Isolated Blurt Thread

[KindofHere]

............

 

[Alice_Rosaleen]

I'm writing a new story in third person, but my last eight stories have been in first person, so I just finished writing a page without realizing that I had written it in first person. Son of a bitch.

I think you meant to say "KindofHere was writing a new story in third person, but his last eight stories have been in first person, so he just finished writing a page without realizing that he had written it in first person."

 

[MagicaPractica]

Biting my tongue.
Again.

Ouch. Is it worth it?

 

[MREDME2]

They're upset I refused to play 3d chess?

My IQ is "off the charts"?

The tests were NOT about my IQ morons!

 

[RocketLauncher]

I'm writing a new story in third person, but my last eight stories have been in first person, so I just finished writing a page without realizing that I had written it in first person. Son of a bitch.

I hear ya. I always write in third person. I have the most difficulty with first person, present tense so I've been challenging myself by attempting it. It's fun and frustrating but I have a tendency to slip into third person on occasion.
Lol, I also picked a kink that I only had surface knowledge of and the research has proven to be, shall I say, disturbing and quite intricate at the least.

 

[MREDME2]

Biting my tongue.
Again.

Better put some ice on that.

 

[MagicaPractica]

Gah! This is the 4th or 5th time I've submitted this book and now that I'm happy with it, they notice there are three blank pages in a row and it's unacceptable? Gah!

 

[Hypoxia]

I hear ya. I always write in third person. I have the most difficulty with first person, present tense so I've been challenging myself by attempting it. It's fun and frustrating but I have a tendency to slip into third person on occasion.

As I may have written nearby recently, third limited and first are nearly interchangeable. Edit some pronouns and there you have it. Fun with first is that the narrator need not be reliable or even very coherent. Such can be spotlighted in third limited. First is just usually a bit more intimate.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I went to sleep happy, I woke up feeling like a bitch.

I'm thinking it's the heat.

But it feels pretty good.

 

[MREDME2]

Maybe I can get that editor to review several stories I've prepared for here. Wouldn't hurt to ask an unbiased individual to do that.

 

[RocketLauncher]

As I may have written nearby recently, third limited and first are nearly interchangeable. Edit some pronouns and there you have it. Fun with first is that the narrator need not be reliable or even very coherent. Such can be spotlighted in third limited. First is just usually a bit more intimate.

What's third limited? Maybe I'll try that next. I guess writing for me is challenging myself to leave my comfort zone and try on different hats. I guess that's why I never stress about what I've written, it's more about my learning and entertainment than writing for others, which I've been told is a grievous error as one is supposed to write for an audience. Life is too short for me not to entertain myself even if it breaks all the rules of penning a short story.
Taking this week to read some of the AH author's works, get to know them and their styles a little more intimately. Too bad this thing called work gets in the way of writing. Going to try romance/ fairytale, this other story has me stalled. Unfortunately I'm not a romantic at heart so it's another challenge.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

What's third limited? Maybe I'll try that next. I guess writing for me is challenging myself to leave my comfort zone and try on different hats. I guess that's why I never stress about what I've written, it's more about my learning and entertainment than writing for others, which I've been told is a grievous error as one is supposed to write for an audience. Life is too short for me not to entertain myself even if it breaks all the rules of penning a short story.
Taking this week to read some of the AH author's works, get to know them and their styles a little more intimately. Too bad this thing called work gets in the way of writing. Going to try romance/ fairytale, this other story has me stalled. Unfortunately I'm not a romantic at heart so it's another challenge.

Writing for an audience is a technology; writing for a story is an art. The two shouldn't be confused, though they do share much.

 

[RocketLauncher]

Writing for an audience is a technology; writing for a story is an art. The two shouldn't be confused, though they do share much.

Never thought about it in quite that manner. So, entertaining myself by exercising my weaknesses, or perceived weaknesses , I am, in a sense, improving my technological abilities, thereby improving my capabilities of writing for an audience. The ironical aspects of this amuse me. Although, tbh, I find myself highly amusing at times, where often others do not.
@Hypoxia, I never fully grasped the freedom and choices first person narrative allows the author, thank you for this. This opens the door to some pretty colourful and wildly surreal opportunities for me. Don't worry I won't publish them, I've made enough people suffer through my experimental writing attempts, lol.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Never thought about it in quite that manner. So, entertaining myself by exercising my weaknesses, or perceived weaknesses , I am, in a sense, improving my technological abilities, thereby improving my capabilities of writing for an audience. The ironical aspects of this amuse me. Although, tbh, I find myself highly amusing at times, where often others do not.
@Hypoxia, I never fully grasped the freedom and choices first person narrative allows the author, thank you for this. This opens the door to some pretty colourful and wildly surreal opportunities for me. Don't worry I won't publish them, I've made enough people suffer through my experimental writing attempts, lol.

