New Idea (Sort Of)

[BlackShanglan]

I didn't read the whole thing, to be sure, but I couldn't even tell who or what that dude was supposed to be having sex with.

I might have to put that quote in my sig file.

I sawed back and forth on that opening for ages. I knew that it would lose me readers in the first page, because it is obscure about the identity of the speaker. I also had one early reader interpret it as the words of an African-American slave in the United States and find it very offensive if read that way; thank goodness she knew me well enough to keep going and find out that it wasn't, but I worry about that too even after making some changes to try to avoid it.

In revision (not posted) I've cut some length from the intro, but I can't quite bring myself to just say who she is from the start. Awkward. I see the problems it creates, but it's also the one chance I've got for readers to see and empathize with the person before she's obscured by the physical body. I still go back and mull over it frequently, trying to imagine other ways to handle it.

But, as you say - at least the awareness of a problem is there. *laugh*

 

[palisa]

Think about some new kid posting a story with high hopes of some decent, poisitive feedback and being randomly selected for destruction by a gang of editors.

If a story is crap, I'll tell them it's crap. But that's just my opinion. They can take it or leave it. it's quite a different thing when an unsolicited gang beats him/her up and tears his/her story to pieces in a public forum.

I don't see the positive side in this from the writer's point of view.

In public, there's obviously none. But destruction is not the point either. If a so-called writer doesn't know the difference between loose and lose, its and it's, discrete and discreet and lots of other hair-tearing distractions from what might be a pretty good story line, it would be a mercy to tell him or her -- not in flames, but in chapter-and-verse criticisms.

An attitude that seems to be widely shared holds that grammar, punctuation and spelling (beyond what a spell-checker catches and perhaps not even that) are optional. Well, OK; because the site editors obviously don't have a lot of time to vet every submission, some of that stuff gets through. And who wants to let that old-fashioned rules crap get in the way of my muse?

Well, it does get in the way. Book and magazine publishers wouldn't spend the big bucks they do on editors if they thought they could cut corners and keep their audiences.

So if a writer is out of school and not being reviewed by a teacher, and consistently writes about a "discrete encounter" or "loosing his concentration," who's going to point that out? He writes a few stories and starts dreaming of selling a bodice-ripper to Harlequin.

You don't have to be nasty to point out problems, but this site's name suggests "literary" as well as "erotica."

 

[cloudy]

In public, there's obviously none. But destruction is not the point either. If a so-called writer doesn't know the difference between loose and lose, its and it's, discrete and discreet and lots of other hair-tearing distractions from what might be a pretty good story line, it would be a mercy to tell him or her -- not in flames, but in chapter-and-verse criticisms.

An attitude that seems to be widely shared holds that grammar, punctuation and spelling (beyond what a spell-checker catches and perhaps not even that) are optional. Well, OK; because the site editors obviously don't have a lot of time to vet every submission, some of that stuff gets through. And who wants to let that old-fashioned rules crap get in the way of my muse?

Well, it does get in the way. Book and magazine publishers wouldn't spend the big bucks they do on editors if they thought they could cut corners and keep their audiences.

So if a writer is out of school and not being reviewed by a teacher, and consistently writes about a "discrete encounter" or "loosing his concentration," who's going to point that out? He writes a few stories and starts dreaming of selling a bodice-ripper to Harlequin.

You don't have to be nasty to point out problems, but this site's name suggests "literary" as well as "erotica."

Thank you!

 

[MarshAlien]

You don't have to be nasty to point out problems, but this site's name suggests "literary" as well as "erotica."

Well, that explains a lot; I thought it was supposed to be the stuff that I wrote when I was hammered.

Seriously, I think the better participants here will take the time to e-mail new authors that theyve come across and let them know what they did well, and what they didn't.

 

[LadyCibelle]

In public, there's obviously none. But destruction is not the point either. If a so-called writer doesn't know the difference between loose and lose, its and it's, discrete and discreet and lots of other hair-tearing distractions from what might be a pretty good story line, it would be a mercy to tell him or her -- not in flames, but in chapter-and-verse criticisms.

An attitude that seems to be widely shared holds that grammar, punctuation and spelling (beyond what a spell-checker catches and perhaps not even that) are optional. Well, OK; because the site editors obviously don't have a lot of time to vet every submission, some of that stuff gets through. And who wants to let that old-fashioned rules crap get in the way of my muse?

