Why are Lousy, Boring Writers Enabled Here?
Belle Harper
but I just can't stand it any more. I have to know: why are lousy, boring
writers enabled here, and why aren't they taught something about
self-improvement when it becomes painfully obvious soon enough that they
aren't improving at all?
You know what I mean. Weekly someone writes a sly parody of these people;
others see it, too. These lousy writers post frequently and misspell ten
times as often as they post. Their grammar is appalling. They have never
been published. They have "piles" and "loads" of rejection slips that they
brag about as frequently as they brag about their boring children, pets,
spouses, jobs, and lives. They contribute nothing here. Yet they are enabled
and even welcomed by people who prove through their own writing that they're
discerning enough to know the difference between good and lousy writing.
I've never seen anyone correct the writing of these lousy, boring writers.
I've never seen anyone honestly say, "Have you ever considered another line
of work, seeing as you've never been published and you're working on your
nth novel?"
I'm all for being nice to people. But what about being truthful? Isn't it
possible to be truthful and kind? How cruel is it to enable people's fantasy
"writer" selves to continue to exist when it seems pretty evident that there
are many people who will simply never develop enough as thinkers or writers
to be able to publish anything useful? And why does a newsgroup full of
writers foster mediocrity and banality?
Once at a party I noticed a woman dressed in a nice evening dress. She
looked fabulous until she turned around. In the back she had the largest,
fresh blood stain on her rear end. She'd started her period and no one, I
mean NO ONE said anything to her about it. I noticed men turning away with
embarrassment, and saw a group of women tittering as she walked by.
Imagining how horrified I'd be in the same situation, I took this woman a
drink and told her she had a problem. She was mortified but grateful. I see
these lousy, boring writers in a similar light. They're embarrassing
themselves and they don't know it. People titter behind their backs, are
embarrassed for them, and write parodies of them. But no one has had the
decency to tell them they need to work on their craft or go on to another
line of work. I'm intensely curious about why.
Cringing as I write,
Belle
--
Belle Harper
Smokey
Belle Harper wrote:
> Well, I am going to put my foot in it. I may sink in all the way to my ears,
> but I just can't stand it any more. I have to know: why are lousy, boring
> writers enabled here, and why aren't they taught something about
> self-improvement when it becomes painfully obvious soon enough that they
> aren't improving at all?
>
> You know what I mean. Weekly someone writes a sly parody of these people;
> others see it, too. These lousy writers post frequently and misspell ten
> times as often as they post. Their grammar is appalling. They have never
> been published. They have "piles" and "loads" of rejection slips that they
> brag about as frequently as they brag about their boring children, pets,
> spouses, jobs, and lives. They contribute nothing here. Yet they are enabled
> and even welcomed by people who prove through their own writing that they're
> discerning enough to know the difference between good and lousy writing.
>
> I've never seen anyone correct the writing of these lousy, boring writers.
> I've never seen anyone honestly say, "Have you ever considered another line
> of work, seeing as you've never been published and you're working on your
> nth novel?"
>
> I'm all for being nice to people. But what about being truthful? Isn't it
> possible to be truthful and kind? How cruel is it to enable people's fantasy
> "writer" selves to continue to exist when it seems pretty evident that there
> are many people who will simply never develop enough as thinkers or writers
> to be able to publish anything useful? And why does a newsgroup full of
> writers foster mediocrity and banality?
Some of the writers in mw are just hobby writers, some are serious writers and a
few, I believe aren't writers at all, but enjoy reading and writers so they come
here.
As to the *lousy* writers question, on how people in this group just let them go
on. Well it could be a few reasons. One is, maybe it's just opinion. It's
possible that what your reading you just dislike and mark it as lousy writing,
some others may find it likable so label it good.
Just to use an example: (sorry Steve you're the only one I can think of to use
for this <g>)
Steve Pritchard isn't big on poetry so it's not likely that he would enjoy
reading it. It's not likely he'd think it was great. Because he doesn't enjoy
poetry. But that wouldn't mean the poetry wasn't any good, just that he wasn't
partial to it.
Another could be dreams in general. Who wants to be the one to trash someone's
dreams?
Yet another could be some of these people that you see as having no gift for
writing, may just not be using there total writing skills in their posts.
As to grammar and spelling. Well, I'd have to admit that those two aren't my
best points. Some of it could be typing quicker then the brains working, then
forgetting to spell check. Some of it could be just the fact that people are
less concerned with spelling errors and grammar because they feel more like
they're speaking then writing.
In my case a some of my errors were pointed out to me and I have since worked on
correcting them. So I must say, some people will let you know what your doing
wrong and how to correct it. (yes, I'm still working on the their, there,
they're thing)
>
>
> Once at a party I noticed a woman dressed in a nice evening dress. She
> looked fabulous until she turned around. In the back she had the largest,
> fresh blood stain on her rear end. She'd started her period and no one, I
> mean NO ONE said anything to her about it. I noticed men turning away with
> embarrassment, and saw a group of women tittering as she walked by.
> Imagining how horrified I'd be in the same situation, I took this woman a
> drink and told her she had a problem. She was mortified but grateful. I see
> these lousy, boring writers in a similar light. They're embarrassing
> themselves and they don't know it. People titter behind their backs, are
> embarrassed for them, and write parodies of them. But no one has had the
> decency to tell them they need to work on their craft or go on to another
> line of work. I'm intensely curious about why.
I couldn't say why really. Like I said, it could just be some peoples opinions
on the writers skill, not necessarily the view of all.
Some authors I love, while others think are terrible writers. Some I think are
god awful, others love. I think it's a matter of your taste in writing in some
cases.
Or it could just be hating to be the one to tell someone else their dream is
nothing more then just a dream.
Jenny
Jessie
Reid Goldsborough <reid...@netaxs.com> wrote in message
news:3795e1b2.2358644@news...
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:05:30 -0500, "Belle Harper"
> <belle...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Well, I am going to put my foot in it. I may sink in all the way to my
ears,
> >but I just can't stand it any more. I have to know: why are lousy, boring
> >writers enabled here, and why aren't they taught something about
> >self-improvement when it becomes painfully obvious soon enough that they
> >aren't improving at all?
>
> Not a bad troll. Not classic, by any means, but not too bad, all told.
> A suggestion -- when you repeatedly use the epithet "lousy, boring
> writers," you become boring yourself.
Come, on, that's silly. It's not like "lousy,boring writers" is a cliche or
something. So thinks they are lousy and boring, she described them as lousy
and boring, end. Using a word does not necessarily make it apply to the
user. (what - are we playing 'I'm rubber, you're glue" here?)
Jessie
Wolf Lahti
>
>Well, I am going to put my foot in it. I may sink in all the way to my ears,
>but I just can't stand it any more. I have to know: why are lousy, boring
>writers enabled here, and why aren't they taught something about
>self-improvement when it becomes painfully obvious soon enough that they
>aren't improving at all?
>
The short answer:
They certainly aren't going to improve if they are not encouraged.
Everybody starts off badly. I remember all too well a story I did
that read like a fifth-grader's sorry attempt at a bad copy of a Doc
Savage-style adventure. It was 60 double-spaced pages, so I figured
I had a best-selling novel.
I've improved - dramatically - since then.
I have no reason to believe the potential for improvement is not in
everyone and don't consider it my job to quash ideals or hopes, however
far away the goal might seem now.
=======================================================
"I hate quotations!" Wolf Lahti
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson Allen, Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
wd...@paccar.com
=======================================================
JiveTalk88
writers who likes to hear what others think. But...I'm forced to inject my
2cents-worth (I know...a cliche, lighten up).
