlling and privileged in-group.

        Yeah. I hate those guys. Unashamedly, unreservedly, unapologetically. (To steal a phrase from Hunter S. Thompson: fear and loathing. Because of the harm they do to others.)

        I thought I made that clear in my fiction?

        Now: a white, conservative, Christian, “straight” male who DOESN’T practice supremacist ideology? Welcome to the table, brother–we’ll agree to disagree.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. GD Deckard says:

    Nope, my friend. I see more in your fiction than that. Your work makes me see things in a stronger way and the operative word here is “me.”

    As early as 1917, two women began compiling answers to a questionnaire that asked people about themselves. That questionnaire, known as the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, is still in use today. I hate psychological tests but this one never presumed. It allows people to say what they are like, what they do, etc. The database now is immense. So when I voluntarily took the test because an old army colonel friend used it to assign tasks to his people, I was pleasantly surprised. Col. Shay did in fact visit the Myers & Briggs Foundation every three years to remain certified to administer their test. He read my answers to those age-old basic questions about myself and then -I remember this moment, sitting in a cafe in Colorado Springs and how amazed I was- he opened a well worn book and asked me to read a description of other people who answered the questions the same way that I did. Wow! It was electrifying because suddenly I was not alone. Lots of people largely agreed with me, the way I did things and how I saw the world. 13% of the database population, in fact, are individuals similar to myself.

    The key word here is “individual.” People are not essentially, not foremost, white, conservative, liberal or Christian. They may or may not identify with any particular group. But the one thing everybody I’ve come to know are, is human. I like them or not based on how they treat me.

    One last observation. BATF has me fill out a form when I buy a firearm that declares me to be of a particular skin color or race. For years, I always entered, “Homo Sapien.” One Sunday morning, I received a phone call and was required to immediately go down to the gun dealer and re-fill-out many forms using the proscribed terms. Blech! Fuck their terms. I know what I am. I am an individual human being.

    I am different from everyone else but then so is everyone else.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Of course, GD! We’re talking past each other.

      One of the reasons we read (I would hope) is to gain experience and empathy with others outside our own narrow, parochial circles. (And we all–regardless of race, class, power & privilege–move in narrow, parochial circles by constraining circumstance.)

      This doesn’t require one to deny the reality of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. on one’s own sense of self and existential purpose. It does require one to (a) check one’s privilege, knee-jerk assumptions and prejudices before spouting off and marginalizing others and (b) think carefully before dismissing the experience of others.

      Are we all individuals? Of course! But we are also social animals who work collectively to further the authoritarian (by definition) agendas of family, church, state and various corporate entities. How we balance those competing responsibilities–to ourselves and others–says a lot about who we are as people.

      Re: “People are not essentially, not foremost, white, conservative, liberal or Christian.”

      Why are you arguing this point with me? I’m a humanist. My protest limericks were aimed at those who deny the essential humanity of others in favor of a triumphal, supremacist ideology that marginalizes other people. Or to put it another way: Your point would perhaps be better served today if you called up a right-wing talk show and told them: “People are not essentially, not foremost, black or brown or yellow or white; or liberal/conservative; LGBTQ or ‘straight’; atheist, religionist or agnostic.”


      Good luck with that. I must warn you, though: It probably won’t go well. I dare say you won’t meet with the same kind of thoughtful, considerate and respectful response you get from someone like me. (Or as Michael Savage, Ann Coulter or Glen Beck might put it: someone of my “ilk.”)

      Honestly, I’m not sure what you’re arguing for or objecting to here. A voice raised in protest against the intolerant? The fact that it offends you to self identify as a white male on a gun registration card? (Actually, you answered that. It does.) The fact that any discussion of race, gender, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation or politics irritates you?

      Liked by 2 people

  5. GD Deckard says:

    @ Carl
    “Honestly, I’m not sure what you’re arguing for or objecting to here.”
    Ahh, thank you! This is the question. Now we have a conversation going that I know I will learn from.

