Okay, I am answering everything as I read it...
--- Ginrai wrote:
Do we really need pointless, humourless spamfics
that attempt to be
two-sentence jokes and fail miserably on the
punchline thing?
I lost you when you attempted to say that a spamfic
is NOT defined by being spamish.
No. No, we do not.
...I think you missed the point.
Ginrai
- Who finds it sad that this had to be the first
Jungle wa Itsumo Hale Nochi
Guu fic he's seen (ffml or elsewhere).
Spamfic, and let me remind you that the first Ranma
fics back in the old days were no great pieces of
art either. And those WERE attempts at real fics...
and some are still glorified.
--- Glazius Falconar wrote:
Thermopyle ranted:
Aside from your misuse of the English language, a
number of the tags
you used simply didn't work. They didn't fit the
dialogue or actions
they were chosen for. It's clear that you rushed
in writing this or
simply didn't care. It's not just the technical
aspect of the writing
that is lazy, but the content is, too.
You failed to provide convincing scenes or
dialogue. You failed to
provide description that creates a real setting for
the characters to
interract within. You failed to properly build the
story towards a
fitting punchline. You failed to make the first
Guu fic enjoyable or
even worth reading.
You failed to make a point.
But you are right, this is an answer. Thank you
for that.
Actually, judging from the volume of your vitriol,
not only did he
succeed in making his point, but he did so with
_flying_ colors.
Agreed! ^_^
From the Book of Usenet, 5:12 - "YHBT. YHL. HAND."
But there are some things I learned from Lurker's
'point'. Let me share
my own experience.
Skimming through this, I actually had no idea
something was up until
that end tag. And then I scrolled back up and
realized what ELL had put
together.
LESSON #1: Speed-reading blurs the distinction
between content and
grammar. For a quick-paced spamfic (with lots of
whitespace) this can be
a big advantage. For a slower-paced serious fic with
much twisting and
turning, grammar and style would be much more
noticeable.
ADDENDUM TO LESSON #1: I've been practicing
quick-reading for a number
of years now. I don't the extent to which the
average human brain can
construct concepts from fragmentary outlines
thereof. It may be that,
even speed-reading, some people need 'proper'
grammar. But even the idea
of 'proper' grammar varies from person to person, so
this doesn't say
very much.
Actually, it's been proven that good readers tend to
skip some grammar mistakes because we tend to have a
mental "preview" of what is coming -grammatically
speaking.-
And then, looking up, I realized the source of the
'off' feeling I'd
gotten - 'said' was being avoided with a passion,
and so for that matter
was repetition of any _other_ verb following
dialogue.
LESSON #2: 'Said' is your friend. 'Said' will not
bite you or throw you
in the basement. If you find your dialogue wearing
thin, you can just as
easily rearrange the sentence structure as pick
another verb out of a hat.
Yup. Except that, as taught by teachers of writting
technique, you are missing the oportunity to use
another verb instead of 'said' all the time.
ADDENDUM TO LESSON #2: The example actually didn't
work quite as well as
it could have, because '"Question?" Proper Name
verbed.' can be
interpreted either as a single sentence or as two
separate sentences.
But this leads to another strategy for breaking up
sentence structure -
dialogue in one sentence, not attributed, and a
following sentence in
the same paragraph identifying the speaker.
ADDENDUM TO ADDENDUM TO LESSON #2: There's probably
a list of various
ways to attribute dialogue out there, somewhere.
Probably several of
them. Some of them may even have varied sentence
structure, as opposed
to twenty-five verbs to situationally replace
'said'. Do research on
your own to increase your understanding!
Let's not get into much detail, but you're right.
And _because_ repetition was consciously being
avoided, it looked,
especially near the end, like one of those Tinkertoy
constructions you
build as a kid to 'use up' the whole barrel - it
didn't fit together
well at all.
LESSON #3: Dialogue tags both are and are not
characterization. It _is_
necessary for them to match with whatever
characterization you have in
mind for the speaker, but by themselves they do not
constitute
characterization. People do things other than speak,
after all.
Yes, but ALL characters have a tone and feel to their
speach, so, in a well written dialogue you should be
able to recognize the speaker anyway.
But that, of course, is the point. The fic is
patently absurd in its use
of dialogue tags and deliberately so, to illustrate
a point by reducing
to absurdity.
That's true. And Lurker does so in a very effective
way.
