Learning toi Swim

[sophieloves]

Have no need to fight over this. We all have to set limits on what we'll read and what we'll do--and then, yes, we all miss out on what we haven't done. It's inevitable.

I just didn't like your condescending tone and your implication that what I do read is not as important or satisfying as what I don't read. You have no way of knowing that--so there's no particular reason why you should have been saying it other than to be condescending and derogatory--and to start a fight.

This is a sex site. If you can't get me interested and aroused in two Lit. pages, I don't see the need to wade through your seven pager. There are more than enough satisfying two-pagers here.

i'm sorry this is what you read into a completely unmotivated and purely observational post. looking back at it, i suppose i should have worded it differently, so that my intention was unambiguous. my apologies. i never start fights. i might not back away from one, but never ever begin them.

peace.

 

[sr71plt]

i'm sorry this is what you read into a completely unmotivated and purely observational post. looking back at it, i suppose i should have worded it differently, so that my intention was unambiguous. my apologies. i never start fights. i might not back away from one, but never ever begin them.

peace.

Yes, peace. It's good to know you weren't intentionally pushing a known button with me.

 

[XXplorher]

I just didn't like your condescending tone...

Actually, if you want to be ‘precise’? The ladder of condescension started with you:

Ah, yes, the five Lit. pages. I'd have to be hired to read a Lit. story segment over two pages, I'm afraid.

You’re worth hiring because you won’t involve yourself in anything owning more depth than 2 pages otherwise? That’s just silly. And clearly condescending. So don’t call the kettle black, eh. All Sophie said was you’ll be missing out on quite a few excellent works if those are your parameters. It’s like saying… “I don’t read books. I read magazines. You’d have to pay me to read a book.”

There’s plenty here worth your unpaid time, that go well beyond 2 pages.

If you choose to reject them because they don’t maintain your acceptable parameters? Then those stories aren’t interested in your readership anyway. The author was more interested in a gradually progressive investment - culminating in a more viscerally explosive result. (Or… sex, as opposed to a ‘quickie’.)

Having said that? I’m not here to tell you what your parameters should be. If you’re pleased with what you find 2 pages or less? Then good on ya. Glad to hear it. There’s no cause for complaint there. I find plenty within that which satisfy me also. In fact, I just came across this from ages past. Fine example of succinctly enduring, sexy as hell… and short:

The Ride (by Astra)
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=3020

Staciliv made a comment that she was confused by my story. She didn’t see the answers she needed to believe in the investment of the characters. I would say that those answers are in there – if you finish the story. But I didn’t generate enough interest initially to keep her involved. So I can’t blame her for bailing on it, eh. Why the hell would you keep reading if you don’t feel like it anymore? I mean, in THAT case – you better be getting dollars to do so, lolz.

I had no intention of being verbose in that story. And I’ll say it again, I would change nothing about it. I like it precisely as it is. From sentence to sentence… oh, except the nape of the neck thing – major fuck up there. In my mind it's the perfect length. But as said, if you’re not aroused enough to continue? Then don’t. No one can demand that you should (other than the work itself compelling you enough to continue). But lemme ask you this:

Have you EVER been compelled to read beyond 2 pages? Has that ever occurred? Was there ever anything that spoke to you in such a way that you went beyond your preordained parameters? Or do you go directly to the bottom of the page before you read the first paragraph? In which case you would never ever know if anything beyond 2 pages could accidentally enrich your life. And wouldn’t that be sort of tragic?


PS Don’t be jabbin’ at Sophie. I can assure you she did not intend to start an argument (I might, however). It looks quite silly of you to drop in with a condescending aside remark, with very little purpose or relevance – and then crap on someone for offering a completely non-threatening response (which actually afforded some wisdom, and I read as one of concern – as opposed to flippant), because it sounded condescending to you.

I looked right past your initial remark as irrelevant, so it didn’t bother me. But hypocrisy bothers me immensely. It’s almost impossible to avoid (and I hate it when I do it as well). But it helps if you acknowledge it. Do you see where that occurred here? Don’t complain about the stink if you're the one who took a crap, eh.

 

[sr71plt]

Actually, if you want to be ‘precise’? The ladder of condescension started with you:

Ah, yes, the five Lit. pages. I'd have to be hired to read a Lit. story segment over two pages, I'm afraid.

You’re worth hiring because you won’t involve yourself in anything owning more depth than 2 pages otherwise? That’s just silly. And clearly condescending. So don’t call the kettle black, eh. All Sophie said was you’ll be missing out on quite a few excellent works if those are your parameters. It’s like saying… “I don’t read books. I read magazines. You’d have to pay me to read a book.”

There’s plenty here worth your unpaid time, that go well beyond 2 pages.

If you choose to reject them because they don’t maintain your acceptable parameters? Then those stories aren’t interested in your readership anyway. The author was more interested in a gradually progressive investment - culminating in a more viscerally explosive result. (Or… sex, as opposed to a ‘quickie’.)

Having said that? I’m not here to tell you what your parameters should be. If you’re pleased with what you find 2 pages or less? Then good on ya. Glad to hear it. There’s no cause for complaint there. I find plenty within that which satisfy me also. In fact, I just came across this from ages past. Fine example of succinctly enduring, sexy as hell… and short:

The Ride (by Astra)
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=3020

Staciliv made a comment that she was confused by my story. She didn’t see the answers she needed to believe in the investment of the characters. I would say that those answers are in there – if you finish the story. But I didn’t generate enough interest initially to keep her involved. So I can’t blame her for bailing on it, eh. Why the hell would you keep reading if you don’t feel like it anymore? I mean, in THAT case – you better be getting dollars to do so, lolz.