    I am arguing for a wider acceptance of human behavior. Not behavior limited (by definition) to filters of authoritarian agendas but human behavior devoid of authoritarian agendas. I’d start by denying the reality of race. The concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of observable differences lacks scientific validation. Talk species, you’re talking in scientific language that means the same to all. Talk race, you’re talking different things depending on your social, political or economic motives.

    The motive for using groups is insidious. Every corporation has defined its market as groups and works to strengthen people’s identity with the corporate-defined groups. Political motives for defining people as groups? What could I say that you don’t already know. The larger social motives are just as transparent. The goal is always to define groups in ways that make people predictable.

    If we are to progress beyond a world of “those who deny the essential humanity of others” we will have to accept behavior beyond that which is defined by the current social, political or economic authorities as good for us. A revolutionary might say we have to throw off other peoples’ definitions of us.

    Obviously, I am spitting into the wind here. 🙂 But you are that rare intellect who can debate difficult issues without sulking off. Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

    • How I wish we lived in that world! If I could press a button on this desk right now and ensure equal social and economic justice for all irrespective of quibbling qualifiers I would do it. Sadly, we live in this world, eh? But I get your larger point, GD. As you get mine, I’m sure. BTW: It’s good to have these discussions once in a while amongst ourselves. (And to think: all touched off by a pirate shanty! Heh!)

      Anyway: check this out. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2017/01/michael-eric-dyson-tears-we-cannot-stop-race-relations-trump

      Eric Dyson makes a very good point. It’s all too easy for white people (of which I am one, of course) to say, “Let’s just get beyond race!” when moving (like a fish through water) in a white supremacist culture they barely notice. His valid point: (rough paraphrase) white people, by and large, have the option to reflect on race or ignore it as they choose, whereas most people of color do not have that option.

      A sobering, lamentable reality, and one I have become sensitized to.


      MJ: One line that really stuck with me came when you were talking about urban white people looking down on rural whites as “poor white trash.” You write, “In the end, it only makes the slaughter of our people worse to know that your disapproval of those white folks has spared your reputations but not our lives.” Are you basically saying to the “good” white people who didn’t vote for Trump that not being racist isn’t enough?

      MED: Right. It’s not enough to be against something. What are you for?

      Liked by 1 person

      • GD Deckard says:

        Yeh, I wish we lived in that world too. But it won’t happen. Michael Eric Dyson’s call to action is a mind bubble. It only makes sense when we think about it. In the real world, it pops. & that’s not a judgement, it’s a prediction.

        I’ve never heard the problem put more succinctly than, His valid point: white people, by and large, have the option to reflect on race or ignore it as they choose, whereas most people of color do not have that option. Thanks for that.

        And thanks for the dialog, Carl. It’s soo rare in this polarized society to find someone open to debate.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. mimispeike says:

    I think it comes down to empathy. Can we agree we owe no empathy to those who can’t put themselves in others’ shoes?

    For instance: If you were LGBT, with no chance of a happy hetero-marriage, potentially causing an innocent party severe pain, do you not still deserve the rights and and protections of a legal union?

    Liked by 3 people

    • GD Deckard says:

      I like that, Mimi. Empathy for those outside our own group has to be a step towards learning to accept behavior we would not emulate. A founding principle of our country is that all people have an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. The only caveat being y’can’t harm others to be happy.

      People have every right to live their lives in ways we do not approve of without being attacked for their choices.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. mimispeike says:

    I have all the sympathy in the world for those who want to lead their lives their way, privately. I have no sympathy for anyone who wants me to live my life according to their notion of good and evil. Thank God I’m not forty years younger and working for Hobby Lobby.

    I just read over on HuffPo that the right is five votes short of the number of states necessary to call a constitutional convention, ostensibly to insert a balanced budget amendment but to potentially subvert our constitutional protections in execrable ways. This is thinking that will do a great deal of harm.

    Liked by 2 people

    • GD Deckard says:

      A constitutional convention to balance the budget? ROFL! The congress clowns (both sides) already have the power to balance the budget and can’t agree on what the hell that means. Changing venue to a constitutional convention won’t make the parties co-operate. I shudder to think what havoc they could wreak.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s