The declaration of others as being 'lousy and boring' seems to presume that the
declarer is 'wonderfully talented and interesting'. I hope that's the case.
Self-confidence is a great thing, unless it's oozing from your ears and eye
sockets, then you trend close to becoming a 'lousy and boring' self-important
person. Be careful. Just thought you'd like to know the truth.
I agree whole-heartedly with the idea of being honest with people as to their
ability. But leave just a little room for growth. No one (I assume) sprang from
the womb, pen in hand, and began to pour forth the great American novel. We all
start at the bottom, and progress, or not, according to our ability and desire.
And....lastly....welcome to the Internet, the last bastion of true pure
democracy. Democracy, as opposed to meritocracy, is often a sloppy and nasty
creature. It let's in the unwashed along with the elite. If the elite object to
such close quarters, they are free to congregate together elsewhere. They can
start another usenet group and flame the hell of all lousy and boring people.
But all meritocracies (so far at least) have failed, our democracy is still
stumbling along. I think I prefer it.
Freedom....ain't it a bitch!!
the JiveTalk-er
"and that's more words than I said since I know'ed ya' "
"I let my mind wander...and the durned thing never came back!"
Wendy Chatley Green
<belle...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:. . . . But no one has had the
:decency to tell them they need to work on their craft or go on to another
:line of work. I'm intensely curious about why.
Sometimes, it's done via e-mail. Private is often the best
way to handle such corrections. After all, you didn't step up on a
table and shout, "Hey, lady--need a tampon?"
Other times, the address shows that the writer probably is
using English as a second language. We tend to be a bit more tolerant
in those cases.
And, sadly, it is often obvious that the writer needs 'way
more help than can be given quickly. I know that I haven't time to
teach an entire English grammar and spelling course; I'm already doing
the usual supplemental parental stuff for my son.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Charles Kormos
Bill Oliver
Jessie <jessic...@hotspam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Come, on, that's silly. It's not like "lousy,boring writers" is a cliche or
>something. So thinks they are lousy and boring, she described them as lousy
>and boring, end. Using a word does not necessarily make it apply to the
>user. (what - are we playing 'I'm rubber, you're glue" here?)
>
>Jessie
No, but "lousy, boring ... " as an insult is hardly the kind of
innovative and evocative writing one would hope for in
a well-written polemic. More than anything else, a good
polemic, or even a good diatribe for that matter, should
contain original expression. A superior work would
also contain real humor, albeit at the expense of the
subject of the piece. Neither is present in the post
in question. I'm afraid it is, well, "lousy, boring
writing."
billo
paghat
<jensm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, I am going to put my foot in it. I may sink in all the way to my ears,
> > but I just can't stand it any more. I have to know: why are lousy, boring
> > writers enabled here, and why aren't they taught something about
> > self-improvement when it becomes painfully obvious soon enough that they
> > aren't improving at all?
Even no-talents need support groups. Only those who have the capacity to
improve will be disappointed.
> > You know what I mean. Weekly someone writes a sly parody of these people;
> > others see it, too. These lousy writers post frequently and misspell ten
> > times as often as they post.
"Who can spell can't write" -Mark Twain
If you've ever had the opportunity to read one of Samuel Delaney's
manuscripts before an editor corrected the insane spellings you'd
understand that only those who really CAN'T write well focus all their
energy on their ability to win a spelling bee.
> > Their grammar is appalling.
Oh jeez, you actually met my grammer, she WAS appalling, dead now & no loss.
> > They have never
> > been published.
Some really appalling writers get published & even get paid. Sometimes
being no good is a requirement.
> > They have "piles" and "loads"
AH HA HA HA, I love scat jokes.
> > of rejection slips that they
> > brag about as frequently as they brag about their boring children, pets,
> > spouses, jobs, and lives. They contribute nothing here. Yet they are enabled
> > and even welcomed by people who prove through their own writing that they're
> > discerning enough to know the difference between good and lousy writing.
If you're TOO honest at an essentially suburban mediocre lovefest, you'll
get killfiled, whereas if you have very little personality & nothing
meaningful jingling around in your head to share, you'll fit right in. And
never underestimate the charm & appeal of "fitting right in" especially if
it's the most you dare hope for in life.
> > I've never seen anyone correct the writing of these lousy, boring writers.
It would be a bit anal to do so.
> > I've never seen anyone honestly say, "Have you ever considered another line
> > of work, seeing as you've never been published and you're working on your
> > nth novel?"
I see these comments a lot. There are "secretly" several newsgroups where
almost everyone involved is a working writer but that's not what we write
about. We write about what we're reading. Occasionally some beginning
writer realizes they've stumbled into a group where everyone's a writer
&/or editor & ask us to visit their website & tell them what we think of
their story. We do it. And they go away.
> > I'm all for being nice to people. But what about being truthful? Isn't it
> > possible to be truthful and kind?
Not really. If someone has a big hairy wart on the tip of their nose the
only kindness is to pretend not to notice. Even mean ol' Paghat would have
trouble saying, "Yo, Wartnose, want me to take a hedge clipper to that?"
> > How cruel is it to enable people's fantasy
> > "writer" selves to continue to exist
Even no-talents need to dream? Just speculating.
> > when it seems pretty evident that there
> > are many people who will simply never develop enough as thinkers or writers
> > to be able to publish anything useful?
Well then, they can publish science fiction instead.
> > And why does a newsgroup full of
> > writers foster mediocrity and banality?
"Mediocre" indicates a level of boring competence which would permit the
"writer" to become a thorough-going profession for Supermarket Weekly at
least, lifting the mediocre writer into a tax bracket artful writers
rarely worry about.
> Some of the writers in mw are just hobby writers, some are serious
writers and a
> few, I believe aren't writers at all, but enjoy reading and writers so
they come
> here.
> As to the *lousy* writers question, on how people in this group just let
them go
> on. Well it could be a few reasons. One is, maybe it's just opinion. It's
> possible that what your reading you just dislike and mark it as lousy writing,
> some others may find it likable so label it good.>
> Just to use an example: (sorry Steve you're the only one I can think of to use
> for this <g>)
> Steve Pritchard isn't big on poetry so it's not likely that he would enjoy
> reading it. It's not likely he'd think it was great. Because he doesn't enjoy
> poetry. But that wouldn't mean the poetry wasn't any good, just that he wasn't
> partial to it.
There is something inherently pathetic about posting one's stories or
poems on UseNet (or at a personal website) & ignoring such posts is the
better part of valor; whereas critiquing them just encourages such nurdy
foolery. If the best use of a ng is an exchange of IDEAS, then even a bad
writer, if still managing to convey ideas, needs to be responded to with
ideas. Only an anal retentive froofroo would ignore the ideas in favor of
correcting the punctuation. I think that may be the real reason few folks
bother to mention that most of the people posting here can't write worth
diddly shit.
> Another could be dreams in general. Who wants to be the one to trash someone's
> dreams?
And have their own trashed in turn.
>
> Jenny
> > Whereas Belle Harper ejaculated:
> >
> > Once at a party I noticed a woman dressed in a nice evening dress. She
> > looked fabulous until she turned around. In the back she had the largest,
> > fresh blood stain on her rear end. She'd started her period and no one, I
> > mean NO ONE said anything to her about it. I noticed men turning away with
> > embarrassment, and saw a group of women tittering as she walked by.
> > Imagining how horrified I'd be in the same situation, I took this woman a
> > drink and told her she had a problem. She was mortified but grateful. I see
> > these lousy, boring writers in a similar light. They're embarrassing
> > themselves and they don't know it. People titter behind their backs, are
> > embarrassed for them, and write parodies of them. But no one has had the
> > decency to tell them they need to work on their craft or go on to another
> > line of work. I'm intensely curious about why.
