Post History
You have two choices here. If the object is truly inanimate and there are no surprises, then you are writing a history of the object. If the object is anthropomorphized (think Disney talking teac...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-20T00:40:48Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/47571 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T12:48:06Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/47571 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
You have two choices here. If the object is truly inanimate and there are no surprises, then you are writing a **_history_** of the object. If the object is anthropomorphized (think Disney talking teacups), you can call it a **_biography_**. If you are writing in first person from the point of view of the object, then it is an **_autobiography_**. Outside this dichotomy, you have stylistic choices. There is a famous short story (I can't remember the name and it's not coming up on searches, if you know it, please edit it in) about a piano slowly decaying after being left on a beach by migrants who couldn't carry it to their home (not related to the movie _The Piano_). While the piano here never does anything a piano in the real world couldn't do, we feel for it as if it was alive. The author's haunting narrative turns this inanimate object into a character. The main character. In this case, you might be able to say _biography_ vs just _history_.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2019-08-26T15:26:38Z (about 5 years ago)
Original score: 1