So, for those of us who forgot we write porn...

[Stella_Omega]

STELLA OMEGA

I quoted Joseph M. Williams' opinion of grammar. He's not some Gomer who just wandered into town.

I agree with Williams. Learn how to think about writing.

Because creators piss on the rules. That's why theyre creators and not performers.

Dammit. I can't read a google excerpt, so i have no way of knowing what he's said.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HERE IT IS

Now there is a lively debate about whether action and understanding have anything to do with each other, whether those who want to write clearly ought to study the principles of language at all. You may write well, yet you can’t distinguish a subject from a verb, or you may understand everything from retained subjects to the subjunctive pluperfect progressive, and still write badly. From this apparent contradiction many have concluded that we don’t have to understand principles of grammar to write well. Writing well, they believe, has to do with being sincere, or writing how they speak, or finding authentic voices, or just being born with the knack. Others devoutly believe that they learned to write well only because they studied Latin and diagrammed sentences beyond number.

The truth will disconcert both persuasions. Nostalgic anecdotes aside, the best evidence suggests that students who spend a lot of time studying grammar improve their writing not one bit. In fact, they seem to get worse. On the other hand, there is good evidence that mature writers can change the way they write once they grasp a principled way of thinking about language, but one that is rather different from the kind of grammar some of us may dimly remember mastering — or being mastered by…

 

[Stella_Omega]

HERE IT IS

Now there is a lively debate about whether action and understanding have anything to do with each other, whether those who want to write clearly ought to study the principles of language at all. You may write well, yet you can’t distinguish a subject from a verb, or you may understand everything from retained subjects to the subjunctive pluperfect progressive, and still write badly. From this apparent contradiction many have concluded that we don’t have to understand principles of grammar to write well. Writing well, they believe, has to do with being sincere, or writing how they speak, or finding authentic voices, or just being born with the knack. Others devoutly believe that they learned to write well only because they studied Latin and diagrammed sentences beyond number.

The truth will disconcert both persuasions. Nostalgic anecdotes aside, the best evidence suggests that students who spend a lot of time studying grammar improve their writing not one bit. In fact, they seem to get worse. On the other hand, there is good evidence that mature writers can change the way they write once they grasp a principled way of thinking about language, but one that is rather different from the kind of grammar some of us may dimly remember mastering — or being mastered by…

And as far as I can make out, this is the preface to something else.

What do you think he's saying here?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA OMEGA

Its Chapter ONE of his book.

Whats he saying?

You can do thousands of sentence diagrams, know the grammar books inside-out, and it wont make you a better writer. You can wing it, make it up as you go, and that wont make you a better writer, either.

What works is a principled way of thinking about what you write. That is, you need to think about why in fuck one way works better than another.

 

[Munachi]

Varies a lot... Sometimes it's a plot. Sometimes it's a situation taht I build the plot around - it can even be a sex-related situation but somehow often the sex gets lost more and more when I write a story. Sometimes it's only a sentence, and I try to build a story around it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

STELLA OMEGA

Its Chapter ONE of his book.

Whats he saying?

You can do thousands of sentence diagrams, know the grammar books inside-out, and it wont make you a better writer. You can wing it, make it up as you go, and that wont make you a better writer, either.

What works is a principled way of thinking about what you write. That is, you need to think about why in fuck one way works better than another.

Well, I mean, it's the preface to what he wants to tell you. He's telling you why he wants to explain stuff, and why it might be worth your listening.

But that's as far as you've given me. This line;

On the other hand, there is good evidence that mature writers can change the way they write once they grasp a principled way of thinking about language, but one that is rather different from the kind of grammar some of us may dimly remember mastering — or being mastered by…

tells me that he has some knowledge to impart about writing. But it doesn't tell me what that knowledge is, specifically.

The word "Principled" means, (because I know he's writing about grammar) that he is still talking about the principles of grammar-- the basic rules. He's saying that they are important, but that they are tools for communication, and not the reason for writing in the first place..

Where's this argument at? I know some of the people here-- I might just be backing you up.

Oh, and-- What's the name of this book? He has a few published.

 

[Lee Chambers]

Do you write to create a story and characters etc, and the by-product is to titilate, or do you aim to write something sexy first, story second?

I don't think you can do both equally - one or the other dominates in your writing.

I like doing both in different stories, but acknowledge my limitations - I don't have much patience to write a detailed story

I try to do both, when my aim is to actually write a story that is both sexy and has depth to it. My current work for the Halloween contest is mostly writing a story and throwing some sex in there to keep things interesting. However, if you pulled most of the sex out, it could still stand on it's own.

One of my other stories, however, has the story actually centering around sex and intimate relationships. So the sex is actually part of the story and character development. But I think this is more the exception than the rule.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I've written both... or started a story with the intention of writing one or the other... somehow my stories end up with "real" characters... even if it's stroke... although sometimes I can actually create someone made of cardboard... not something I'm proud of... but it happens...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA OMEGA

I keep running into disparaging remarks about grammar.

I was reading Dwight Swain tonight and he briefly mentions what he calls "The grammar fetish."