People laugh at retarded adults too but that doesn't mean they should be
taken aside & told "You're a retardo did you know that?"
Be nice to wouldbe writers!
Not.
-paghat the ratdyke
paghat
Goldsborough) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:05:30 -0500, "Belle Harper"
> <belle...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Well, I am going to put my foot in it. I may sink in all the way to my ears,
> >but I just can't stand it any more. I have to know: why are lousy, boring
> >writers enabled here, and why aren't they taught something about
> >self-improvement when it becomes painfully obvious soon enough that they
> >aren't improving at all?
> >...
>
> Not a bad troll. Not classic, by any means, but not too bad, all told.
> A suggestion -- when you repeatedly use the epithet "lousy, boring
> writers," you become boring yourself. Can't you come up with other
> descriptive phrases for these sad wannabees who wile away their days
> arguing ad nauseum about how other people in this newsgroup are or
> should be behaving?
I'm always amused when some goober picks on a witch for doing precisely
what the goober is doing much less well.
-paghat the ratdyke
Peter Hickman
Bill Oliver wrote:
You are overlooking what a stroke of genius "enable" is...now that's a new
one isn't it? I kinda like the notion of enabling the lousy (lousy!), those with
lice.
Now for the rebuttle: I pick 1A..."You have described case A, but you are
yourself a case of Case A".....
Rebuttlingly......................Pete
paghat
> Belle Harper <belle...@worldnet.att.net> said
> >
> >Well, I am going to put my foot in it. I may sink in all the way to my ears,
> >but I just can't stand it any more. I have to know: why are lousy, boring
> >writers enabled here, and why aren't they taught something about
> >self-improvement when it becomes painfully obvious soon enough that they
> >aren't improving at all?
> >
>
>
> The short answer:
>
> They certainly aren't going to improve if they are not encouraged.
Untrue. If the urge to write does not come from admiration of the good
writing that has come before, & something deep inside that insists on it
even though it's not always rewarded, then that person is doomed from word
go. If they need to have good words said about their failures in order to
continue, all continuing will produce is more drivel.
> Everybody starts off badly.
A common misconception. Everyone who begins writing as a child starts out
badly. Many times a first novel by a writer who started late is a great
novel. They started with mature knowledge of the form as a rule gained
from years of critical reading. "Writers Workshops Are For Dummies" & the
great writers were facing something more cosmic or mystical in nature than
your opinion, whether that opinion is pro or con.
-paghat
Belle Harper
Smokey wrote in message <3795E18B...@hotmail.com>...
<snipped some good comments>
Jenny, I appreciate it that you took the time to actually think about my
questions. I was afraid that people would personalize my question and assume
that they were among the "lousy, boring writers" being "enabled here." Then
I'd be attacked and my questions would never be answered. You took the time
to think through some of the possibilities and I appreciate that.
You wrote:
>Another could be dreams in general. Who wants to be the one to trash
someone's
>dreams?
To use the example of the woman at the party, I think that trying to help
someone with their problem isn't the same as trashing someone's dreams. By
telling this woman that she had a stain on her dress that she couldn't see,
I wasn't saying, "lose your dreams of being an attractive woman in a
beautiful dress." She was an attractive woman in a beautiful dress. The
dress happened to be stained. That could be remedied. Had she been an ugly
woman in a beautiful dress, no amount of makeup or clothing could have
changed her image and no one would have been cruel enough to say, "Wow, your
dress is beautiful, but are you ever ugly!" You don't help people with
something that can't be changed, right?
Similarly, IMHO helping people with their writing is not the same as
trashing their dreams. If you're writing and submitting constantly and still
not selling, I would have to tell you that you've either got a problem (a)
with your writing, or (b) with choosing your markets. I'm wondering why more
writers here aren't more honest with the younger or less experienced or less
published writers. I don't believe in destroying people's dreams. My mom
used to tell me to get my head out of the clouds and to do something
practical like being a nurse or a teacher. She'd say that I would never
become a writer. I did become a writer and I see no end to the books and
articles I will write. I would never want to discourage a would-be writer
from becoming successful. It seems to me that maintaining silence about
someone's need for improvement does just that.
You wrote:
>Yet another could be some of these people that you see as having no gift
for
>writing, may just not be using there total writing skills in their posts.
I don't know that I'm capable of judging whether anyone has a "gift for
writing" or not. I can only say whether something I'm reading is good or
not. I cooked something new for dinner last week and we all hated it. I'm a
very good cook, but if you'd eaten dinner with us that night, you might have
thought I was a lousy cook. You might have assumed, after eating that one
meal, that I have no gift for cooking, when, in fact, I do have gifts in
some areas of cooking.
I'm bad at baking yeast breads. The last time I made yeast-rising biscuits,
they turned out as hard as hockey pucks. We actually kicked them across the
dining room floor as a hoot. Now, my friend Sally believed that I was a good
cook waiting to happen and asked if I'd like some help with my yeast breads.
She was a practiced baker and actually sold her bread to a wide ring of
customers. When Sally taught me how to make bread, I was able to do it
properly. I could bake bread nearly as good as hers, and if I wanted to I
could also sell my bread. I wonder where the Sallys of the newsgroup are?
Where are the writers who will say to an unpublished writer, "Can I help you
with your work?" Do new writers want that kind of help? Where do they go to
get it? Do you offer one another help in email? Have I been missing the Real
Help threads? Or does everyone ignore the bad writing and just go on?
Belle
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Reid Goldsborough wrote in message <3795e1b2.2358644@news>...
>Not a bad troll. Not classic, by any means, but not too bad, all told.
>A suggestion -- when you repeatedly use the epithet "lousy, boring
>writers," you become boring yourself. Can't you come up with other
>descriptive phrases for these sad wannabees who wile away their days
>arguing ad nauseum about how other people in this newsgroup are or
>should be behaving?
Hello, Reid. I'm not a troll. I've been reading and writing on this
newsgroup for several months now. I've been here before with another ISP and
screen name and I'm a bona fide writer who sells what she writes. In fact, I
haven't had a rejection slip in years, and I just sold a book over the phone
a few weeks ago and came here to gloat about it. The gloating isn't
becoming, but I could hardly help it. I'm meeker this week.
I probably am boring in some areas. But I believe my question was
legitimate. I used the words "lousy, boring writers" because I thought they
were good words for a short subject line. I wanted people to read my note
while wading through the thousands of articles on a moderated newsgroup and
hundreds of sniping attacks. I hoped they'd get someone's attention so that
I could learn something about the intent and climate of this group and about
the proposed group.
Finally, many of the people who are arguing about the creation of a new
group and about how people should behave are professional writers. I'm
wondering why they spend so much time arguing with each other while would-be
writers die on the vine for lack of mentoring and help. And I'm also
wondering where these sincere folks are supposed to get help, develop as
writers, and grow when the pros are either occupied with their arguing,
leave in disgust, or their voices are drowned in the sea of bickering.
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Jessie wrote in message <7n4ocu$46q$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>...
>Come, on, that's silly. It's not like "lousy,boring writers" is a cliche
or
>something. So thinks they are lousy and boring, she described them as
lousy
>and boring, end. Using a word does not necessarily make it apply to the
>user. (what - are we playing 'I'm rubber, you're glue" here?)
Thanks, Jessie.
I guess I should have said "lousy and boring in my opinion."
But, then, I think that lousy writing is easily recognized.
"Boring" is more subjective, and what I meant by that is that if a
particular person posts about his turnip patch week after week after boring
week, and there's no wit, humor, or helpful information in it, and he's just
taking up newsgroup space, then why does the group enable that by actually
answering the turnip posts and playing "nice" to this imaginary fellow, when
they could truthfully ask him, "Pardner, what's up with the turnip posts? Do
you do anything else? Written anything else besides usenet turnip posts
lately?"