I had no intention of being verbose in that story. And I’ll say it again, I would change nothing about it. I like it precisely as it is. From sentence to sentence… oh, except the nape of the neck thing – major fuck up there. In my mind it's the perfect length. But as said, if you’re not aroused enough to continue? Then don’t. No one can demand that you should (other than the work itself compelling you enough to continue). But lemme ask you this:

Have you EVER been compelled to read beyond 2 pages? Has that ever occurred? Was there ever anything that spoke to you in such a way that you went beyond your preordained parameters? Or do you go directly to the bottom of the page before you read the first paragraph? In which case you would never ever know if anything beyond 2 pages could accidentally enrich your life. And wouldn’t that be sort of tragic?


PS Don’t be jabbin’ at Sophie. I can assure you she did not intend to start an argument (I might, however). It looks quite silly of you to drop in with a condescending aside remark, with very little purpose or relevance – and then crap on someone for offering a completely non-threatening response (which actually afforded some wisdom, and I read as one of concern – as opposed to flippant), because it sounded condescending to you.

I looked right past your initial remark as irrelevant, so it didn’t bother me. But hypocrisy bothers me immensely. It’s almost impossible to avoid (and I hate it when I do it as well). But it helps if you acknowledge it. Do you see where that occurred here? Don’t complain about the stink if you're the one who took a crap, eh.

You came here for people to fall all over your wonderful story (or you wouldn't be so argumentative about it--this is a typical posting pattern here). I'm sorry you didn't get the responses you wanted. Everything's just fine between me and Sophieloves, thank you muchly--and I see no reason to yammer with you. Happy writing.

 

[XXplorher]

You came here for people to fall all over your wonderful story (or you wouldn't be so argumentative about it--this is a typical posting pattern here). I'm sorry you didn't get the responses you wanted. Everything's just fine between me and Sophieloves, thank you muchly--and I see no reason to yammer with you. Happy writing.

Nope. It’s called discussing it. As opposed to dropping an arrogant proclamation and considering it gold just because you proclaimed it.

In my opinion? You owe Sophie an apology for jumping her shit. Instead, you basically said, ‘It’s cool. I’m not offended anymore.’

Well, I’m offended by the way you jumped her shit. And you’re right there consistent again with an assumptive idea with not only what I came here for – but that she’s fine with your ‘peace’ (I dunno if she is or isn’t. All I know is I don’t like it. And since she may have been sideways defending me? I'm gonna stand by her here.) Why don’t you go ahead and apologize? Like she did for you? That would make sense, wouldn’t it?


-I came here for criticism. That’s EXACTLY what I came here for. Unfortunately, I didn’t find the kind of criticism I would use to alter my initial approach. I can’t improve the story (according to my ideals) based on the criticism I got. And I explained why. Maybe that means I’m an ignorant ass. It doesn’t matter. I’m the one creating it. I have to feel good about it. And I can’t assume another’s approach if that approach doesn’t make sense with me.

Still – I credited that criticism every step of the way and said thank you. Really I AM grateful for that. What, someone owes me their time cuz I asked for it? No. I’m sincerely grateful for the negative opinions. (But lemme get this straight, those who criticize are always correct? A critic is always accurate? The creator never has a right to their own opinion? Their own intentions?) Consider this…

Maybe I proclaimed it ‘great’ to encourage demonstrative criticism to the opposite? If all I wanted was a backrub, wouldn’t I walk in like the wounded? Isn’t how that you normally get easy encouragement? (I’m not stupid. I know why I do what I do.)

I understand and affirm most of the comments made here. I’d like to be able to use some of them to alter my future works (and I might with a couple). But don’t for a second think I don’t appreciate all of them. Most people aren’t willing to say a damn thing about anything. These people did. And I say Thank You, again!

You, however, didn’t really say anything other than a cheap insult. That later stabbed at someone not worthy of your ignorant attitude. And that… angers me. There’s definitely a difference between that and those who look beyond page 2.

I’m quite sure you don’t care. But if you properly ask yourself? You’ll know you owe her the same apology she afforded you. Do that now. (Nevermind me, I already know I don’t care what you think.)

 

[sophieloves]

XXplorher - you are a gentleman to wish to defend what you saw as a slight to me in this way. However, please allow this to get back on-track about your story - because it is a story well-worth reading and one i'm glad i did. it might have flaws with regards to editing and stuff - i don't know enough to be able to offer anything constructive in that respect.

i would like to suggest, though, that anyone who enjoyed this story might find even more pleasure in your three-parter... this is the one that blew me away. one event, three separate perspectives, all overlapping and bringing the piece together as a whole. just my own view as a reader, this is all.

thankyou, again, XX

 

[sr71plt]

Nope. It’s called discussing it. As opposed to dropping an arrogant proclamation and considering it gold just because you proclaimed it.

In my opinion? You owe Sophie an apology for jumping her shit. Instead, you basically said, ‘It’s cool. I’m not offended anymore.’

Well, I’m offended by the way you jumped her shit. And you’re right there consistent again with an assumptive idea with not only what I came here for – but that she’s fine with your ‘peace’ (I dunno if she is or isn’t. All I know is I don’t like it. And since she may have been sideways defending me? I'm gonna stand by her here.) Why don’t you go ahead and apologize? Like she did for you? That would make sense, wouldn’t it?

Sophieloves and I exchanged PMs at the time and let it drop. If you want to fight about it, you'll be fighting with yourself. As you yourself posted, I don't owe you an explanation for what I choose to read here or not.

 

[XXplorher]

Nope. It’s called discussing it. As opposed to dropping an arrogant proclamation and considering it gold just because you proclaimed it.

In my opinion? You owe Sophie an apology for jumping her shit. Instead, you basically said, ‘It’s cool. I’m not offended anymore.’

Well, I’m offended by the way you jumped her shit. And you’re right there consistent again with an assumptive idea with not only what I came here for – but that she’s fine with your ‘peace’ (I dunno if she is or isn’t. All I know is I don’t like it. And since she may have been sideways defending me? I'm gonna stand by her here.) Why don’t you go ahead and apologize? Like she did for you? That would make sense, wouldn’t it?