LESSON #4: You learn more about what works or
doesn't work,
stylistically, when you look at what doesn't work,
as opposed to what does.
Agreed.
ADDENDUM TO LESSON #4: Assuming that what an author
_writes_ is what an
author _condones_, and saying so in public, makes
you look bitter and/or
stupid.
In the words of The Jungle Book: "We are of one blood,
you and I." Most heartfully agreed.
--GF
Wondering if SFPFP will run on top of SPFP when it's
finally implemented...
Maybe.
Lurker wrote:
(I'm cutting GF's notes to make this shorter.)
I figured Fermy would hang himself quite neatly if I
gave him enough rope.
:)
You proved you know him...
*nod* I'd NEVER write the way I wrote "Banana March"
if I was trying to be
serious. Even in my usual brand of comedy, I
wouldn't go to the extremes I
went to here; this was merely a tongue-in-cheek
satirical expression of
disgust at a discussion that had progressed past the
point of absurdity.
It was pretty obvious, I mean, in all the time I've
read
your fics never have you written anything like that.
Precisely. The whole point of this exercise was to
use any dialogue tag I
could think of other than the standard ones. It
actually was harder than you
might think--I caught myself trying to use a
standard dialogue tag more
times than I can count.
My WT teacher would love you, Lurk. But, it DID
bring out a way for some new writers to improve their
own stories if they take a good look at this.
*nod* Very true. However, it should also be noted
that a good writer doesn't
rely exclusively on "said"...there are far too many
good, solid, narratively
exciting speech verbs out there to limit yourself to
the most basic of the
lot. There's also absolutely nothing wrong with
avoiding speech tags
altogether if the narrative calls for it.
For example, a few different takes on a short
passage depicting an everyday
event:
#1:
----------------------------------------------------
Agreed and said above...
All three of the above examples are technically
correct, regardless of what
a number of members of this list would have you
believe.
Yup. The best thing to do is just CONSIDER what you
get on the C&C and see what works better, instead of
changing it as everyone tells you...
Which style works best for you as a writer is
entirely
up to you, but it's important to understand that
there
are several correct ways of expressing the same
ideas,
and minor variations can make a big difference in
what
the reader interprets from the narrative.
You said it man.
But I digress...let's get back to the reply...
Okay...
*nod* Not surprising, given it was pure satire,
done in ten minutes, and wasn't even meant to fit
together well...it served its purpose nevertheless.
;)
Yup. To more extent than I had imagined.
Exactly, which is why tags such as "smiled",
"nodded", and so forth ARE correct in modern English
narrative prose. Regardless of what anyone's rulebook
tells you, they supply information to the reader that
helps set the stage...it's tantamount to adding the
stage directions of a script to the narrative of
prose. It puts motion on the stage in a quick,
comprehensive way that the intuitive reader can pick
up on and assign the proper image to mentally while
reading, eliminating the need to bog the narrative
down
with extra sentences describing the act of, say,
smiling or nodding.
Indeed. Verbs are your friends when mixing them up
with
dialogue, in fact, using as many diferent verbs as
posible and avoiding the verb "to be" is very helpful.
Technical correctness, stylistic correctness, and
narrative efficiency are rarely ever in agreement,
and narrative efficiency should always be considered
first and foremost when attempting to tell a story.
I'm not saying that it's not important to follow the
rules, but it's important to know which rules to
bend and which to break--otherwise, you might
inadvertently put your reading audience to sleep
with plodding narrative.
Lurk, if you don't mind, I'm going to print your fic
and show it to the Creative Writing BA group... most
will find it particularly useful.
And once again, a hearty YUP! ^_^ In Fermopile's
case, he pretty much walked right into a trap,
which highly amuses me after the recent...
dischord his usual brand of C&C tends to cause.
Perhaps there's a chance that Fermopile might
walk away from this with a bit of wisdom passed
down through the ages...
...look before you leap. ^_-
LOL
Well Lurk, you know that C&C is normally walks the
fine line between Objectivity and Bias, just where
the road crosess with Haste and Patience.
But, in the words of Carolinus: "Inevitability is
the most powerful force of all!" Of course almost
all the forces he mentions are the "most powerful"
but, what the heck...
-D
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
.---Anime/Manga Fanfiction Mailing List----.
| Administrators - ffml-admins@anifics.com |
| Unsubscribing - ffml-request@anifics.com |
| Put 'unsubscribe' in the subject |
`---- http://ffml.anifics.com/faq.txt -----'