Geno is a good example. He posts a lot of strange things and some offensive
things. I don't like it that he uses the word "Negro," for example. We're a
family of color and I find that word offensive. But I have never tried to
correct Geno because being a narrow person is part of who Geno seems to be.
Either his fictional self on the ng is narrow, or his real self is narrow.
In either case, I've learned that narrow people can't be changed--"a man
convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." Even if
offensive, at least Geno's writing is interesting. When he writes about his
neighbors and their lawn problems, it's hilarious. But others writing about
the same topic could bore me to tears. The difference is that Geno is a good
and witty writer. People often try to change what he writes, but I don't see
anyone try to change how he writes.
I'd like to see more help in the "how to write" areas here, that's all.
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Bill Oliver wrote in message <7n4qji$p4i$1...@saltmine.radix.net>...
>No, but "lousy, boring ... " as an insult is hardly the kind of
>innovative and evocative writing one would hope for in
>a well-written polemic. More than anything else, a good
>polemic, or even a good diatribe for that matter, should
>contain original expression. A superior work would
>also contain real humor, albeit at the expense of the
>subject of the piece. Neither is present in the post
>in question. I'm afraid it is, well, "lousy, boring
>writing."
I guess this is where I'm supposed to say, "oooh! ouch! your superior
writing got me right where it hurts!" OK, for your satisfaction:
"OOOH! OUCH! YOUR SUPERIOR WRITING GOT ME RIGHT WHERE IT HURTS!"
Having gotten that out of the way, I didn't intend to write a diatribe,
polemic, or humorous piece. I intended to open a controversial subject that
I've given some thought to. It might be boring for some, and those people
will pass it by, but I notice you've read it and even responded to it. Not
every "lousy, boring" bit of writing receives the type of triangulating
sideswipe you gave mine.
So I'd say I hit the nail right on the head.
Belle
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
JiveTalk88 wrote in message
<19990721115102...@ng-xa1.aol.com>...
>The declaration of others as being 'lousy and boring' seems to presume that
the
>declarer is 'wonderfully talented and interesting'. I hope that's the case.
>Self-confidence is a great thing, unless it's oozing from your ears and eye
>sockets, then you trend close to becoming a 'lousy and boring'
self-important
>person. Be careful. Just thought you'd like to know the truth.
I do want to know the truth. That's why I asked my question, knowing that
it'd be a powder keg.
I actually don't have a lot of self-confidence. If I had the self-confidence
you describe, I wouldn't be as elated as I am every time I sell something. I
think I'd be offended that someone hadn't taken my ms sooner. I think I'd be
conceited. I don't think I am, but I guess it's a possibility. I figure that
by posting my thoughts and questions publicly, I'll be exposed soon enough
and my conceit will be a problem of the past, right? <G>
You wrote:
>I agree whole-heartedly with the idea of being honest with people as to
their
>ability. But leave just a little room for growth. No one (I assume) sprang
from
>the womb, pen in hand, and began to pour forth the great American novel. We
all
>start at the bottom, and progress, or not, according to our ability and
desire.
Of course not! We all have the need and opportunity to develop as people and
as writers. That's why I asked my question--who's really helping new writers
develop? Why is lousy writing being enabled? Why not do something to help
each other develop rather than enabling the status quo?
You wrote:
>And....lastly....welcome to the Internet, the last bastion of true pure
>democracy. Democracy, as opposed to meritocracy, is often a sloppy and
nasty
>creature. It let's in the unwashed along with the elite. If the elite
object to
>such close quarters, they are free to congregate together elsewhere. They
can
>start another usenet group and flame the hell of all lousy and boring
people.
>But all meritocracies (so far at least) have failed, our democracy is still
>stumbling along. I think I prefer it.
I wasn't writing about the unwashed and the elite. I hope that any new
newsgroup isn't going to be about ranking writers and measuring up and being
good enough. I thought that behavior was for college fraternities and
sororities and that artists could at least try and get beyond that.
But I do want to know why more effort isn't being made to encourage talent
or to develop it where it seems to be non-existent. I think everyone has
some ability and can use that ability to communicate. Communication,
including writing, is learned behavior and if it's learned, it can also be
taught. You say you're an aspiring writer. Are you getting the help, advice,
and mentoring you'd like to have? If not, what is it you want? When you have
gotten it, have you gotten it here? If you're not getting it here, what are
you hoping for?
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Wolf Lahti wrote in message <7n4pcu$hh5$9...@ender.paccar.com>...
<snip>
>Everybody starts off badly. I remember all too well a story I did
>that read like a fifth-grader's sorry attempt at a bad copy of a Doc
>Savage-style adventure. It was 60 double-spaced pages, so I figured
>I had a best-selling novel.
>I've improved - dramatically - since then.
My guess is that everyone here who writes has some really embarrassing
examples of their early writing--or even of their recent writing! I recently
ran across a short story I wrote about five years ago and re-read it. It
lacked appropriate pacing, movement, characterization, and just about
everything else a good short story needs. But it had some wonderful and
magical moments and descriptions and I could see very clearly that I could
be a good fiction writer if someone would teach me the craft--and it is a
craft. I write successful nonfiction now and have made good money at it for
the past 5-7 years. But my fiction (aside from poetry) has never been
published. I don't know what I'm doing! I need to study it and work at it. I
wish there was at least as much energy here devoted to helping people learn
the craft of writing as there is to arguing, that's all.
You wrote:
>I have no reason to believe the potential for improvement is not in
>everyone and don't consider it my job to quash ideals or hopes, however
>far away the goal might seem now.
Probably most of us don't want to "quash ideals or hopes." But helping
people move toward their goals by helping them improve upon lousy or boring
writing isn't the same as quashing ideals or hopes, is it?
Is it?
Belle
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
I wrote:
>:. . . . But no one has had the
>:decency to tell them they need to work on their craft or go on to another
>:line of work. I'm intensely curious about why.
Wendy Chatley Green wrote <3799e1e9...@news.cc.utexas.edu>...
> Sometimes, it's done via e-mail. Private is often the best
>way to handle such corrections. After all, you didn't step up on a
>table and shout, "Hey, lady--need a tampon?"
Right! Who wants to humiliate the other person? So if a seasoned, published
writer sees some glaring example of lousy, boring writing happening on the
newsgroup, how does she/he handle it here? Really?
You wrote:
> Other times, the address shows that the writer probably is
>using English as a second language. We tend to be a bit more tolerant
>in those cases.
I hadn't thought of that, but the few cases of ESL I've seen have actually
been better than the native writers/speakers.
You wrote:
> And, sadly, it is often obvious that the writer needs 'way
>more help than can be given quickly. I know that I haven't time to
>teach an entire English grammar and spelling course; I'm already doing
>the usual supplemental parental stuff for my son.
So would you tell someone that he/she needed some real help with grammar and
spelling, or just let him/her go on and on, and ignore what s/he wrote?
--
Belle Harper
paghat
jivet...@aol.com (JiveTalk88) wrote:
> I'm usually just a lurker here, just one of that mass of lousy boring 'hobby'
> writers who likes to hear what others think. But...I'm forced to inject my
> 2cents-worth (I know...a cliche, lighten up).
I'd have to have a definition of "hobby writer." One of America's finest
poets, Howard Nemerov, has never gotten a big royalty check -- would
writing the highest quality artistic pages without concern for
commerciality qualify as "hobby" writing. Or are we talking about the
dilletante who is adequate at everything but devoted to nothing? Or just
crappy writers inspired by Tolkien to write an elf story? Writing for
reasons other than commerce, in any case, is not necessary a negative
condition.