-I came here for criticism. That’s EXACTLY what I came here for. Unfortunately, I didn’t find the kind of criticism I would use to alter my initial approach. I can’t improve the story (according to my ideals) based on the criticism I got. And I explained why. Maybe that means I’m an ignorant ass. It doesn’t matter. I’m the one creating it. I have to feel good about it. And I can’t assume another’s approach if that approach doesn’t make sense with me.

Still – I credited that criticism every step of the way and said thank you. Really I AM grateful for that. What, someone owes me their time cuz I asked for it? No. I’m sincerely grateful for the negative opinions. (But lemme get this straight, those who criticize are always correct? A critic is always accurate? The creator never has a right to their own opinion? Their own intentions?) Consider this…

Maybe I proclaimed it ‘great’ to encourage demonstrative criticism to the opposite? If all I wanted was a backrub, wouldn’t I walk in like the wounded? Isn’t how that you normally get easy encouragement? (I’m not stupid. I know why I do what I do.)

I understand and affirm most of the comments made here. I’d like to be able to use some of them to alter my future works (and I might with a couple). But don’t for a second think I don’t appreciate all of them. Most people aren’t willing to say a damn thing about anything. These people did. And I say Thank You, again!

You, however, didn’t really say anything other than a cheap insult. That later stabbed at someone not worthy of your ignorant attitude. And that… angers me. There’s definitely a difference between that and those who look beyond page 2.

I’m quite sure you don’t care. But if you properly ask yourself? You’ll know you owe her the same apology she afforded you. Do that now. (Nevermind me, I already know I don’t care what you think.)

Wow... I miss that guy.

Goddamn. I've sometimes been a person worth respecting.

Did it ever matter ever?

 

[XXplorher]

So the above post (my bad for being drunk and self-loathing) drummed up some private comments that motivate me to revisit this thread. There is consistent disapproval of the approach to prose and I’m a little frustrated by what I perceive as a dismissive and ignorant perception of ‘artistic responsibility’. So if you’ll permit me to identify a more specific reason I chose to write that particular story the way I did…

Re: sentence structure and malicious use of grammar.

I don’t see many unintentional spewling errors but as far as the pacing and chopped sentence structure – it’s deliberate. It’s there to mirror what we’re dealing with. An anal-retentive librarian. Set in her ways. Short in allowance. Defined. Not dynamic.

In fact, I reference that here:

She had never been anything but confident, direct, and noticeably condescending in her tone before this.

There’s no ‘wander’ in her. (I’m tonally confirming that. I want you to feel her.)

As the story progresses, and she’s exposed to possibilities beyond her prior awareness, free to encounter thoughts and feelings she had never formerly considered… the language changes. There’s a progression of free-flowing thought and sexual liberation. We’re tearing away at the boundaries of our former existence. Ultimately, cascading into quoted gibberish of overwhelming sexual fulfillment.

The character of her and the arc of her ascension is carefully told within the prose itself. It’s hardly an accident (though I’m not sure I defined that approach for myself before I started. I was only feeling her and mirroring her progressive emotions in accordance to her rhythm), and most definitely not a failure to adhere to ‘proper grammar etiquette’ on my part. Fuck etiquette. The entire purpose of the story is to OBLITERATE that idea.

I challenge you to find another writer who cares that much about the intentions of their work, that they will define the approach to structure according to what the essence of the story demands. My sole interest in penning any such story is that it might actually be felt on a visceral level. Perhaps even touch someone who needed a light to burst in a certain direction. That it might actually enhance someone (and I am learning from the material as well, I go there to answer something to myself. I go there to discover). It’s not there to get graded on a curve. And it’s not there to pad vanilla popularity. It’s interested in speaking unique. For those who yearn to hear something alternative to what’s already available elsewhere in many repetitive forms.

Keep in mind, this is a story about liberating yourself from bondage. Encountering that in specificity, for the purposes of never ever wanting it again. I can’t achieve that goal at all if I’m shoving it into predetermined parameters such as 2-pages or sentences precisely as they’re ‘allowed’ to be spoken.

In fact, I didn’t quite realize why she decided to neglect his number at the end as irrelevant and unnecessary. I just thought it was cool that she did. I was thinking she’d crossed over and was free from her chains, not necessary to encounter that kind of dominance again. But I just now realized it’s a little more than that. She is in fact saying, “I don’t need your fucking etiquette. Those days are over. Briefcases and all that crap? They’re out the door… I’m new now.” Maybe it was actually me saying that, as an author. If you look at some of my other material, the approach and vernacular are very different. The story and characters involved tell me how to color it. I’m owing my approach – to the story. It decides. Maybe I was appreciating at the end there how I broke the rules a little more intentionally here than I previously had allowed for. I wasn’t afraid to do that. I did, in fact, fully achieve Carmen. (Anyone else feel that kind of loyalty and responsibility to your characters? Ain’t it nice when you feel you did right by them in the end? That’s the best, right?)

In any case, I understand this thread appears ‘defensive’ on my part. And again, I think it’s sort of silly that a Critic is allowed to state their opinion as factual and decisive, yet the source of the material is not allowed to add their reasoned intentions into discussion – without appearing combative. It’s often true that one opinion can decimate any future consideration of material that might be rewarding for many besides that initial opinion. A balance of two (and the reason for opposing views) affords a much better chance of a fresh individual’s freedom to choose. Why does the critic have a more qualified perception than anyone else? In this particular case, because of what the material is interested in encouraging – I’m a bit more motivated than usual in not only countering a dismissive opinion, but more so even in altering the parameters the critic has placed upon themselves in judging material…

You’re Carmen. And I need you to break free of that shit.

Failing that, I don’t want you removing that opportunity from someone more able to benefit from a willingness to go there…


How are we ever to progress beyond what we’ve already seen, if we all keep doing it the same way it’s already been told? How can we know what’s possible if we’re all living in a box already defined? I really don’t give a damn about being defined by 2 pages. If that’s what it’s about? I never would have ever let my pencil touch a piece of paper to begin with. Why bother doing what’s already been done? Let’s expand instead. (And really, I don’t fuck on a timer. So there’s that.)