Well, it does get in the way. Book and magazine publishers wouldn't spend the big bucks they do on editors if they thought they could cut corners and keep their audiences.

So if a writer is out of school and not being reviewed by a teacher, and consistently writes about a "discrete encounter" or "loosing his concentration," who's going to point that out? He writes a few stories and starts dreaming of selling a bodice-ripper to Harlequin.

You don't have to be nasty to point out problems, but this site's name suggests "literary" as well as "erotica."

I couldn't have said it better, thank you!

 

[foehn2]

Nobel Literature Laureates – a sampling

Can you name one Nobel Literature laureate who had ANY "formal credentials" in creative writing or editing/publishing?

Come to that can you name any best-selling author ~ditto~?

(post # 10)

Creative writing is a formal field of study in many universities now, but is relatively new. I don't think I've ever seen degree plans for bachelor's degrees in either editing or publishing, but am pretty sure they never existed prior to the 1970's. In any event, I'm not sure what constitutes bona fide credentials in those fields. However, I thought it would be interesting, based on the above quote, to take a look at some of the formal training some of our Nobel Literature laureates have undergone. Many of those who had no public formal training had mentors, or generous tutelage and guidance in their developmental years. Here are a few examples, which I found interesting:

(Years given are the years in which the person was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.)

Sinclair Lewis, 1930: Yale
John Galsworthy, 1932: Harrow; New College, Oxford
Eugene O'Neill, 1936: Princeton (1 yr.); Harvard (1 yr.)
Pearl Buck, 1938: M.A., Cornell University
André Gide, 1947: École Alsacienne
Thomas Stearns Eliot, 1948: Harvard; post-grad, Harvard, Oxford
William Faulkner, 1949: University of Mississippi (incomplete)
Bertrand Russell, 1950: Trinity College, Cambridge
Winston Churchill, 1953: Harrow and Sandhurst
Boris Pasternak, 1958: University of Moscow, University of Marburg, Germany
John Steinbeck, 1962: Stanford University (incomplete)
Jean-Paul Sartre, 1964: École Normale Supérieure, Professor of Philosophy at Le Havre
Samuel Beckett, 1969: B.A. Trinity College, Dublin
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, 1970: Moscow University, University of Rostov, Institute of History, Philosophy and Literature in Moscow
Patrick White, 1973: King's College, Cambridge
Saul Bellow, 1976: B.A. Northwestern University; post-grad at University of Wisconsin
William Golding, 1983: Brasenose College, Oxford
Harold Pinter, 2006: Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, Cenral School of Speech and Drama

I believe that true "credentials" are what we build up over time, by demonstrating desire to get it right, in the first place; make it better, in the second; and willingness to put forth a consistent effort to do so.

 

[sr71plt]

f she were picking on you as a moderator, your posts would disappear.

Deleted by moderator

Absolutely right, RogueLurker (see above) .

 

[sr71plt]

(post # 10)

Creative writing is a formal field of study in many universities now, but is relatively new. I don't think I've ever seen degree plans for bachelor's degrees in either editing or publishing, but am pretty sure they never existed prior to the 1970's. In any event, I'm not sure what constitutes bona fide credentials in those fields. However, I thought it would be interesting, based on the above quote, to take a look at some of the formal training some of our Nobel Literature laureates have undergone. Many of those who had no public formal training had mentors, or generous tutelage and guidance in their developmental years. Here are a few examples, which I found interesting:

(Years given are the years in which the person was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.)

Sinclair Lewis, 1930: Yale
John Galsworthy, 1932: Harrow; New College, Oxford
Eugene O'Neill, 1936: Princeton (1 yr.); Harvard (1 yr.)
Pearl Buck, 1938: M.A., Cornell University
André Gide, 1947: École Alsacienne
Thomas Stearns Eliot, 1948: Harvard; post-grad, Harvard, Oxford
William Faulkner, 1949: University of Mississippi (incomplete)
Bertrand Russell, 1950: Trinity College, Cambridge
Winston Churchill, 1953: Harrow and Sandhurst
Boris Pasternak, 1958: University of Moscow, University of Marburg, Germany
John Steinbeck, 1962: Stanford University (incomplete)
Jean-Paul Sartre, 1964: École Normale Supérieure, Professor of Philosophy at Le Havre
Samuel Beckett, 1969: B.A. Trinity College, Dublin
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, 1970: Moscow University, University of Rostov, Institute of History, Philosophy and Literature in Moscow
Patrick White, 1973: King's College, Cambridge
Saul Bellow, 1976: B.A. Northwestern University; post-grad at University of Wisconsin
William Golding, 1983: Brasenose College, Oxford
Harold Pinter, 2006: Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, Cenral School of Speech and Drama