Art and technique are both needed. If Michelangelo hadn't the technical ability, the Sistine Chapel ceiling would look quite a mess, no matter how inspired he was. Conversely, if all he had was technical skill, it might be pretty, but definitely pedestrian.

 

[Alice_Rosaleen]

Writing for an audience is a technology; writing for a story is an art. The two shouldn't be confused, though they do share much.

I don't quite get what you mean by writing for an audience is "a technology". Just curious cause I'd like to understand your thought process.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I don't quite get what you mean by writing for an audience is "a technology". Just curious cause I'd like to understand your thought process.

It could be a whole dissertation, but briefly...

Writing for an audience is placing the audience first. It is akin to illustration. It can be done very well, and good illustration does share inspiration with 'art for art's sake,' but it's purpose is not to create the story, or scene, or whatever, but to provide a visual to accompany or enhance it.

Writing for the story's sake doesn't concern itself with the audience; it writes the story for what it is or becomes. In a sense, as Lévi-Strauss put it for mythology, people do not write myths; myths write themselves through the minds of people.

The two do, as I said overlap greatly, and either can do it's job well or poorly; that depends on the overlap in the mind/hand of the producer. But they do differ significantly in orientation. The difference is also found in academic non-fiction: a report on findings is technology; developing a thesis/theory is art.

 

[Alice_Rosaleen]

It could be a whole dissertation, but briefly...

Writing for an audience is placing the audience first. It is akin to illustration. It can be done very well, and good illustration does share inspiration with 'art for art's sake,' but it's purpose is not to create the story, or scene, or whatever, but to provide a visual to accompany or enhance it.

Writing for the story's sake doesn't concern itself with the audience; it writes the story for what it is or becomes. In a sense, as Lévi-Strauss put it for mythology, people do not write myths; myths write themselves through the minds of people.

The two do, as I said overlap greatly, and either can do it's job well or poorly; that depends on the overlap in the mind/hand of the producer. But they do differ significantly in orientation. The difference is also found in academic non-fiction: a report on findings is technology; developing a thesis/theory is art.

Thanks for sharing your explanation. Before I go further, I'll post this warning:*Technical nerd alert*
I would respectfully disagree, as art and literature is purely for an audience to view, hear, read, or experience- it should have no other purpose. It is this "purposive purposelessness" that distinguish it from design.
Our word for technology comes from the Greek word techne- which is most accurately translated as craft or applied practice- one of three types of knowledge. There is also episteme, which includes theoretical knowledge and scientific understanding, and phronesis, or ethics and practical wisdom.
The Dictionary of Philosophy, defines techne as: “The set of principles, or rational method, involved in the production of an object or the accomplishment of an end; the knowledge of such principles or method; art. Techne resembles episteme in implying knowledge of principles, but differs in that its aim is making or doing, not disinterested understanding”.
All arts- plastic, visual, performance, language and even culinary- should be first and foremost an application of techne, rather than episteme or phronesis- that's for fields like philosophy, non-fiction, education, ethics, etc.
I don't claim to know everything about Art or writing, but I've read a few books that view it from a classical standpoint that I find fascinating. Philosophies of Art and Beauty is an excellent anthology if you're ever interested.

*In other words, an artist or writer must consider that the work is for an audience, but only on focus on their craft and creativity while it's in progress. If they've mastered their craft and freed their creativity sufficiently, it should be apparent to the audience by its quality alone.

 

[Hypoxia]

What's third limited?

A few kinds of third-person POV.

* Third-omniscient is told by an all-seeing narrator revealing whatever you want about anyone there.
* Third-limited focuses on the thoughts and actions of the Main Character (MC), like first-person but told as 'they' instead of 'me'.
* Third-shifting is like third-limited but the focus moves among players, hopefully not too disconcertingly.

@Hypoxia, I never fully grasped the freedom and choices first person narrative allows the author, thank you for this. This opens the door to some pretty colourful and wildly surreal opportunities for me. Don't worry I won't publish them, I've made enough people suffer through my experimental writing attempts, lol.

You needn't get too incoherent, but first-person permits unreliable narration. Truth may emerge at trial or in overheard media reports. A large portion of humanity is psychotic -- run with that.

I recall a grisly old SciFi tale told by an alien about its 'art' and the agony of creation, That alien 'art' involved cutting-up humans and crafting pleasant displays of the juicy bits. A LIT EH piece might feature an artista and her collage of collected penises. I don't know if Laurel would approve.

ROSES ARE RED: "What a nice cock," I thought, just before I bit it off.​

Anyway, first-person can be reliable or unreliable or unknowable. Depends on how much you want to fuck with readers' heads.