While we as authors ought to more properly allow for a negative opinion. Critics must also allow for the intentions of the creator. And the possibility, they are simply missing out on an enjoyable experience – due to a subjective position on how to properly digest something.

Personally, I think Picasso is crap. He paints like a donkey taking a dump. Others don’t seem to think so. How did that happen exactly? Cuz I did notice he don’t stay much between the lines like they said he should. Why should a sentence be any different?

Know whut I mean?

Then again, regarding Picasso, maybe a critic had a few drinks and decided to test his influence. And then everyone just got in line and agreed, due to the perceived stature of that individual’s opinion. I tend to think that’s what happened. Alas, it’s only my opinion…

-Double X


PS It’s no accident that Carmen is among all those books all day, but doesn’t know what she thinks she does. And it’s no accident I started the tale in the manner I did, nor what the back of her head is banging against with the initial intrusion. Not an accident to be pointing out hypocrisy and the inability for anything to truly be known until actually encountered. The idea that the way they told us how things are defined? Might not be quite right.

“This book says, that Cock fucks Pussy… The Author is inaccurate. Because THIS cock – fucks Cunt.”

Allow yourself to be inappropriate at times, eh…


Thanks again for responding. I'm sorry I'm just as resistant as you ; )

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Re: sentence structure and malicious use of grammar.

I don’t see many unintentional spewling errors but as far as the pacing and chopped sentence structure – it’s deliberate. It’s there to mirror what we’re dealing with. An anal-retentive librarian. Set in her ways. Short in allowance. Defined. Not dynamic.

In fact, I reference that here:

She had never been anything but confident, direct, and noticeably condescending in her tone before this.

There’s no ‘wander’ in her. (I’m tonally confirming that. I want you to feel her.)

As the story progresses, and she’s exposed to possibilities beyond her prior awareness, free to encounter thoughts and feelings she had never formerly considered… the language changes. There’s a progression of free-flowing thought and sexual liberation. We’re tearing away at the boundaries of our former existence. Ultimately, cascading into quoted gibberish of overwhelming sexual fulfillment.

The character of her and the arc of her ascension is carefully told within the prose itself. It’s hardly an accident (though I’m not sure I defined that approach for myself before I started. I was only feeling her and mirroring her progressive emotions in accordance to her rhythm), and most definitely not a failure to adhere to ‘proper grammar etiquette’ on my part. Fuck etiquette. The entire purpose of the story is to OBLITERATE that idea.

If the story needs an explanation you've done something wrong. The story you write should never be the story that is read. Any attempt to force the reader to find the same story you have found is terribly anti-intellectual and if the story is difficult to read in the first place that is a failing on your part. By writing a story that can be read "properly" only one way you limit your story rather than expand it.

I challenge you to find another writer who cares that much about the intentions of their work, that they will define the approach to structure according to what the essence of the story demands.

Arundhati Roy the author of "God of Small Things" ignored the basic rules of grammar whenever it served her purposes but kept it readable by not using that as the sole way of driving the story. Any postmodern writer looks at the structure as a primary component of story telling. Fuck, I think very carefully about each setting, action, name, word and scene in every story I write.

I can’t achieve that goal at all if I’m shoving it into predetermined parameters such as 2-pages or sentences precisely as they’re ‘allowed’ to be spoken.

You can speak however you wish but if you do so in a language you invent on the spot no one will care about any message you might have.

(Anyone else feel that kind of loyalty and responsibility to your characters? Ain’t it nice when you feel you did right by them in the end? That’s the best, right?)

Sometimes. But other times it's nice to end the story with every character dead or broken whether I think they deserve it or not.

In any case, I understand this thread appears ‘defensive’ on my part.

Telling people what the story is supposed to be is aggressive not defensive.

And again, I think it’s sort of silly that a Critic is allowed to state their opinion as factual and decisive, yet the source of the material is not allowed to add their reasoned intentions into discussion – without appearing combative. It’s often true that one opinion can decimate any future consideration of material that might be rewarding for many besides that initial opinion. A balance of two (and the reason for opposing views) affords a much better chance of a fresh individual’s freedom to choose. Why does the critic have a more qualified perception than anyone else? In this particular case, because of what the material is interested in encouraging – I’m a bit more motivated than usual in not only countering a dismissive opinion, but more so even in altering the parameters the critic has placed upon themselves in judging material…

The "critic" is in practice the populus. The only person who is not within that body is you. Attempting to dismiss the critic is foolhardy. The critic is qualified in his or her perception because he is not you. You are not objective. You cannot be objective.

While we as authors ought to more properly allow for a negative opinion. Critics must also allow for the intentions of the creator. And the possibility, they are simply missing out on an enjoyable experience – due to a subjective position on how to properly digest something.

You cannot demand anything of the reader. Both you and the reader are subjective beings your perception is meaningless to the reader just as it is to every other reader.

Personally, I think Picasso is crap. He paints like a donkey taking a dump. Others don’t seem to think so. How did that happen exactly? Cuz I did notice he don’t stay much between the lines like they said he should. Why should a sentence be any different?

You come off as awfully arrogant. No matter your position it seems that no other perception has any meaning to you. All things are subject the the perception of the individual. Write to your audience but don't expect to attract one that has no interest. If you have a desire to touch the reader (and you have expressed such) it is far from ideal to begin by alienating the reader.

 

[litchipking]

If nothing else, this thread has certainly been entertaining. I’ll admit that I may not have read your story had I not enjoyed the little soap opera of these posts.

How come this story did not meet success in the reader’s eyes?http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=209530[/url]

You need not look too hard, though, to find a possible reason the “this story did not meet success in the reader’s eyes.” Whatever your opinion of the people who posted here, whatever else you call them, they are readers. Whatever your intentions were with your story, you have to accept that your message fell short in their “eyes”. What I’m trying to say is that your can say, “What I was trying to do was…” but you have to admit that your attempt failed, at least with some readers.