I believe that true "credentials" are what we build up over time, by demonstrating desire to get it right, in the first place; make it better, in the second; and willingness to put forth a consistent effort to do so.

Nice list, thanks. But as with Snooper's original posting, apples and kumquats. These are writers; the topic was editors.

Creative writing is not a new field (someone from your list, Faulkner, was teaching it at the University of Virginia in the late 1950s--as I was told ad nauseum when I was going through the program there in the mid 60s).

And, I don't know any undergraduate editing and publishing programs, either. But there are several at the graduate level--Chicago, George Washington, and University of Virginia are the ones I know about; I'm sure there are others.

But I do agree with your wrapup statement as being on the path to having the credentials (just another word for enough experience/ability) necessary--in both writing and editing/publishing--as I said myself up the line here.

But getting back to what this references--no, being a prize winner of any sort in writing isn't the same as being any kind of an editor. Apples and kumquats. Having the same foundation but different talent/skills/functions.

 

[snooper]

... I thought it would be interesting ... to take a look at some of the formal training some of our Nobel Literature laureates have undergone.

You omitted the details that "at Harrow [Winston Churchill's] conspicuously poor academic record seemingly justified his father's decision to enter him into an army career. It was only at the third attempt that he managed to pass the entrance examination to the Royal Military College, now Academy, Sandhurst, but, once there, he applied himself seriously and passed out (graduated) 20th in a class of 130." Not the most auspicious start to a literary career.

Quoted source: Encyclopædia Britannica

 

[sr71plt]

You omitted the details that "at Harrow [Winston Churchill's] conspicuously poor academic record seemingly justified his father's decision to enter him into an army career. It was only at the third attempt that he managed to pass the entrance examination to the Royal Military College, now Academy, Sandhurst, but, once there, he applied himself seriously and passed out (graduated) 20th in a class of 130." Not the most auspicious start to a literary career.

Quoted source: Encyclopædia Britannica

There's no big mystery. Winston Churchill, like John F. Kennedy after him, didn't really write his prize-winning books himself. Folks like this had (have) a bevy of ghost researchers, writers, and development editors.

Churchill did do his own painting, though, and his oils are very nice.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think I've ever seen degree plans for bachelor's degrees in either editing or publishing, but am pretty sure they never existed prior to the 1970's. In any event, I'm not sure what constitutes bona fide credentials in those fields.

Turns out there are programs, both at the undergraduate and graduate level, available all over the United States (and Canada and Australia as well) and have been for years. It's like any other profession that doesn't have government-enforced licensing. You can either go systematically through programs and learn the craft comprehensibly from the ground up, or you can hang out a shingle and just let the buyer beware.

I know that the Unversity of Virginia has now closed down its graduate program in this, but in addition to the universities I mentioned before, George Washington and Chicago, I've found extensive U.S. programs in editing and publishing at Boston University, Florida State, University of Washington, California State, NYU, University of Minnesota, University of Cincinnati, Brigham Young, and Pace.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Hello, Can I Thread-Jack This Back ??

In public, there's obviously none. But destruction is not the point either. If a so-called writer doesn't know the difference between loose and lose, its and it's, discrete and discreet and lots of other hair-tearing distractions from what might be a pretty good story line, it would be a mercy to tell him or her -- not in flames, but in chapter-and-verse criticisms.

An attitude that seems to be widely shared holds that grammar, punctuation and spelling (beyond what a spell-checker catches and perhaps not even that) are optional. Well, OK; because the site editors obviously don't have a lot of time to vet every submission, some of that stuff gets through. And who wants to let that old-fashioned rules crap get in the way of my muse?

Well, it does get in the way. Book and magazine publishers wouldn't spend the big bucks they do on editors if they thought they could cut corners and keep their audiences.