> The declaration of others as being 'lousy and boring' seems to presume
that the
> declarer is 'wonderfully talented and interesting'.
Now that's not necessarily true. Sometimes dullards are best qualified to
notice when someone else is being a dullard too. A bit more self-awareness
but not otherwise talented.
-paghat
> the JiveTalk-er
paghat
(Bill Oliver) wrote:
> In article <7n4ocu$46q$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Jessie <jessic...@hotspam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Come, on, that's silly. It's not like "lousy,boring writers" is a cliche or
> >something. So thinks they are lousy and boring, she described them as lousy
> >and boring, end. Using a word does not necessarily make it apply to the
> >user. (what - are we playing 'I'm rubber, you're glue" here?)
> >
> >Jessie
>
>
> No, but "lousy, boring ... " as an insult is hardly the kind of
> innovative and evocative writing one would hope for in
> a well-written polemic. More than anything else, a good
> polemic, or even a good diatribe for that matter, should
> contain original expression. A superior work would
> also contain real humor, albeit at the expense of the
> subject of the piece. Neither is present in the post
> in question. I'm afraid it is, well, "lousy, boring
> writing."
>
> billo
Sounds like your criticism is "the criticism didn't rise to a poetic level
of high art so just shut up about it fuckface." If someone speaks the
truth in an uncreative way, that doesn't prove that the bullshitters
truthful & the talentless okay.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
<ckor...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> 90% of anything is crap.
A misquote of Theodore Sturgeon, who I still miss.
What I asked Ted was, "Including 90% of the ten percent that isn't?"
And he admitted truisms generally aren't true.
-paghat the ratdyke
paghat
<Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com> wrote:
> Bill Oliver wrote:
>
> > In article <7n4ocu$46q$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > Jessie <jessic...@hotspam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Come, on, that's silly. It's not like "lousy,boring writers" is a
cliche or
> > >something. So thinks they are lousy and boring, she described them
as lousy
> > >and boring, end. Using a word does not necessarily make it apply to the
> > >user. (what - are we playing 'I'm rubber, you're glue" here?)
> > >
> > >Jessie
> >
> > No, but "lousy, boring ... " as an insult is hardly the kind of
> > innovative and evocative writing one would hope for in
> > a well-written polemic. More than anything else, a good
> > polemic, or even a good diatribe for that matter, should
> > contain original expression. A superior work would
> > also contain real humor, albeit at the expense of the
> > subject of the piece. Neither is present in the post
> > in question. I'm afraid it is, well, "lousy, boring
> > writing."
> >
>
> You are overlooking what a stroke of genius "enable" is...now that's a new
> one isn't it? I kinda like the notion of enabling the lousy (lousy!),
those with
> lice.
>
> Now for the rebuttle: I pick 1A..."You have described case A, but you are
> yourself a case of Case A".....
>
> Rebuttlingly......................Pete
Okay, let's start with the hypothosis that Pete & everyone else on this
topic, including me, are all equally talentless fucks. The ones who can
discuss the truth are nevertheless far ahead of those who are pissed off
by the truth.
-paghat the ratgirl
Belle Harper
paghat wrote in message <7n4s2h$bua$0...@199.201.191.2>...
<snip>
I wrote:
>> > I've never seen anyone correct the writing of these lousy, boring
writers.
You wrote:
>It would be a bit anal to do so.
Ha ha ha ha ha HA! You're right!
I wrote:
>> > I've never seen anyone honestly say, "Have you ever considered another
line
>> > of work, seeing as you've never been published and you're working on
your
>> > nth novel?"
You wrote:
>I see these comments a lot. There are "secretly" several newsgroups where
>almost everyone involved is a working writer but that's not what we write
>about. We write about what we're reading. Occasionally some beginning
>writer realizes they've stumbled into a group where everyone's a writer
>&/or editor & ask us to visit their website & tell them what we think of
>their story. We do it. And they go away.
Well, for God's sake, that's what I've been looking for. Where are these
newsgroups?
I actually read the web site of an aspiring writer last week, and sent this
person constructive criticism--and was as nice as I could be about it. I
swear I answered this person just as I'd want to be answered by somone
criticising my work. That person never answered. So I believe you.
I wrote:
>> > I'm all for being nice to people. But what about being truthful? Isn't
it
>> > possible to be truthful and kind?
You wrote:
>Not really. If someone has a big hairy wart on the tip of their nose the
>only kindness is to pretend not to notice. Even mean ol' Paghat would have
>trouble saying, "Yo, Wartnose, want me to take a hedge clipper to that?"
I disagree. I've had only one rejection of a nonfiction article in my
writing career, and that was of the first article I submitted to a magazine
I now write for regularly. The editor took the time to kindly tell me the
truth. I took her advice and have been published ever since. I think it is
possible to be truthful and kind, and the best friends and colleagues I have
in the world are both. I don't think cruelty is truth's bedfellow.
<snip>You wrote:
>There is something inherently pathetic about posting one's stories or
>If the best use of a ng is an exchange of IDEAS, then even a bad
>writer, if still managing to convey ideas, needs to be responded to with
>ideas. Only an anal retentive froofroo would ignore the ideas in favor of
>correcting the punctuation. I think that may be the real reason few folks
>bother to mention that most of the people posting here can't write worth
>diddly shit.
Yes. So why aren't people helping others learn how to communicate their
ideas so that they are at least understandable, if not publishable?
<snip>
You wrote:
>People laugh at retarded adults too but that doesn't mean they should be
>taken aside & told "You're a retardo did you know that?"
Really. Really? You think people laugh at retarded adults? I have a mentally
retarded child who is more than halfway to adulthood and through Special
Olympics and other functions we often associated with mentally handicapped
people, many of them adults. I have never once seen any non-mentally
handicapped person ridiculing or laughing at a retarded adult or child
behind their backs or to their faces. The last time I saw a retarded person
ridiculed I was in grammar school and that was before people with
disabilities were mainstreamed in the schools and in society.
You know, I like a lot of your ideas, but there's a streak of cruelty you
display that's shameful.
Your style makes me think that maybe I shouldn't have used the words "lousy"
and "boring" as I did. I wish I'd written "lousy, boring WRITING" and not
"writers"--because writing is an action, and one's writing can be a thing;
but writers are always people and I'd hate to hurt a person with my words.
By reading what you write, I'm reminded of the power of words to hurt and to
heal.
--
Belle Harper
JiveTalk88
I feel so used!!
You suckered me good. Congratulations.
Now you know why I lurk and leave the comments to less-easily fooled fools than
myself.
Well done. If you can goose my lazy butt into comment, you should set off a
fire-storm on this ng.
I bow to a superior intellect. Review your original post, then pat yourself on
the back. You deserve it.
Job well-done, Belle.
Now standby for the storm.
the JiveTalk-er
"I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!"
Belle Harper
JiveTalk88 wrote in message
<19990721130947...@ng-cs1.aol.com>...
>AARRRGGHH!!
>I feel so used!!
>You suckered me good. Congratulations.
>Now you know why I lurk and leave the comments to less-easily fooled fools
than
>myself.
>Well done. If you can goose my lazy butt into comment, you should set off a
>fire-storm on this ng.
>I bow to a superior intellect. Review your original post, then pat yourself
on
>the back. You deserve it.
>Job well-done, Belle.
>Now standby for the storm.
What? I don't know what you're talking about. Don't enable me to remain
ignorant, Jive. Actually teach me something--explain why you feel
"suckered." It's not my intent to "sucker" anyone. By nature I'm a
bull-by-the-horns person who tries to be direct without attacking people.