Why do I think it’s great if it isn’t? http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=209530[/url]

For the same reason that I cannot proofread my own work; I will continually read what I meant to say instead of what I actually said. I think it is perfectly natural for writers to read into our stories all the emotion, depth and character that we intended to convey. Sometimes, however, that is not the story we wrote.

I’m quite a bit critical of myself… and though I do have a tremendous ego… http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=209530

Ego is a good thing and a bad thing. A certain amount of ego is necessary for a writer to believe that what he has to say is worth reading. There is a level of ego, however, that produces negative returns. It happens somewhere between "I think this is good" and "I know this is good".

I think I might be exersising some humility in asking you to look at it. I need to know what’s wrong with it.
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=209530

This is the right sentiment. But your response did not reflect this attitude. Pointing out that you said thank you for the comments does not erase the defensive stance of your posts. What you say is always less important than how you say it.

There are dozens of different ways I can ask, “So, what are you doing tonight?” Some would raise an eyebrow; others may get my face slapped or perhaps evoke no emotional response at all.

Again, you made the writer’s mistake of reading your intent into your writing. As a reader of your posts, I think you came off as egocentric, unappreciative, delusional and insensitive. You cannot argue that I did not see you this way. I am the reader and that is what I got out of your writing. If you meant to come off in any other way (and I assume you did) then perhaps you should work on your writing skills so that your words communicate what you intend to convey.

 

[serpentmoon]

So the above post (my bad for being drunk and self-loathing) drummed up some private comments that motivate me to revisit this thread. There is consistent disapproval of the approach to prose and I’m a little frustrated by what I perceive as a dismissive and ignorant perception of ‘artistic responsibility’. So if you’ll permit me to identify a more specific reason I chose to write that particular story the way I did…

I read your earlier posts and I get where you are coming from, wanting to think more about the rhythm and impact than of your prose rather than grammar rules. I've felt this too but the thing is (and the people who have had to put up with me going off about rules would laugh to see me writing this) to a degree the rules have developed to support the best way to write and be understood. Experiement but remember the reader. Stray too far from what people can interpret and you risk losing reader, breaking the moment, through confusion, and once a reader slips out of the world you have created you are less likely to achieve whatever is your aim. If you want to break rules I think you have to do it spectacularly well.

 

[XXplorher]

Hiya Fractal,

(Up front, thanks for the well-considered response.)

If the story needs an explanation you've done something wrong. The story you write should never be the story that is read. Any attempt to force the reader to find the same story you have found is terribly anti-intellectual and if the story is difficult to read in the first place that is a failing on your part. By writing a story that can be read "properly" only one way you limit your story rather than expand it.

Or, the subjective nature of a particular reader (any) read it wrong. And then declared what it says to a group beyond that individual.

As opposed to the idea that a writer must never addendum their intentions beyond what was written (and I agree with you there. You’re right about that.), the critic has absolute freedom to declare a singular opinion that blankets the reasonable response to said material for the world at large? Does that actually make sense to you? I would argue it’s a failure on the critic’s part to not be more objective of the intentions of the material.

This particular story wants to be anything other than ‘proper’ (as I just explained). And that’s the difference.


Arundhati Roy the author of "God of Small Things" ignored the basic rules of grammar whenever it served her purposes but kept it readable by not using that as the sole way of driving the story.

I really don’t think the sentence structure was the sole means of driving my story. It’s simply a vehicle to allow a better understanding of the mindset of the character and situation involved. It doesn’t NEED to be tricksy. I only did that cuz it told me it wanted that extra ingredient.


You can speak however you wish but if you do so in a language you invent on the spot no one will care about any message you might have.

Again, what affords you such a plural voice? Are you sure about that? No one will care?

If your perception speaks in a voice of such blatant disregard for any opinion other than your own, no one will care about your ability to discern what may or may not be an affecting piece of art. (What exactly is the difference between that and what you just said?)


Sometimes. But other times it's nice to end the story with every character dead or broken whether I think they deserve it or not.

Whoa – now THAT’s a discussion worth having! Really? When you get to the end and everything that came through you, from the things that birthed along the way, are telling you an end result – you’ll deny that and force your own preferred result? You’ll ignore the answer your own material showed you, in order to force your own agenda? Was it random that you said “dead or broken”? Or are you generally compelled to break things?

That’s interesting (and I hope I don’t sound condescending, cuz I don’t mean to be). That’s a thread in itself. Wanna go there? To what do we owe our desire to create something? Um, I didn’t say that right… where does our responsibility lie in undertaking an artistic pursuit? To the material that channels through us? Or what we would prefer the result be before we begin?

I’m sort of a control freak (and that’s bad), so I find it very difficult to let things be the way they want to be. Obviously. It took me a long time to let my poetry, guitar playing, whatever, tell me where to go. But once I allowed for that? What came back was a hell of a lot better then where I was trying to force it. I also discovered it satisfies me to a much greater degree. To discover, that I’m not the only one driving the train. Something else got on with me and we went there together.

Once I tapped into that? It all became about finding those voices and learning more about them. Getting away from myself. Learning something I don’t already know. And offering it to others. It’s to that that I owe my effort.

Anyway, back to the current discussion…


Telling people what the story is supposed to be is aggressive not defensive.

Hmm, are you sure you don’t simply enjoy being argumentative? (I kind of bend to that.) Now it’s not called Defensive, it’s Aggressive?

What’s the ‘accurate’ definition of what you’re doing here then? Offering enlightenment? *wink*


The "critic" is in practice the populus.

And there you have the end of the debate.

I vehemently – disagree.

How one individual can ever think they speak for the entire populous… is beyond me. At no point do you ever stop and think, “Wait a minute. My experiences are not quite the same as everyone else’s. It’s quite possible that I don’t quite know what everyone else is thinking.” I really don’t understand why yours is an acceptable stance – but my negation of it isn’t. What made you more valuable a voice than me? I don’t get it.