Writing for an audience is placing the audience first. <...> Writing for the story's sake doesn't concern itself with the audience; it writes the story for what it is or becomes.

IOW writing for the audience is copywriting for which one is paid, and writing for the story is what we do on LIT.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I will have to disagree with you. Any form of art (and science) that is done to please someone rather than explore the reality of what it itself is, to me is a technology. It is the utilization of skills, whatever they may be, for a practical purpose, a purpose other than discovery itself. That does not diminish it to me, but it does make it different.

For me both what we call science and art are the same thing: they allow us to see the universe and beyond in a way we haven't, on a scale we can comprehend. Einstein is the greatest artist of the 20th Century; Picasso its greatest scientist. If what I write or paint or study is to please an audience, then there is nothing to discover; there is only the degree to which we please the other.

Too often we confuse science with technology; try looking at Stephen J. Gould's work to see more of how science is akin to art. There is much to be seen in looking at the cracks between and within things; audiences want the expected and expectable. The bourgeoisie denounced Géricault for not painting every hair in the riderless horses' manes.

 

[Alice_Rosaleen]

I will have to disagree with you. Any form of art (and science) that is done to please someone rather than explore the reality of what it itself is, to me is a technology. It is the utilization of skills, whatever they may be, for a practical purpose, a purpose other than discovery itself. That does not diminish it to me, but it does make it different.

For me both what we call science and art are the same thing: they allow us to see the universe and beyond in a way we haven't, on a scale we can comprehend. Einstein is the greatest artist of the 20th Century; Picasso its greatest scientist. If what I write or paint or study is to please an audience, then there is nothing to discover; there is only the degree to which we please the other.

Too often we confuse science with technology; try looking at Stephen J. Gould's work to see more of how science is akin to art. There is much to be seen in looking at the cracks between and within things; audiences want the expected and expectable. The bourgeoisie denounced Géricault for not painting every hair in the riderless horses' manes.

I never said to please an audience. I said it's only purpose is having an audience- not to instruct or be associated with any practical function.
And again, I'm not saying I have the end all be all definition, just what I've learned from studying the canon of Western philosophy on art and aesthetics, that's helped me in my creation and interpretation of art. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on the matter.
In my experience, the more I try to focus on meaning or what people are going to think while I create, the less meaningful/more trite it becomes. If I focus only on what I know about writing a good story and apply that as I write, the better the story turns out.

*Oh, and the degree I studied for was a Bachelor's in Science, not Art- I just happened to go to a university with a stringent liberal arts and humanities program

 

[RocketLauncher]

* Third-shifting is like third-limited but the focus moves among players, hopefully not too disconcertingly.

ROSES ARE RED: "What a nice cock," I thought, just before I bit it off.​

Anyway, first-person can be reliable or unreliable or unknowable. Depends on how much you want to fuck with readers' heads.

1. Third shifting sounds like an ADHD wet dream. Something I'm going to have to work up to, hard enough keeping one character's voice in my head let alone my own. But I am definitely mercurial so I believe it will be highly enjoyable and a pleasantly frustrating experience.

2. Roses are red....
The thing I delight in the most about your posts is the whimsical interludes you pepper your comments with. Whimsy is highly under rated and I get a kick out of seeing it in unexpected places.

3. I like mucking about with people. Prolly why I get such fun out of teasing posters on the GB. Sounds right up my valley.

Hope you're holding up well, you seem to have an admirable inner fortitude to deal with life's slings and arrows.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I never said to please an audience. I said it's only purpose is having an audience- not to instruct or be associated with any practical function.
And again, I'm not saying I have the end all be all definition, just what I've learned from studying the canon of Western philosophy on art and aesthetics, that's helped me in my creation and interpretation of art. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on the matter.
In my experience, the more I try to focus on meaning or what people are going to think while I create, the less meaningful/more trite it becomes. If I focus only on what I know about writing a good story and apply that as I write, the better the story turns out.

*Oh, and the degree I studied for was a Bachelor's in Science, not Art- I just happened to go to a university with a stringent liberal arts and humanities program

If you're actually writing for an audience, then you need the technical skills to give them what they want. In my view, art/science doesn't need an audience; it just needs to be expressed. Since it demands real people to express it, however, we generally find that those who discover/create it want an audience. But that isn't creating for an audience; it's creating and hoping for an audience.

We had a poster here a while ago who declared Joyce to be a poor writer because he couldn't understand him. But Joyce didn't write for him; he wrote what he needed to write, and there are those of us who became Joyce's audience. Joyce's value as an artist didn't come from his seeking an audience; it came from his writing things that an unintended audience found intriguing, enlightening, and just plain fun. It may be easy to see an Odyssey in the life of an unimposing man in the course of one day in Dublin or a cyclical universe in the ring road around Dublin once someone has seen those things, but the artist is the one who sees them first for us.