Ouch.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GRAMMAR FETISH by Amanda Earl.

Proper subject-verb agreement turns me on.
I get a lot of friction from fresh language and diction.
If you use the wrong there, it hurts me right here.
There’s no pleasure in the pain of poor punctuation.

When you whip me with your passives, I become quite aggressive.
My flagrant flagellation of bad grammar is obsessive.
And baby when you rhyme single syllables together.
I just want to cry and tease you gently with a feather.

Take your misplaced modifiers, modify this.
If you use the right one, I’ll seal it sweetly with a kiss.
I’ll swallow sexy similes and metaphors whole,
but when I hear clichés, it makes my stomach roll.

Be a vixen with your verbs: make them stronger and harder.
Vamping with your adjectives increases my ardour.
I love the luscious pop of effective sound-play.
Feel free to fondle fricatives; you’ll make my day.

My libido is increased when you use your best grammar.
Improper capitalization can really make me stammer.
I think I’ve said enough to articulate desire.
You can truly make me wet when your words are on fire.

 

[Stella_Omega]

STELLA OMEGA

I keep running into disparaging remarks about grammar.

I was reading Dwight Swain tonight and he briefly mentions what he calls "The grammar fetish."

Ouch.

James... It's quite all right. I am never going to insist that you pay slavish attention to any aspect of writing that you don't wish to. Anyway, you do write clearly and consistently. That's plenty good enough for me!

And the poem is fabulous. Thanks for turning me on to it

 

[wishfulthinking]

I can actually create someone made of cardboard

Welcome to the club!

 

[wishfulthinking]

Hi WT,

Or those of us who just stopped writing entirely

Feeling blocky? Anything a hard whip could fix?

 

[wishfulthinking]

That, exactly.

Patience comes to those who wait??

 

[JPMMURPHY]

Writing is about character development, plot (and sub-plots), prose, and imagery. The afore mentioned used to make the story as realistic as possible while reflecting real life which permits the reader to project into the story. Sex - just like a violent moment, a meal among friends, sharing a drink, or riding in a taxi - is part of life. While mainstream will plumb (with great depth and enthusiasm) the violent acts of a suposed serial killer it tends to leave sex at the bedroom door (implied but not seen). Literotica provides a platform where the author can step through the bedroom door and continue the interaction.

Ooops. To answer the question - I write the story. Sex is neither principle nor secondary. Just another life event that happens to the characters in that particular story.

 

[cahab]

I haven't written much recently but I know that even if I intend to write a story just for the sex I have to wait for the plot and the characters to get there, no matter how quickly I may wish to get down to it. If the sex doesn't make sense, IMHO, it isn't erotic.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA OMEGA

I study writing every day. Today I explored SNAKE RULES. Snake rules are writing conventions created by publisher's mothers and wives, and perpetrated by pussy editors.

But my chief complaint with grammar, though, is how obsessive many people get about strict compliance with the rules. I lock horns with idiot editors about their errors all the time. Their minds are filled with snake rules they learned somewhere, and they want to inflict the rules on everyone.

Architecture has the same problem. I know architects who place columns smack-dab in the middle of a picture window because the convention requires columns to be evenly spaced apart. So rather than work out a good solution that moves the damned column out of the field of view, they leave it where it is, and the client shits when they open the drapes.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, many so-called grammatical rules are bullshit, made up by people who had a bee in their bonnet about Latin. In the 1700 and 1800's, Latin was considered the ultimate. It's actually a fairly simple language, as linguists now reckon these things. It was easy to impose an almost mathematical structure on it, and these early dictionary-writers wanted to do the same for English-- impossible.

Since the mid-nineties, there have been more and more professors pointing out the folly of forcing incorrect usage on the language, and offering a different definition of what a successful sentence should be. English is incredibly flexible, and there are lots of ways you can put together a sentence.

On the other hand, there are conventions that make reading and understanding much easier-- periods, question marks, exclamation points usually show a full stop in the speech, for instance. Like driving on the right makes the roads easier to travel.

What's making me laugh, though, James, is the tone of voice you are using-- as if you were campaigning for animal rights, or against gay marriage, or something. And instead of giving actual examples, you are offering soundbites;

I study writing every day. Today I explored SNAKE RULES. Snake rules are writing conventions created by publisher's mothers and wives, and perpetrated by pussy editors.

Publisher's mothers? Pussy editors?

I can tell you are pissed off about something, but-- you've left me in the dark as to which rules are so disgustingly vaginal. I wish you'd share one-- I'd hate to be a publisher's mother myself.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA OMEGA

I dont post to convince. I post to put the idea out there in play. To toss a dead cat into the Literotica Sanctuary.

People say that about me alot. My writing has an angry tone. But when I'm really angry my writing becomes telegraphic and austere in the sense of being without ornaments and embroidery. Terse. The angrier I get, the briefer I am. White hot equals silence. When I'm silent I'm cold and calculating and predatory like a large snake. Look out!

I like intensity. I like powerful words and expressions. I like to push people over the cliff verbally. I go for the boner and the wet panties and the tears and the terror.

I never lie, but much of what I post is designed to see what happens.

