Awful Stuff.

[sr71plt]

If it's so godawful that you can see errors that need fixing, you can always submit an edit.

Since the Web site doesn't edit the stories, the mistakes obviously were his to begin with, doncha think?

 

[champagne1982]

Since the Web site doesn't edit the stories, the mistakes obviously were his to begin with, doncha think?

Thing is, I think I helped him with a crit on that story, I won't claim editing, but if I did and if I was disagreed with, I'm unsure of why he submitted it as is... "Curiouser and curiouser," said Alice.

 

[sr71plt]

Thing is, I think I helped him with a crit on that story, I won't claim editing, but if I did and if I was disagreed with, I'm unsure of why he submitted it as is... "Curiouser and curiouser," said Alice.

Regardless, whatever was submitted was seen last by Trysail himself. He's the one who would have had to submit it. Hard to complain about the condition of what you can't improve yourself.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

GERONIMO

I think my criticism touches a nerve with you.

Maybe LIT is a vanity ghetto where any shitwit who imagines they can write gets some attention.

Oh dear -- Meeow... I don't give much of a fuck about Lit being a vanity ghetto or not, nor my place within. I suspect that if we were face to face then you'd not be so mouthy.

What criticism? You've criticised nothing of mine. What touches a nerve is your sanctimonious attitude. I reckon that in r/l you're a pedantic little shit. Ever heard of Victor Meldrew? Probably not, but you should check it out.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GERONIMO

Why all the hysteria?

I think I'm mouthier in person.

Even if I am hypocritical, it doesnt negate the bad writing on LIT.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

GERONIMO

Why all the hysteria?

I think I'm mouthier in person.

Even if I am hypocritical, it doesnt negate the bad writing on LIT.

you have a strange take on hysteria.

really? it must get expensive for all that dental work.

i couldn't give a fuck. and now, you're boring.

bye.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I read one of your stories; I know why youre so touchy about criticism.

 

[borgthemagician]

OMS

Youre right. I've come across a few stories that are excellent. They seem to vanish, though.

Oh, interesting. Now the perfectionist can't even remember punctuation.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

I read one of your stories; I know why youre so touchy about criticism.

is that it, james? is that your full, analytical critique?

*sigh* you really don't get it, do ya?

i got over being touchy about 'criticism' a long time ago. it really doesn't matter what people write about a piece here on Lit. there's the carapace of anonymity to take shelter behind.

y'know, i don't recall purporting to be in the league of Louis de Bernieres or Neil Gaiman, and i don't recall ever saying my submissions are any good, but what i actually do, James, is put myself 'out there'.

have you experienced putting yourself, on purpose, into a position of vulnerablility? maybe you have, maybe not, but it's ever so easy to sit at the computer and stroke your beard (metaphorical) and think up ways in which to hurt people isn't it?

how about i offer to conjur up one of my pieces of crap for you to cast a critical eye over? you could give me the benefit of your massive intellect and maybe help me improve. it could be a project of sorts for you.

surely that offer has to be better than editing the works of the Masters as you claim in an earlier post. that has to be an exercise in futility if ever there was one. (or should that be, 'were' one?).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Writers dont get medals for courage and bravery. Writing isnt about courage and bravery.

We put ourselves out-there every time we open our pie holes.

Editing Masters is all about testing your mettle against a high standard. When I was a youngster the local guys matched their cars against Don Garlits NOT the librarian or cripples in wheelchairs.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

Writers dont get medals for courage and bravery. Writing isnt about courage and bravery.

We put ourselves out-there every time we open our pie holes.

Editing Masters is all about testing your mettle against a high standard. When I was a youngster the local guys matched their cars against Don Garlits NOT the librarian or cripples in wheelchairs.

when i was younger, and not too long ago, i was tested against a real, shooting enemy.

i notice you completely ignored my offer to allow you to edit some of my stuff.

i suppose you'll just go back to your exercise in futility.

now, i wish i gave a fuck, James...

but i don't.

enjoy your little thread.

outta here.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GERONIMO

Edit your own stuff. My hands are full of my own crap.

Nothing is ever futile. Maybe one person will accept the lesson; the rest will howl, cavort like Telly Tubbies on crack, and fling dung.

Seriously, though, remove as many auxillary verbs as possible. Stories are hangers for people to drape their imaginations on.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GERONIMO.

Here's an example by Stephen Crane.


BEFORE: A Child was standing on a street-corner. He leaned with one shoulder against a high board-fence and swayed the other to and fro, the while kicking carelessly at the gravel.

AFTER: A child stood on a street corner, pressed one shoulder against a high board fence, swayed his other shoulder to and fro, and kicked gravel about.

 

[Darkniciad]

GERONIMO.

Here's an example by Stephen Crane.


BEFORE: A Child was standing on a street-corner. He leaned with one shoulder against a high board-fence and swayed the other to and fro, the while kicking carelessly at the gravel.

AFTER: A child stood on a street corner, pressed one shoulder against a high board fence, swayed his other shoulder to and fro, and kicked gravel about.