That’s ugly arrogance, mate. I am committing no crime in arguing the intentions of my work. It wants to be known. And I am aware it’s not going to speak to every individual the way it would like to. You are correct to note that good art should never require an explanation. But the debate we’re having here is not whether my art is any good. It’s whether any individual can avoid mammoth hypocratic ignorance in declaring what something is for the general populous. Or whether the ‘rules’ should be adhered to at all times or not. (Case in point: I don’t think hypocratic is a word. But you know what I meant in using it, right? And it also rang well sandwiched between mammoth and ignorance. Therefore, who says it doesn’t belong?)


The critic is qualified in his or her perception because he is not you. You are not objective. You cannot be objective.

Clearly, I’m being far more objective than the critic. As you just defined the difference, lolz. The ‘critic’, is a hypo-crite. (Hmm, no wonder they spell it that way.)


You cannot demand anything of the reader. Both you and the reader are subjective beings your perception is meaningless to the reader just as it is to every other reader.

Now that I like. You are correct. The material should decide. (The material should decide, not some random ‘qualified’ critic.)


You come off as awfully arrogant. No matter your position it seems that no other perception has any meaning to you.

If that were true, why would I be giving this debate the effort I am?

You’re mistaking the motivation of this debate to be my need for praise on this particular material. It isn’t. It’s born from the frustration of rampant hypocrisy. And the idea any individual can honestly think they are the rule of accurate opinion (that sort of attitude has led to the fall of all great empires. As is blatantly represented in our current administration.) It just so happens that this particular material addresses that very same arrogant trap. So it’s an excellent vehicle to argue a point that’s very important to me.

Get off the boat… and learn to swim.

You might note that you will neglect the results of your story and force an ending of your own agenda (as you stated). Would that not be a far more subjective desire than that of an writer willing to le the story tell him where to take it? Are you sure I’m not being as objective as possible?


Write to your audience but don't expect to attract one that has no interest.

Like I just said, I’m not writing to ‘my’ audience. I’m going where the material wants to take me. And I’m quite sure there is an audience for that result. I don’t know if I’m arrogant, but I know I don’t suck.


Thanks for joining the debate, mate. You’re strong in your opinion and offered an intelligent argument. I’m respecting it. But I do not agree with it. Is there anything I said here that cause you to (at least momentarily) question your current stance?

XX


PS I'm never going to be able to avoid the 'arrogant' tag. But I find it wholly innacurate. I'd have to be preaching that I am more important than others for that to be accurate. And if you're paying attention, you'll note I'm saying quite the opposite of that. However, I love and appreciate myself very much. So you can call me an 'egoist'. But you can't call me arrogant and be accurate.

 

[XXplorher]

Litchipking -


Whatever your intentions were with your story, you have to accept that your message fell short in their “eyes”.

Well, I have to accept that it was not appreciated enough to motivate the kind of positive response I thought it might. (I really like it a lot, I think it’s a lot better than some of my stuff that was very well received. Not all of which is posted.) I’m surprised and confused by that. So it’s very likely the answer is precisely what these critics are saying, ‘People aren’t willing to read it, because the structure bothers them’.

I guess the personal agenda within me is upset by that. Yet there’s nothing I can do about it, cuz it is as I needed to tell it. I cannot change it according to the complaints being made – and be happy with it. I could read it again right now and I would sit there thinking, ‘This is better than I think I am capable of before I begin. I don’t want to change anything about it’. And I rarely feel that way about anything, so I’m not about to fucking touch it, lmao!

In any case, you’re right. And I’m basically accepting of that, except the consistency of the remarks so precisely example what the story is against. And I know that what the story is selling is true. And I want to fight for that truth. So I am. Cuz I owe it.

That’s what the thread has become about. And like you said, hell – this is kind of satisfying and entertaining in itself, right? So let’s all fuckin’ say something, eh. How refreshing. ; )


What I’m trying to say is that your can say, “What I was trying to do was…” but you have to admit that your attempt failed, at least with some readers.

Most definitely. However, again, it failed because they’re clearly stuck being Carmen… before she let go and sprayed her relief all over an impossibly generous black dick that kicked the shit out of all her former theories. I want to be that black dick. (Actually, I think I’d rather be Carmen. It seems like she had a really good time, eh. Plus, she’s kind of hot so I’d really like to feel myself up lots. Anyone know any hot librarians that haven’t yet been quite willing to let out the nuclear reactor within them? Please put me in touch.)

I’m stubborn. Enough so that I believe if they put away the ‘rule of thumb’ that’s been carved into their skulls… they’d think about what they just read after they were done. It would affect them on some level. That’s my belief.

In any case, it’s not about whether the story is any good anymore. It’s about something far more important (in my mind).


For the same reason that I cannot proofread my own work; I will continually read what I meant to say instead of what I actually said. I think it is perfectly natural for writers to read into our stories all the emotion, depth and character that we intended to convey. Sometimes, however, that is not the story we wrote.

Yeah, I hear ya. But I’m actually pretty good about that. I rarely allow myself to think something is really good – and not have that confirmed. I usually think it’s not as good as it could be, and get happily surprised people really dig it (which is definitely the better way to go. So keep those expectations as low as possible, eh.)

I did get my answer to why it wasn’t accepted to the degree I expected. However, I’m hating the reasoning. It’s a reason that the impetus for the story will simply not accept. It can’t. (You get that, right? Like, do people understand what I’m fighting for here?)


There is a level of ego, however, that produces negative returns. It happens somewhere between "I think this is good" and "I know this is good".

True story. I’m currently proving that theory.


Again, you made the writer’s mistake of reading your intent into your writing.

What do you mean by that? Please answer.


As a reader of your posts, I think you came off as egocentric, unappreciative, delusional and insensitive.

Hahaha, well I would maybe credit delusional as the most accurate of those tags. The rest were most definitely unintended.