But, like most everyone else, I have my unbecoming moments which I regret
afterward. Nevertheless, I'm not lying in wait for anyone and have no reason
to "sucker" you.
I also don't need a pat on the back from myself (wow, wouldn't THAT be
meaningful?) and get no satisfaction from hurting people. But I do want to
know what I said that made you feel suckered. Please try not to personalize
what I'm writing. I may be communicating poorly, in which case I'd much
prefer correction than enabling.
So correct me.
--
Belle Harper
Ellen
> I have to know: why are lousy, boring
>writers enabled here, and why aren't they taught something about
>self-improvement when it becomes painfully obvious soon enough that they
>aren't improving at all?
Oops! I think you stumbled into the wrong newsgroup!
That's okay, lots of people make that mistake. Just go down this hallway,
turn left and you'll see the sign that says "Extraordinary Writers Only:
Workshop in Session."
Belle, are you open to some advice? Don't let that "rare breed" comment go
to your head. There is no such thing.
>They contribute nothing here. Yet they are enabled
>and even welcomed by people who prove through their own writing that
they're
>discerning enough to know the difference between good and lousy writing.
The classiest people in MW welcome *everyone* who is authentic, open-minded
and considerate. Everyone contributes *something* here. Whether or not you
find it valueable is another thing altogether. I wonder how many new,
lurking writers have been bruised and discouraged by your arrogant and
self-righteous comments. What a shame.
Ellen
>Belle Harper wrote in message <7n4k0v$co6$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>Well, I am going to put my foot in it. I may sink in all the way to my
ears,
>but I just can't stand it any more. I have to know: why are lousy, boring
>writers enabled here, and why aren't they taught something about
>self-improvement when it becomes painfully obvious soon enough that they
>aren't improving at all?
>
>You know what I mean. Weekly someone writes a sly parody of these people;
>others see it, too. These lousy writers post frequently and misspell ten
>times as often as they post. Their grammar is appalling. They have never
>been published. They have "piles" and "loads" of rejection slips that they
>brag about as frequently as they brag about their boring children, pets,
>spouses, jobs, and lives. They contribute nothing here. Yet they are
enabled
>and even welcomed by people who prove through their own writing that
they're
>discerning enough to know the difference between good and lousy writing.
>
>I've never seen anyone correct the writing of these lousy, boring writers.
>I've never seen anyone honestly say, "Have you ever considered another line
>of work, seeing as you've never been published and you're working on your
>nth novel?"
>
>I'm all for being nice to people. But what about being truthful? Isn't it
>possible to be truthful and kind? How cruel is it to enable people's
fantasy
>"writer" selves to continue to exist when it seems pretty evident that
there
>are many people who will simply never develop enough as thinkers or writers
>to be able to publish anything useful? And why does a newsgroup full of
>writers foster mediocrity and banality?
>
>Once at a party I noticed a woman dressed in a nice evening dress. She
>looked fabulous until she turned around. In the back she had the largest,
>fresh blood stain on her rear end. She'd started her period and no one, I
>mean NO ONE said anything to her about it. I noticed men turning away with
>embarrassment, and saw a group of women tittering as she walked by.
>Imagining how horrified I'd be in the same situation, I took this woman a
>drink and told her she had a problem. She was mortified but grateful. I see
>these lousy, boring writers in a similar light. They're embarrassing
>themselves and they don't know it. People titter behind their backs, are
>embarrassed for them, and write parodies of them. But no one has had the
>decency to tell them they need to work on their craft or go on to another
>line of work. I'm intensely curious about why.
>
moira d
>Well, I am going to put my foot in it. I may sink in all the way to my ears,
>but I just can't stand it any more. I have to know: why are lousy, boring
>writers enabled here, and why aren't they taught something about
>self-improvement when it becomes painfully obvious soon enough that they
>aren't improving at all?
I am presuming, Belle, that you are seriously asking these
questions, and not merely writing an essay. Here's my take on it:
Mainly because that has never been a function of this group. To
"help" the poorer writers by critiquing their Usenet posts would
be, in my opinion, *worse* than critiquing their work. The
charter and posting guidelines forbid the posting of work. The
group doesn't generally engage in critiquing work. And critiquing
Usenet posts, which are informal conversations, is rude.
Aha! (you may be thinking) Aha! But since when do the denizens
of this group balk at being rude? Aha!
Believe it or not, the denizens of this group *does* balk at
being rude. The point at which they balk, though differs from
situation to situation. (I know. I'm answering questions you
haven't asked. <shrug>)
<snip>
>I'm all for being nice to people. But what about being truthful? Isn't it
>possible to be truthful and kind? How cruel is it to enable people's fantasy
>"writer" selves to continue to exist when it seems pretty evident that there
>are many people who will simply never develop enough as thinkers or writers
>to be able to publish anything useful? And why does a newsgroup full of
>writers foster mediocrity and banality?
I think it's better to "teach" by setting an example. Not that I
do that, mind you. I'd be the first to admit to having poorly
expressed thoughts and poorly written prose in most of my Usenet
posts. They are quite nearly off-the-cuff. They're my equivalent
of pure conversation. I rarely go back and edit my posts.
So ... why? Why "foster" banality? Because the group doesn't
see it as it's job, here to do otherwise.
>Once at a party I noticed a woman dressed in a nice evening dress. She
>looked fabulous until she turned around. In the back she had the largest,
>fresh blood stain on her rear end. She'd started her period and no one, I
>mean NO ONE said anything to her about it. I noticed men turning away with
>embarrassment, and saw a group of women tittering as she walked by.
>Imagining how horrified I'd be in the same situation, I took this woman a
>drink and told her she had a problem. She was mortified but grateful. I see
>these lousy, boring writers in a similar light. They're embarrassing
>themselves and they don't know it. People titter behind their backs, are
>embarrassed for them, and write parodies of them. But no one has had the
>decency to tell them they need to work on their craft or go on to another
>line of work. I'm intensely curious about why.
I don't see these posts as being large bloodstains on the back
of an gorgeous evening gown. I see this place more as a bar --
a watering hole. The folk here, I see them as coming from all
walks of life. Some of 'em are dressed in pretty rough clothes.
Some of 'em are dressed in really nice clothes. Some are cas'.
Some are sparkly and formal. Maybe one or two of 'em are wearing
stained clothing but, y'see, the stains clearly are NOT on the
glittery evening wear.
We kick back. Hang. Enjoy the company of all, or of those
to whom we feel drawn, be they rough workman-types <flutter>
or the polished svelte.
--
moira
Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?
Belle Harper
Ellen wrote in message <7n4vfv$aik$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
<snip>
>The classiest people in MW welcome *everyone* who is authentic, open-minded
>and considerate. Everyone contributes *something* here. Whether or not
you
>find it valueable is another thing altogether. I wonder how many new,
>lurking writers have been bruised and discouraged by your arrogant and
>self-righteous comments. What a shame.
You know, Ellen, I'm not ashamed of writing the question or pointing out
something I see as true and something that others see as true also. It's
true that people spend much more time and energy here arguing with each
other than they spend helping new writers. There are well published,
respectable writers who have left this newsgroup because of the attacks,
carping, and lack of professionalism. There are well published, respectable
writers who are trying very hard to help newcomers, whether they are new
writers or simply new to the group. Their voices are being lost in the
maelstrom of personal in-fighting and ad hominem attacks. Not much help can
be given here, much less good fellowship had.
It's also true that nearly every week, a new parody is posted of the lousy,
boring writing I described. A parody is an indirect way of attacking someone
without any intention of helping. It can be clever, brilliant, and terribly
well-written, and many I've seen here fit that description. But IMHO it is
every bit as bruising and discouraging to be parodied--even moreso--than
being approached directly with a helpful suggestion.