So if a writer is out of school and not being reviewed by a teacher, and consistently writes about a "discrete encounter" or "loosing his concentration," who's going to point that out? He writes a few stories and starts dreaming of selling a bodice-ripper to Harlequin.

You don't have to be nasty to point out problems, but this site's name suggests "literary" as well as "erotica."

My profession is teaching (which is who I am), and all I seek is to improve the quality of life of others by increasing their skills. By day, that's one thing. By night, I try and help new writers who want to learn. I mentor, not criticize. That means appreciating what they've created, emphasizing the positives, and helping them in weak areas by making suggestions.

I was shocked when a writer was helping told me they were shocked that I didn't berate them for making mistakes.

Hello! Is this a loving, helpful community that I think it is, or a vindictive one?

If anyone has an abusive editor and would like to be cherished, contact me. But I'm only one person, who also likes to write.

Venting, I guess.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Palisa, you seem to be quite passionate in rejecting this idea.

That's fine, it's a bit idealistic I know, and I doubt I'd have the time regardless.

You don't know me. And don't presume to, either. I'm FUCKING OFFENDED that the kind-hearted and giving person that I am is somehow made out to be a bad person. I don't know if you've had bad experiences or what, and if that's the case, as an editor, I apologize if you've received ill treatment.

But you have earned my ire. I spend much time supporting and encouraging my writers. "Gang up?" No, you don't know me. And maybe LadyC will delete this with her little "red" wand and make it all go away, which I'm fine with if I've crossed the line.

Ah, you probably won't read this anyway.

Oh, by the way, if you need an editor... I'm BUSY!

 

[Guest]

Palisa, you seem to be quite passionate in rejecting this idea.

That's fine, it's a bit idealistic I know, and I doubt I'd have the time regardless.

You don't know me. And don't presume to, either. I'm FUCKING OFFENDED that the kind-hearted and giving person that I am is somehow made out to be a bad person. I don't know if you've had bad experiences or what, and if that's the case, as an editor, I apologize if you've received ill treatment.

But you have earned my ire. I spend much time supporting and encouraging my writers. "Gang up?" No, you don't know me. And maybe LadyC will delete this with her little "red" wand and make it all go away, which I'm fine with if I've crossed the line.

Ah, you probably won't read this anyway.

Oh, by the way, if you need an editor... I'm BUSY!

I believe the "gang up" stuff came from sr71plt. He has decided that there is a cult or clique or group here and the reason people object to some of his posts is because he is not an intimate part of the club.

I think. He's been on ignore for awhile.

 

[sr71plt]

I believe the "gang up" stuff came from sr71plt. He has decided that there is a cult or clique or group here and the reason people object to some of his posts is because he is not an intimate part of the club.

I think. He's been on ignore for awhile.

Being one who actually reads back on the string before making assumptions/accusations, I'll note that the ganging up was introduced by MarshAlien in posting #62--tongue in cheek--and I picked up on it posting #65--but by explicitly saying that the original poster (AsylumSeeker) seemed to have the best of intentions in mind. MarshAlien later posted to say he was kidding, and I answered that I understood that he was kidding.

I think it's great that there are writers here willing to help other writers (and earlier today recommended to someone that they come here for help).

But, no, I don't think it's a good idea to send people who have posted on Lit. unsolictied critiques of their work. And everyone else who posted here seemed to agree with that when they, Like Jenny J. and MarshAlien, weren't joking around with the idea--just for everyone's amusement. That position in no way denigrates the help that AsylumSeeker is offering up in post #87 (but I don't see anything "not good" or contrary to what AS says he wants to do in what was quoted of palisa in #87 either).

 

[LadyCibelle]

Palisa, you seem to be quite passionate in rejecting this idea.

That's fine, it's a bit idealistic I know, and I doubt I'd have the time regardless.

You don't know me. And don't presume to, either. I'm FUCKING OFFENDED that the kind-hearted and giving person that I am is somehow made out to be a bad person. I don't know if you've had bad experiences or what, and if that's the case, as an editor, I apologize if you've received ill treatment.

But you have earned my ire. I spend much time supporting and encouraging my writers. "Gang up?" No, you don't know me. And maybe LadyC will delete this with her little "red" wand and make it all go away, which I'm fine with if I've crossed the line.