If you meant to come off in any other way (and I assume you did) then perhaps you should work on your writing skills so that your words communicate what you intend to convey.

Yeah… I guess I’m not going to do that either, though. Cuz I mean what I’m saying. I could try to vanilla down the tone, in an effort to avoid those impressions you mentioned. But I’d rather be visible about it like I am. It really doesn’t matter if you think I’m a dick or not. As long as I compelled you to consider the topic – objective achieved. I’m just not interested in being too careful. That’s not what I’m after in life. I’d much rather slap the crap out of that idea, eh.

I was gonna say thanks for chiming in, but you told me not too ; P


I keed, I keed! I’ll consider what you’re saying. But I actually think I’m a quite affecting writer and often compelling on a BB (when I’m not sloshed, anyway). I’ve had that confirmed enough to not be willing to abandon it for the sake of a more populist approval.


Serpentmoon -

I read your earlier posts and I get where you are coming from, wanting to think more about the rhythm and impact than of your prose rather than grammar rules.

Thank you! This person just commented on the artistic end of things that I may or may not be able to improve upon.

So you heard what I said were my intentions with that. Now, did it work? Did you feel her personality and the theme of the story a bit more because I took artistic license with that? Did it feel like you knew her a bit more? What did you think she was about? Now that I told you what I meant to do with that, did it achieve that? Did it feel stiff? Was it making you uncomfortable to be her? Did you want to fuck her up the ass if only to loosen up her fucking sentence structure? Did you hear her dialogue a little bit more sincerely, because you knew her a little bit more intimately – because of the way I was spelling the prose? Did it progress as I intended? Did you feel a shift in her freedom? Was it only because of what happened? Or do you think the loosening up of the prose enhanced what was happening on a more visceral level? Did it put you in the room a bit more?

It doesn’t matter whether it’s ‘legal’ form or not. It only matters if the prose did indeed match the theme and personality.

The other comments lose credibility with me by saying, It’s not legal, or, It’s too long, etc. I don’t care about that crap. If you’re willing to look past the rules, do you think that choice in meter was in accordance with the story itself? Or did it in fact – not work at all? Did it fail to mirror her preferred behavior and transition through the occurrence? Let’s find out…


to a degree the rules have developed to support the best way to write and be understood. Experiement but remember the reader. Stray too far from what people can interpret and you risk losing reader, breaking the moment, through confusion, and once a reader slips out of the world you have created you are less likely to achieve whatever is your aim. If you want to break rules I think you have to do it spectacularly well.

I’m with you 100%.

I do not think I strayed from the rules enough to decapitate my intentions. Perhaps you could give me an angle on that I’m more able to appreciate, since you seem to also value meter like I do. Could you do me a favor and maybe read just the 1st page? I probably already fucked it up because it’s not fair you know my intentions going in, I’ve unfairly affected the way you’ll digest it. But still, can you do me a favor and read that first page, tell me if you think I enhanced the feeling of her condition – or took you OUT of the occurrence by getting too cute with the structure.

I’d really appreciate your thoughts, mate.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Or, the subjective nature of a particular reader (any) read it wrong. And then declared what it says to a group beyond that individual.

As opposed to the idea that a writer must never addendum their intentions beyond what was written (and I agree with you there. You’re right about that.), the critic has absolute freedom to declare a singular opinion that blankets the reasonable response to said material for the world at large? Does that actually make sense to you? I would argue it’s a failure on the critic’s part to not be more objective of the intentions of the material.

This particular story wants to be anything other than ‘proper’ (as I just explained). And that’s the difference.

The critic is still human and the criticism that the style in which the story is told makes it difficult to read or understand is essentially an objective one. Besides critics have their opinions overturned by other critics (Achbe recently apologized for his criticism of Heart of Darkness for example). While the critic might fail to grasp the point their opinion is not divine and smart readers will form their own opinions in spite of it.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can safely ignore critics unless you're trying to make money.

I really don’t think the sentence structure was the sole means of driving my story. It’s simply a vehicle to allow a better understanding of the mindset of the character and situation involved. It doesn’t NEED to be tricksy. I only did that cuz it told me it wanted that extra ingredient.

The way in which you seem so reluctant to revise that one part in order to benefit the whole makes it seem that you intended that as the main way of driving the message.

Again, what affords you such a plural voice? Are you sure about that? No one will care?

If your perception speaks in a voice of such blatant disregard for any opinion other than your own, no one will care about your ability to discern what may or may not be an affecting piece of art. (What exactly is the difference between that and what you just said?)

Poor phrasing on my part perhaps. You shouldn't be surprised and really have no right to be offended when people react poorly to something that they cannot read without struggling. As for why I feel I can speak for everyone . . . well I'm just an arrogant bastard.

Whoa – now THAT’s a discussion worth having! Really? When you get to the end and everything that came through you, from the things that birthed along the way, are telling you an end result – you’ll deny that and force your own preferred result? You’ll ignore the answer your own material showed you, in order to force your own agenda?

I didn't force anything. Whether they deserved to all be destroyed in the end or not is irrelevant to what simply ended up happening to them. Of course dying isn't always a bad thing for a character to experience. Not everything ends happily and forcing a happy ending is sickening.

Was it random that you said “dead or broken”? Or are you generally compelled to break things?

That just happens to be how my most recent story ends. And I meant broken emotionally.

What’s the ‘accurate’ definition of what you’re doing here then? Offering enlightenment? *wink*

I like to think of it that way :wink:

And there you have the end of the debate.

I vehemently – disagree.

How one individual can ever think they speak for the entire populous… is beyond me. At no point do you ever stop and think, “Wait a minute. My experiences are not quite the same as everyone else’s. It’s quite possible that I don’t quite know what everyone else is thinking.” I really don’t understand why yours is an acceptable stance – but my negation of it isn’t. What made you more valuable a voice than me? I don’t get it.