So you've put me down and tried to shame me for asking direct questions.
I've already admitted that I wish I'd written "lousy, boring writing" rather
than "lousy, boring writers." My mistake. Corrected by another writer, and I
appreciate that. But my questions still stand and you explained nothing
about this newsgroup's dynamics. Do you have any answers? Or is your only
response an ad hominem attack? Where is your response to my ideas and my
questions?
--
Belle Harper
moira d
>
>Reid Goldsborough <reid...@netaxs.com> wrote in message
>news:3795e1b2.2358644@news...
>>
>> Not a bad troll. Not classic, by any means, but not too bad, all told.
>> A suggestion -- when you repeatedly use the epithet "lousy, boring
>> writers," you become boring yourself.
>
>
>something. So thinks they are lousy and boring, she described them as lousy
>and boring, end. Using a word does not necessarily make it apply to the
>user. (what - are we playing 'I'm rubber, you're glue" here?)
No. A writing device.
One may use repetition to good effect. One may also overuse
it, thus making the overall feel of the article drab.
Robert Maughan did a *marvelous* piece, posted on rec.arts.prose
a while back. The whole point of the tale was it's drabness. He
used repetition and cycling to make the piece as dull as can
be because it was *about* being dull.
Wish I could remember the title, I'd recommend you look it up
in Deja to see what I mean.
Anyone ever notice (and become annoyed by) political speech writers'
over-dependency on the repetition device?
"I tell you I am FOR America! I am FOR family values! I am
FOR the peoples of this great nation! I am FOR freedom and I
am FOR the suppression of the godless demoralizing heathenistic
forsaken ammoral, whoWalkAmongUsEveryDay, practicing their
immoral practices, shouting we great Americans down and Daring.
Daring to walk into Our Churches. Our Synagogues. Our
places of worship. And daring to tell US, that they can
drive our morals straight down the toilets of America! WE
WON'T STAND FOR IT! WE WON'T ACCEPT IT! WE ARE AMERICA!"
Doesn't that just get your goat? Can somebody buy those
speech writers a CLUE forghodsake?
--
moira
Kids in the back seat cause accidents; accidents in the back seat cause
kids.
Belle Harper
moira d wrote in message <7n4v3e$p0...@nntp.cig.mot.com>...
>I am presuming, Belle, that you are seriously asking these
>questions, and not merely writing an essay. Here's my take on it:
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I do want answers and those I
get are going to give rise to more questions. I'm actually trying to decide
whether it is going to be worth my time and effort to stay here for a long
period of time, whether I can get something personally or professionally
from it, and whether I can offer anything at all to anyone else. Part of my
process of making decisions about my participation involves asking
questions, however inflammatory they may be. I've already made the mistake
of not writing clearly, myself--so I've actually learned something. One down
and several other objectives to go. ;-)
You wrote:
>Mainly because that has never been a function of this group. To
>"help" the poorer writers by critiquing their Usenet posts would
>be, in my opinion, *worse* than critiquing their work. The
>charter and posting guidelines forbid the posting of work. The
>group doesn't generally engage in critiquing work. And critiquing
>Usenet posts, which are informal conversations, is rude.
Well, the charter says that this newsgroup is supposd to be about writing.
Yet it doesn't critique work. It isn't designed to help people improve their
writing. So what *can* the newsgroup do?
You wrote:
>Aha! (you may be thinking) Aha! But since when do the denizens
>of this group balk at being rude? Aha!
>Believe it or not, the denizens of this group *does* balk at
>being rude. The point at which they balk, though differs from
>situation to situation. (I know. I'm answering questions you
>haven't asked. <shrug>)
Yes, I've seen that. I saw a denizen doing the same thing yesterday that
s/he roundly criticized me for only a month or two ago. The SAME thing. I
was going to shoot off a note to this person about his/her own inconsistency
(and even hypocrisy), and then said, "Nah, it's not that important." But
people do seem to apply different rules to others than they apply to
themselves. I chalk that up to human nature: we excuse in ourselves what we
criticize in others.
<snip>
>So ... why? Why "foster" banality? Because the group doesn't
>see it as it's job, here to do otherwise.
OK, that's what I wanted to know. I've read the FAQs and thought I
understood the purpose of this group. What it says it does and what it
actually seems to do are sometimes poles apart, just as there are spoken and
unspoken rules in families, workplaces, and other groups. Got it (I think).
Of my woman in the stained dress metaphor, you wrote:
>I don't see these posts as being large bloodstains on the back
>of an gorgeous evening gown. I see this place more as a bar --
>a watering hole. The folk here, I see them as coming from all
>walks of life. Some of 'em are dressed in pretty rough clothes.
>Some of 'em are dressed in really nice clothes. Some are cas'.
>Some are sparkly and formal. Maybe one or two of 'em are wearing
>stained clothing but, y'see, the stains clearly are NOT on the
>glittery evening wear.
But to return to my story, even if we'd been at a barbecue and the stains
had been on her shorts and not a dress, and most of the people there had
been roaring drunks in working class clothing, I still would have mentioned
the problem to this woman and would have wondered why others simply stood
there, stared, turned away, or snickered. My question is why, when lousy or
boring writing appears here (and is even parodied and pointed out indirectly
by others) do folks sit there, stare, turn away, snicker, and parody the
lousy or boring writing rather than pointing it out directly or trying to
help? Because that's not in their mw job description?
You wrote:
>We kick back. Hang. Enjoy the company of all, or of those
>to whom we feel drawn, be they rough workman-types <flutter>
>or the polished svelte.
I can buy that, I guess. But it's a little frustrating to come to a writing
newsgroup and find so much on it that's about anything but writing. Yes, I
understand that people can go to a writing workshop and the discussion will
turn from writing to something else temporarily. Certainly, during breaks,
before the workshop, and afterward talk will be about writing and many other
things. But if I go to a writing workshop and 80% of the time is spent
talking about (for example) logging, cats, childbirth, the prime rate, and
real estate in Florida, and the clearly stated purpose of the workshop is
writing, then at the least I'm going to feel like I've been tricked or am
stupid, I'm possibly in the Twilight Zone, and I'm in the wrong place. This
feeling will increase if the workshop participants carp at and argue with
each other incessantly.
I'm a tourist visiting mw trying to decide if I can ever fit in or find a
place to belong here. I don't speak the language and I can't figure out
where City Hall is, much less where the hoi polloi are found. I'm trying to
find my way around in an artless, possibly offensive way (in this thread,
anyway) and am being appropriately punished, which I anticipated and am able
to withstand (I think).
My clothing is not stained, but my person is. I could take a dress off, but
I can't remove my flawed humanity and if there's no compassion for human
frailty or flaws here, and little or no effort to really help people who say
they want to be writers, then what *is* the point of all the energy?
Yes, that last paragraph came out of the same person who wrote "lousy,
boring writers." Can anyone miss the irony in that????
Now I'm wryly laughing at myself,
Belle
--
Belle Harper
Mike Totty
ears,
>but I just can't stand it any more. I have to know: why are lousy,
boring
>writers enabled here, and why aren't they taught something about
>self-improvement when it becomes painfully obvious soon enough that
they
>aren't improving at all?
Fair enough. The above paragraph relies heavily on cliched phrasing.
"foot in it", "sink to ears" and "painfully obvious" are all overused.
Further the imagery associated with putting a foot in and sinking all
the way up to the ears is confusing, to put it mildly. This confusion
destroys the mildly ironic effect you might otherwise have created with
the "sinking...can't stand it" construction.
