From the Typealizer About Page

How does it work?
For a long period of time, we have been training our system to recognize texts that characterize the different types. The system, typealyzer, can now by itself find features that distinguishes one type from another. When all features, words and sentences, are combined typealyzer is able to guess which type its is most likely to be written by using statistical analysis.

This is what Argh came up as:

The analysis indicates that the author of http://www.arghink.com is of the type:
ESTP - The Doers
The active and playful type. They are especially attuned to people and things around them and often full of energy, talking, joking and engaging in physical out-door activities.
The Doers are happiest with action-filled work which craves their full attention and focus. They might be very impulsive and more keen on starting something new than following it through. They might have a problem with sitting still or remaining inactive for any period of time.

I’d say they got about 50% on that. I’m definitely happy with work that craves my full attention and focus, but who isn’t? And the “engaging in physical out-door activities” is so off the mark, along with that problem with sitting still for a long time. Please. I can sit still for HOURS. I have never in my life, leaped up from a chair and said, “Who’s up for tennis? Let’s go running!”

So I tried Bob’s blog:

The analysis indicates that the author of http://www.bobmayer.org is of the type:

ISTP - The Mechanics
The independent and problem-solving type. They are especially attuned to the demands of the moment are masters of responding to challenges that arise spontaneously. They generelly prefer to think things out for themselves and often avoid inter-personal conflicts.
The Mechanics enjoy working together with other independent and highly skilled people and often like seek fun and action both in their work and personal life. They enjoy adventure and risk such as in driving race cars or working as policemen and firefighters.

Yeah, they pretty much nailed him. But when I tried www.lanidianerich.com, it gave me the same analysis. Even with the limitations that there are only eight types, how did Bob and Lani end up in the same quadrant? But then I realized I’d put the wrong URL in, I’d put in her website, not her blog. When I directed the site to her blog, I got this:

The analysis indicates that the author of http://www.lanidianerich.com/?page_id=19 is of the type:
The Artists
The gentle and compassionate type. They are especially attuned their inner values and what other people need. They are not friends of many words and tend to take the worries of the world on their shoulders. They tend to follow the path of least resistance and have to look out not to be taken advantage of.
They often prefer working quietly, behind the scene as a part of a team. They tend to value their friends and family above what they do for a living.

Bingo. That’s Lani, except for the “not many words” part.

So then, of course, I put in Krissie’s blog. She got the same thing I did, and trust me, Krissie is not saying, “Anyone for tennis, either.” But she’s always writing, always quilting, always doing something. So maybe that “physical action” bit doesn’t have to involve sweating? No, it said outdoors. Forget it.

So just out of curiosity, I took a Myers-Briggs online test to see how I scored there. I get a different result every time I do one, but this time I came up ISFP. So it’s 50% off there, too. Unless I’m blogging under an assumed personality, I’m not that impressed with the Typelyzer, but it’s entirely possible that I am blogging under an assumed personality, so take that with a grain of salt. Or better yet, go analyze your blog and see what you think.

And I’m still on the meds but at least the brain is starting to work. Don’t be surprised if you get another Good Blog post before I actually start cogitating again, but I should be back shortly. Because I’m a Doer, that’s why.

God, I love the internet.

Go here:

http://images.google.com/hosted/life

The first thing that I discovered is that the first two scenes, one in Mab’s POV and the other in Ethan’s, not only set up the character arcs but also their separate love stories. That was entirely by accident. I would tell you that we worked that all out, but it was the Girls in the Basement. I love it when that happens. I just looked at those two scenes and thought, “We are so cool.”

Then there are six scenes that don’t drift, but they don’t escalate the way I want them to. Things happens but the stakes don’t rise enough. But they propel Ethan and Mab together in Scene 9 which is the beginning of their partnership. I need to rewrite that to make it stronger, but looking at the overview at least tells me where I have to go.

Then there are three scenes that kick off the love stories, followed by four refusal of call scenes, followed by four consequences scenes, followed by two scenes that are Ethan’s acceptance of his call and Mab’s subconscious acceptance of her call.

The key, of course, is to make all of that tight. And make sure it propels the reader into the next act. And . . .

It really, really helps to look at a WIP in acts. If you’re a detail writer like me, it’s the only way you can see the big picture. Of course if you’re a big picture guy like Bob, never mind.

I’m feeling very chipper about this first act.