 

[Stella_Omega]

STELLA OMEGA

I dont post to convince. I post to put the idea out there in play. To toss a dead cat into the Literotica Sanctuary.

People say that about me alot. My writing has an angry tone. But when I'm really angry my writing becomes telegraphic and austere in the sense of being without ornaments and embroidery. Terse. The angrier I get, the briefer I am. White hot equals silence. When I'm silent I'm cold and calculating and predatory like a large snake. Look out!

I like intensity. I like powerful words and expressions. I like to push people over the cliff verbally. I go for the boner and the wet panties and the tears and the terror.

I never lie, but much of what I post is designed to see what happens.

Ah, thanks. Now I know that our discussion is being evaluated in terms of how I react to you, rather than what I actually say. I've noticed that you ignore concrete questions, such as; "What book did that quote come from?" "Where did you get this snake rules idea?" "What's wrong with pussy?"

Here's another-- why shouldn't we all just assume you're a troll?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA OMEGA

Okay, here are two examples of rules that annoy me.

1.Subjunctive, indicative, and conditional mood.
"Were" is the subjunctive form of "to be" in the present tense, so we write "If I were grown up I'd fuck her silly." But whats wrong with "If I was grown up I'd fuck her silly."?

2. "None" is the contraction of "not one." Logically none should take a singular verb, but you get shit like this: " None of the haystacks on the BSDM board were banned." What's wrong with "None of the haystacks on the BSDM board was banned?"

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA OMEGA

You can pretend I'm Santa Claus for all I care.

But be aware of your presupposition: We do things here my way, and anyone who does different I get to discount with a bad name.

I think the presupposition is common on boards where everyone knows each other and everyone is comfortable and there's an unspoken set of rules for whats okay and what isnt.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA OMEGA

Niccolo Machiavelli made an interesting observation about groups: Contented people are silent and malcontents bitch.

 

[gauchecritic]

STELLA OMEGA

Okay, here are two examples of rules that annoy me.

1.Subjunctive, indicative, and conditional mood.
"Were" is the subjunctive form of "to be" in the present tense, so we write "If I were grown up I'd fuck her silly." But whats wrong with "If I was grown up I'd fuck her silly."?

2. "None" is the contraction of "not one." Logically none should take a singular verb, but you get shit like this: " None of the haystacks on the BSDM board were banned." What's wrong with "None of the haystacks on the BSDM board was banned?"

The first just sounds better (to me) but I hear the second used every day, particularly since my dialect uses the sound 'wo' for was.

After an admittedly short google I couldn't find any resource that says none is a contraction although they do all say that it is equivalent (which isn't the same really) One of the sources says none has been used with both singular and plural verbs since the 9th century. So it's not really much of a rule is it? Which means that the singular (particularly since the logic is based on a false premise) verb use is just as much a rule (by your method) and equally wrong.

But as has been said many times: you have to know the rules in order to break them. (not really true but what the hell)

 

[Stella_Omega]

STELLA OMEGA

You can pretend I'm Santa Claus for all I care.

But be aware of your presupposition: We do things here my way, and anyone who does different I get to discount with a bad name.

I think the presupposition is common on boards where everyone knows each other and everyone is comfortable and there's an unspoken set of rules for whats okay and what isnt.

We never do things here my way-- but the majority of the people here tend to agree on many ways to do things. That's why I'm here, because I like the way things happen here.

I started off with the presupposition that you actually wanted to hang out at the author's hangout-- and, you know, talk.

But a guy who might throw a dead cat at me isn't much fun to talk to.

Other things you just said;
I like to push people over the cliff verbally

and; two things in one sentence;
I never lie, but much of what I post is designed to see what happens.

To me, this sounds like a guy who (if you throw dead cats) really does not care what people think about him, who looks for buttons to push-- unpleasant, dead-cat buttons. You said it yourself-- I did not put words into your mouth.
That's trollish behaviour. So; what makes you not a troll?

STELLA OMEGA

Okay, here are two examples of rules that annoy me.

1.Subjunctive, indicative, and conditional mood.
"Were" is the subjunctive form of "to be" in the present tense, so we write "If I were grown up I'd fuck her silly." But whats wrong with "If I was grown up I'd fuck her silly."?

2. "None" is the contraction of "not one." Logically none should take a singular verb, but you get shit like this: " None of the haystacks on the BSDM board were banned." What's wrong with "None of the haystacks on the BSDM board was banned?"

I can easily agree with your first example. Depending on my mood, I'd use either one. Although I'd probably say "If I was a grown-up..."

And if I were writing it as dialogue, no editor on earth could make me change it.


Here's my take on the second one.

Did you notice that in your sentence you automatically made "Haystacks" plural? You didn't even think of saying "none haystack was banned" for instance.

Really, what you are talking about is the actual number of haystacks that actually are on the BDSM board. "none of (them)" denotes a group within them-- comprised of zero, in this case-- (and, by the way, "zero" is not singular-- "zero haystacks...")

To make it singular, you'd say; "Not one haystack was banned" which works because you are using the actual word "one" in the sentence.


yes, no?