Ah, you probably won't read this anyway.

Oh, by the way, if you need an editor... I'm BUSY!

What? Who or what ruffled your feathers today, AS? I don't get it for a minute. I've reread every single post Palisa made on this thread and I don't see a single one that could be interpreted as being mean to you....or anyone else for the matter.

I think you're confusing Palisa with our own version of antagonistic, pedantic, pompous ass...Srwhatever his name is at the moment. I won't delete what you've just said...but I think you owe Palisa a gigantic apology.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Did I Misread Something, Or Read Something Into It?

What? Who or what ruffled your feathers today, AS? I don't get it for a minute. I've reread every single post Palisa made on this thread and I don't see a single one that could be interpreted as being mean to you....or anyone else for the matter.

I think you're confusing Palisa with our own version of antagonistic, pedantic, pompous ass...Srwhatever his name is at the moment. I won't delete what you've just said...but I think you owe Palisa a gigantic apology.

I must have taken something the wrong way, or read something into it that wasn't there, or confused the author of the posts. If LadyC says she doesn't understand, then I am obviously in error. Influences external to Lit (at my job) could have caused an underlying emotional component that could have also "spilled over". Which is actually why I'm here, because after considering it last night, I thought I might better edit the comment. But, seeing as how it's been seen, that's no longer possible.

So, seeing as how I must have made an error, then I do pubicly apologize to you, Palisa. :rose I'm a nice guy at heart and slow to anger, but once I reach that point, I tend to go overboard, which is why in hindsight I'm sure I allowed what's going on at work to affect my "virtual" life. Having never interacted with you before, I realize with considerable embarrassment that I didn't make a very good first impression.

How do you do that "rose" thing? You can see I tried :rose but it didn't work.

 

[adetaildiva]

whispering to AS

How do you do that "rose" thing? You can see I tried :rose but it didn't work.

pssst... AS ...... you need to enclose the word "rose" with colons.
(i.e. : rose :, only leave the spaces out)

I think it works the same with some of the other icons, too -- the descriptive word enclosed by colons.

 

[LadyCibelle]

pssst... AS ...... you need to enclose the word "rose" with colons.
(i.e. : rose :, only leave the spaces out)

I think it works the same with some of the other icons, too -- the descriptive word enclosed by colons.

Yeah it does...the eek

 

[CopyCarver]

pssst... AS ...... you need to enclose the word "rose" with colons.
(i.e. : rose :, only leave the spaces out)

I think it works the same with some of the other icons, too -- the descriptive word enclosed by colons.

Alternatively, you can also watch 492 episodes of The Victory Garden on PBS. You'll get roses OK, but your thumbs turn green as a side effect.

 

[adetaildiva]

wiping tears

Alternatively, you can also watch 492 episodes of The Victory Garden on PBS. You'll get roses OK, but your thumbs turn green as a side effect.

roflmao .......

always there when info (however arcane) is needed ..... thanks, CC


hmmm, is this known as "jacking the thread"? if it is, *does the dance of joy* I'm finally with the "in crowd"!!

 

[Guest]

roflmao .......

always there when info (however arcane) is needed ..... thanks, CC


hmmm, is this known as "jacking the thread"? if it is, *does the dance of joy* I'm finally with the "in crowd"!!

(By the way, I love how nasty "jacking the thread" sounds. Much more naughty than a thread hijack, don't you think?)

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Practicing...

Kneeling, still feel very badly, for guilt is another cross I bear and not looking forward to another guilty, sleepless night...

<mind the thorns>

Ah, thanks! A good start to a new day, I guess.

 

[palisa]

That's what I get for not logging in for a couple of days

I've been editing a new story, and the writer thinks I'm a loving, nurturing, encouraging paragon of editorial virtue -- so there!

Now if I could only get him to understand what a comma splice is...

----------------------------
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

returning to the scene of the crime...

Palisa, many apologies. I Know I have made them already (well, there was that wardrobe failure with the failed double quotes)

I have been flogging myself severely since LadyC so kindly pointed out the error of my ways. Other issues have blinded my anger, for which I apologize again.

And to think you have their same interests at heart. All I want to do is support and inspire, which you seem to agree to.

I'm not a bad guy.