That’s ugly arrogance, mate. I am committing no crime in arguing the intentions of my work. It wants to be known. And I am aware it’s not going to speak to every individual the way it would like to. You are correct to note that good art should never require an explanation. But the debate we’re having here is not whether my art is any good. It’s whether any individual can avoid mammoth hypocratic ignorance in declaring what something is for the general populous. Or whether the ‘rules’ should be adhered to at all times or not. (Case in point: I don’t think hypocratic is a word. But you know what I meant in using it, right? And it also rang well sandwiched between mammoth and ignorance. Therefore, who says it doesn’t belong?)

You misunderstand me. The only relevant critic is the populus. So I agree with your basic premise but there's no point in fighting every reader because you want to write differently. People don't usually say explicitly what they mean anyway. A person that says "It sucks" doesn't usually think he's objective and speaking for everyone, he's just voicing an opinion in the way that people speak.

Clearly, I’m being far more objective than the critic. As you just defined the difference, lolz. The ‘critic’, is a hypo-crite. (Hmm, no wonder they spell it that way.)

It's impossible to be objective in relation to anything you created.

If that were true, why would I be giving this debate the effort I am?

Because you have a pervasive need to always be right and cannot handle the idea that someone could disagree with you or reasonably hold a different view of the world.

You’re mistaking the motivation of this debate to be my need for praise on this particular material. It isn’t. It’s born from the frustration of rampant hypocrisy. And the idea any individual can honestly think they are the rule of accurate opinion (that sort of attitude has led to the fall of all great empires. As is blatantly represented in our current administration.) It just so happens that this particular material addresses that very same arrogant trap. So it’s an excellent vehicle to argue a point that’s very important to me.

So basically you have no interest in anyone's opinion?

Get off the boat… and learn to swim.

*becomes confused because he's in a house*

Is there anything I said here that cause you to (at least momentarily) question your current stance?

Maybe

So you can call me an 'egoist'. But you can't call me arrogant and be accurate.

Ah, the simple beauty of semantics.

 

[XXplorher]

Nice chatting w/ya Fractal,


You shouldn't be surprised and really have no right to be offended when people react poorly to something that they cannot read without struggling.

Trust me, I’m not offended. That’s not what this is about.


As for why I feel I can speak for everyone . . . well I'm just an arrogant bastard.

Awesome. Now we can take ourselves a little less seriously. (Btw, you owe me royalties on that phrase. That’s totally mine.)


I didn't force anything. Whether they deserved to all be destroyed in the end or not is irrelevant to what simply ended up happening to them.

Maybe I misunderstood ‘deserved’. It’s most definitely irrelevant what the character deserved, in the scope of a story. What matters is that you stay true to what the story is saying and the end result speaks to what we learned along the way. That’s what’s deserved. (You can’t just throw a curve ball to be rebellious. Or deny what you were surprised to learn yourself, via the creation.)

I generally have an ending before I begin. But I’m never unwilling to abandon it if I learned a better one once I get there.

I don’t like hunky-dory ending either. I’d rather eat turd-burgers.


[What’s the ‘accurate’ definition of what you’re doing here then? Offering enlightenment? *wink*]
I like to think of it that way :wink:

Touche. Only I’m quite certain I’m on the right side of the fence. Anyone got a coin to flip?


So I agree with your basic premise but there's no point in fighting every reader because you want to write differently.

Yup. I’m not interested in that at all, actually. I think my argument points to that.


It's impossible to be objective in relation to anything you created.

I disagree (though I’m not ignorant to realistic consideration there), in the same manner it’s not possible to be fully objective – without a clear understanding of the material’s intentions.

Again with Picasso, he didn’t initially put both eyes on the same side of the face. Had he not previously established he could paint realism – I doubt he’d be a name we know, simply because of his ‘brave’ alterations.

My argument is that you can’t say, “This is how it’s supposed to be. And it isn’t like that. So I’m not going to consider any more of it.” You have to look at the entire piece, consider what it’s saying, and then ask yourself… did this approach enhance or detract from the wishes of the creator? When the content is dismissed on a slight alteration to usual presentation… that’s just not a world I want to be a part of. Peel the fuckin’ onion even if it stinks, man. (I mean, it’s not like I typed it in another language, mate. Let’s be reasonable here.)


Because you have a pervasive need to always be right and cannot handle the idea that someone could disagree with you or reasonably hold a different view of the world.

Yeah… it’s really important to me you understand that’s not it at all (and that you just fell right back into the hypocrisy seat with that statement). I understand you’re conditioned to think that’s what I’m doing. But it isn’t. That is just, totally not what I’m doing at all. It’s what you’re doing.

I am motivated by understanding. That's what it's all about for me.


So basically you have no interest in anyone's opinion?

Yup. No interest at all. That’s why I’m here. Cuz I got zero interest. I don’t even know how I managed to respond to anything you said, and even remotely sound like I was listening, cuz I wasn’t. All I heard was my opinion and nothing else. I probably got lucky if it looked like anything else. And I mostly like hearing myself talk, so I’m not sure why I use the BB for reflection. That’s probably kinda stupid of me when I could just type to myself all day. Wouldn’t that be easier? Like, I could go, “I think Trout tastes slimy.” And then say, “Yeah. It totally does.” And then I’d feel all validated and shit, right?

Thanks for making me aware of why I do what I do…

I fight for what I believe. I find it important that people do that in general. Which is why I didn’t say, ‘Fuck you. Yer dumb.’ And move on.

I’ll want to ALTER your opinion. But I’m obviously paying attention to it, bro.


*becomes confused because he's in a house*

Ever consider what might be under that floorboard? Why not have a look see?


Maybe

Haha – cool, man. Yeah, you’re worth having a conversation with. Good un ya.

For the record, you didn’t change my mind on anything though. Doh!


Ah, the simple beauty of semantics.

That’s a whole new thread, mate. There’s a VAST difference between ego and arrogance. Two ENTIRELY different things. Night and day.

Have a good week, eh. Thanks for helping me exercise the cranium.