 

[Alice_Rosaleen]

If you're actually writing for an audience, then you need the technical skills to give them what they want. In my view, art/science doesn't need an audience; it just needs to be expressed. Since it demands real people to express it, however, we generally find that those who discover/create it want an audience. But that isn't creating for an audience; it's creating and hoping for an audience.

We had a poster here a while ago who declared Joyce to be a poor writer because he couldn't understand him. But Joyce didn't write for him; he wrote what he needed to write, and there are those of us who became Joyce's audience. Joyce's value as an artist didn't come from his seeking an audience; it came from his writing things that an unintended audience found intriguing, enlightening, and just plain fun. It may be easy to see an Odyssey in the life of an unimposing man in the course of one day in Dublin or a cyclical universe in the ring road around Dublin once someone has seen those things, but the artist is the one who sees them first for us.

You're essentially what I'm trying to say in different terms (learning how to write for an audience is part of perfecting the craft of writing, telling the story is the art), except science and art cannot be the same thing. Science involves natural processes, which is not Art. Art must be artificial, man made. If not, why would they be specifically separated on an academic level?
It is said only the Irish can truly understand Joyce. Have you read Ulysses? It's an extremely scholarly piece of literary fiction. But he was applying his ability as a storyteller, not as historian or philosopher. I'm not sure who the hell he wrote Finnegan's Wake for (other than Finnegan) because it might as well be in a drunk codex of another language.
I think it's interesting to talk about Art, even (or especially) if we don't agree, so thanks for engaging

 

[Tio_Narratore]

You're essentially what I'm trying to say in different terms (learning how to write for an audience is part of perfecting the craft of writing, telling the story is the art), except science and art cannot be the same thing. Science involves natural processes, which is not Art. Art must be artificial, man made. If not, why would they be specifically separated on an academic level?
It is said only the Irish can truly understand Joyce. Have you read Ulysses? It's an extremely scholarly piece of literary fiction. But he was applying his ability as a storyteller, not as historian or philosopher. I'm not sure who the hell he wrote Finnegan's Wake for (other than Finnegan) because it might as well be in a drunk codex of another language.
I think it's interesting to talk about Art, even (or especially) if we don't agree, so thanks for engaging

So much to say...


First of all, I'm an Anthropologist, and I assure you. the notion that humans are unnatural is a dangerous bit of hubris. Art is a natural process, rooted in the structure of brains that learn and discover. The contrast between nature and culture is a cultural fiction that turns "nature" into the "other," to be used, abused, or stewarded by the higher beings that humans call humans. I had a colleague who taught "ecohiking - leave nothing behind." He even had his students cart out their own shit, in plastic bags, mind you. I'm sorry, human shit is no less natural than bear shit. And art is a natural part of that living, breathing, shitting, reproducing, and dying animal we call Homo sapiens.

Ulysses is great literary scholarship, but even greater in seeing the allegory in Ulysses and in Poldy and, by extension or metaphor or allegory, to all of us.

Now, I am truly tired of the prejudices against Finnegans Wake (and, apparently, those of us who aren't Fionn McCuahill, but nevertheless enjoy and understand any aspect of that tome), characterizing it as "a drunk codex of another language." Yes, it does help to be familiar with things Irish when reading it, and such is the case with any cultural-based work of art (and, be assured, all works of art are culturally based; try understanding the Sistine Chapel ceiling without a knowledge of the history of Christianity, of Western Art, and of Roman politics.
It is a delightful excursion into a literary manifestation of Abstract Expressionism, among much else, including a consideration of the history of history itself, while constantly playing with words and themes.

Its end is its beginning, and we can follow the ring road from Howth Castle around Dublin, including the stretch known as the Via Vico. Vico was the historian who gave us the circular view of history. Imagine, Tristan returned to Ireland from North Amorica. Amorica in the Latin name for the Norman Peninsula and also harks to the return from North America, not to mention that Tristan himself is a violer d'amores. It is circular, and far from linear. Try the section with the four voices to see something entirely new in literature as well, despite Baktin's view of the absence of polyvocal stories in the Western tradition. No, I don't mind if people don't understand it, but most people don't understand general relativity either, and I don't hear them suggesting that there's something wrong with it because they don't understand it (They probably think planetary orbits are curved, anyway).

Enough rant.

P.S. I started university in Molecular Bio with minors in Art History and Comparative Literature. When I discovered they were not disparate studies, I found the unity in Anthropology. The Academic distinction between arts and sciences is a recent one. and even in this day, you'll find non-Western art in Museums of Natural History.

 

[MagicaPractica]

Took the words right of my mind.