Your version is actually bland by comparison. The first thing that came to mind was "Police Report". It's concise, and all the facts are there, but it's not encouraging me to keep turning pages.

I'm sure I'm about to get a slap back, but that's just my opinion :: shrug ::

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I mean, how do I critique what you like? You like what you like.

The sentence reads like a report because it is a report. It's summary narrative of the setting, and it's supposed to be concise and brief unless it contributes to the action or reveals the character's personality in some significant way.

 

[Darkniciad]

I mean, how do I critique what you like? You like what you like.

The sentence reads like a report because it is a report. It's summary narrative of the setting, and it's supposed to be concise and brief unless it contributes to the action or reveals the character's personality in some significant way.

Well, the setting is just as important as the characters. People need a world to walk around in, and if you don't paint a picture of that world that's as vivid as the characters, it comes out like a play with cardboard cutouts for scenery.

Frankly, I'm guilty of that more often than not. My characters usually work fine, but my setting always needs work.

 

[Guest]

GERONIMO.

Here's an example by Stephen Crane.


BEFORE: A Child was standing on a street-corner. He leaned with one shoulder against a high board-fence and swayed the other to and fro, the while kicking carelessly at the gravel.

AFTER: A child stood on a street corner, pressed one shoulder against a high board fence, swayed his other shoulder to and fro, and kicked gravel about.

Actually, all writing is contextual--it's written in a particular time period informed by certain sensibilities and intended for an audience with shared cultural and grammatical conventions. To say that you can "improve" the writing of someone who wrote decades or centuries ago, or in another culture, by "refining" it to your own tastes and your idea of effective writing is absurd.

In the example above, you've also stripped out the authorial voice and left the prose totally lifeless.

Go back to your Tinkertoys.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GNOME

Pish posh, the Bible exists in many translations of the King James version.

But the point remains, it's okay with me if you and Dark prefer to test your stuff against old ladies and cripples. You guys think like Henry Ford did when they retired him; in 1940 he remained convinced that cars should be painted black and keep their boxy shapes.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DARK

James Agee was the master of settings. He also elevated summary narrative to sublime prose. In A DEATH IN THE FAMILY Agee narrates a Charlie Chaplin silent movie and sucks you into the film.

 

[Darkniciad]

GNOME

Pish posh, the Bible exists in many translations of the King James version.

But the point remains, it's okay with me if you and Dark prefer to test your stuff against old ladies and cripples. You guys think like Henry Ford did when they retired him; in 1940 he remained convinced that cars should be painted black and keep their boxy shapes.

Old ladies and cripples? Where in the name of Alpha Trion did that come from? *laugh*

Seriously, though -- isn't that what you're doing to the prose? Black and boxy is a good description of that edit. Without the context of anything around it, it has to be judged as is, and it's bland.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DARK

Crane's sentence is not good writing. The fact that you prefer it is irrelevant. I know dogs who enjoy eating turds.

 

[Guest]

GNOME

Pish posh, the Bible exists in many translations of the King James version.

Yup, each written by a particular translator or translators, informed by the religocultural and political sensibilities of the time (i.e, context), because they were dissatisfied with the King James version, or had an axe to grind against previous versions, or other churches, or for whatever reason. Is any version better as literature? I daresay not--they're just different and more approachable by the audience for which each was intended.

Take the Stephen Crane example--in that time period, reading was something to be savored. Books were still relatively few and far between in many places and were often treasured and re-read many, many times. A book was an event to be savored, not rushed through. Authors, mindful of their audiences, gave them things to savor, including what we would now see as excessively flowery language, digressions, authorial comments, and asides--none of which necesarily follows your convention of "it's supposed to be concise and brief unless it contributes to the action or reveals the character's personality in some significant way."

Take the Gettysburg address, for another example. People came from miles around--by cart, wagon, horseback or on foot--because hearing Lincoln was an event. I've read that, at that time, politicians' speeches often ran to two hours or more to ensure that people left satisfied that they "got their money's worth," so to speak. In retrospect, we admire Lincoln's speech for its power and brevity. At the time, folks left Getttyburg unhappy because it was so short and lacked the coventions of language that they had come to expect and enjoy.

Think you can "improve" Shakespeare? Not without destroying it.

Context--and, most importantly, the audience--is everything.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GNOME

Shakespeare nor Lincoln shit marble. If a writer improves on them he's accomplished something, though Shakespeare suffers from a now archaic vocabulary; Hamlet loses nothing when you change 'fardle' to 'burden,' and it becomes comprehensible to modern people. The dead of his time read nuthin.

 

[Guest]

GNOME

Shakespeare nor Lincoln shit marble. If a writer improves on them he's accomplished something, though Shakespeare suffers from a now archaic vocabulary; Hamlet loses nothing when you change 'fardle' to 'burden,' and it becomes comprehensible to modern people. The dead of his time read nuthin.

Spoken like a true Philistine. (You do get that reference, don't you?)

I'm outta here.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GNOME

Thats the bottomline of your point: Modern people have no idea what Shakespeare said, and they people who understood him are long dead.