The last sentence in the paragraph is overlong. It is also a run on. I
would recommend diving at "enabled here". The use of "taught" and
"self-improvement" was jarring. "Painfully obvious soon enough" is
extremely awkward.
Finally, I don't think the usage "enabled" is appropriate. In it's more
conventional usage, it applies to behavior which facilitates so called
undesirable behavior. IMHO, it's not the same thing as simply not
proactively pointing out errors.
On the logic side, your argument relies on a faulty premise. You assume
that this is a teaching forum (as opposed to an information resource),
that is, someone is monitoring the "progress" of the writers here. M.w
isn't like that at all.
Hope this helps.
mike
moira d
>
>I wrote:
>>:. . . . But no one has had the
>>:decency to tell them they need to work on their craft or go on to another
>>:line of work. I'm intensely curious about why.
>
>
>> Sometimes, it's done via e-mail. Private is often the best
>>way to handle such corrections. After all, you didn't step up on a
>>table and shout, "Hey, lady--need a tampon?"
>
>
>Right! Who wants to humiliate the other person? So if a seasoned, published
>writer sees some glaring example of lousy, boring writing happening on the
>newsgroup, how does she/he handle it here? Really?
Any seasoned, published writer sees where I can use some
help, please do feel free to let me know. Seriously.
<snippage>
>So would you tell someone that he/she needed some real help with grammar and
>spelling, or just let him/her go on and on, and ignore what s/he wrote?
Depends. Did s/he ask for it? Or is s/he just shooting the
breeze?
If a writer who needs some serious help with grammar and
spelling (or even in just structuring their thoughts) posts
something and says "please critique", there's your opening.
Me, I wouldn't presume. Not here. I'll do it in
rec.arts.prose, though.
--
moira
A TRUE Klingon warrior does not comment his code!-- a Klingon Software
Engineer
moira d
anal grammar error correction:
On 21 Jul 1999 17:13:18 GMT, moira d was all...
>Believe it or not, the denizens of this group *does* balk at
>being rude.
Believe it or not, the denizens of this group *do* balk at
being rude.
--
sheepishly moira
The light went out, but where to?
moira d
On 21 Jul 1999 17:13:18 GMT, moira d was all...
>So ... why? Why "foster" banality? Because the group doesn't
>see it as it's job, here to do otherwise.
So ... why? Why "foster" banality? Because the group doesn't
see it as its job to do otherwise.
Dammit! DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU'VE DONE TO ME???
>I don't see these posts as being large bloodstains on the back
>of an gorgeous evening gown. I see this place more as a bar --
a
>a watering hole.
okay end of corrections. you may now return to ... whatever it
was you were doing.
--
moira
Give me patience. RIGHT NOW.
Zero Staccato
"Belle Harper" <belle...@worldnet.att.net> asked:
>Why are Lousy, Boring Writers Enabled Here?
because of what the other writers are writing?
-$Zero... "BeenThere... DoneThat...
BeenThere... Don'tWannaGoBack..." -- Eno/Cale
paghat
<belle...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I wrote:
> >> > I'm all for being nice to people. But what about being truthful? Isn't
> it
> >> > possible to be truthful and kind?
> You wrote:
> >Not really. If someone has a big hairy wart on the tip of their nose the
> >only kindness is to pretend not to notice. Even mean ol' Paghat would have
> >trouble saying, "Yo, Wartnose, want me to take a hedge clipper to that?"
>
>
> I disagree. I've had only one rejection of a nonfiction article in my
> writing career, and that was of the first article I submitted to a magazine
> I now write for regularly. The editor took the time to kindly tell me the
> truth. I took her advice and have been published ever since. I think it is
> possible to be truthful and kind, and the best friends and colleagues I have
> in the world are both. I don't think cruelty is truth's bedfellow.
>
Not invariably, but ordinarily, a serious buying editor will not say
ANYthing to the author unless interested in seeing something else. Even if
they say mainly "This pretty much fails" it's because they believe you'll
do something appropriate. There's neither time enough nor any possible
reward in telling an obvious no-talent anything but "Good luck in another
market" rather than the truth "Throw this away at once & stop wasting
editors' time." I've told beginners again & again to stop trying to
analyse editors' personal notes & don't get self-defensive if you disagree
-- just be glad they thought well enough of the submission to say anything
at all. There is no relationship between telling talentless wannabes the
facts, & telling someone who has some evidence of potential what's up.
>
> Yes. So why aren't people helping others learn how to communicate their
> ideas so that they are at least understandable, if not publishable?
>
> <snip>
>
> You wrote:
> >People laugh at retarded adults too but that doesn't mean they should be
> >taken aside & told "You're a retardo did you know that?"
>
>
> Really. Really? You think people laugh at retarded adults?
I lived for ten years next door to a home for retarded adults & i saw them
getting laughed at, teased, & abused pretty much on a daily basis. Yelled
at from passing automobiles, threatened, told to get the fuck away from me
you fucking moron, & a nearby Jewish deli that hired people form that
house to clean tables lost customers who were too "uncomfortable" with the
latest guy lurking with a dishrag over-eager to do his job well.
> I have a mentally
> retarded child who is more than halfway to adulthood and through Special
> Olympics and other functions we often associated with mentally handicapped
> people, many of them adults. I have never once seen any non-mentally
> handicapped person ridiculing or laughing at a retarded adult or child
> behind their backs or to their faces. The last time I saw a retarded person
> ridiculed I was in grammar school and that was before people with
> disabilities were mainstreamed in the schools and in society.
Everyone who is different gets picked on & yes it's usually children
picking on children, or "normal" kids picking on retarded or partially
blind or even the superintelligent kids. But adults do it to. Do a UseNet
search for "moron" & see how many THOUSANDS of hits you get of this being
used as an epithet the way former generations used "nigger" without a
second thought. Perhaps because of your child;, people are careful around
you not to be rude crude or ugly, & certainly the special olympics would
not be the place to see what these people will be living with if & when
they are out on their own. But jokes like "Why did the moron throw butter
out the window" are not apt to vanish soon & "moron" is never going to
leave the American lexicon of generic insults.
I long ago worked part time in the Learning Resource Center at the
University of Washington which teaches retarded & downs children, have a
retarded adult in my immediate family (sadly never sufficiently developed
to live outside an institution), & was a volunteer in the first home John
was in. Almost every mother had a story about their kid being teased (NOT
invariably just by other children either) while the adults were almost
daily reminded of their limitations by casual insults. One chap used to
visit me because I lived in walking distance & I had a big reptile
collection & he loved to hold the snakes. He was barely able to live on
his own & he washed dishes for a hotel cafe; he was as sweet a human being
as can be imagined though he did make some bad decisions now & then, like
taking an axe to the back door of the petshop & stealing two southeast
asian fisher-cats that tore his arms all to shreds so it soon became
obvious who did it. He was RELENTLESSLY teased as Ricardo Retardo &
suchlike. One day while he was washing dishes, a coworker told one too
many "what did the moron say when" jokes & he turned around with a huge
tray full of plates & heaved them across the room, breaking everything.
Got fired on the spot. My dad & I intervened & got him his job back (our
petshop was across the road from the hotel, & we were on the "rounds" of
all the retarded adults in a nearby enclave of trailer homes). I remember
Rick's "first paycheck" when after he paid the trailer rent he went out
and bought himself a flashlight with a blinking red bit on top. Every
morning, & every afternoon, he'd be walking down the highway to & from
work with that blinking red light that he loved so much. And if you think
people didn't make jokes about Rick and The Red Light you don't know
people.
> You know, I like a lot of your ideas, but there's a streak of cruelty you
> display that's shameful.
Only in the minds of the insecure, the humorless, or the oversensitive. If
you read what I wrote in Patricia's self-publishing thread more carefully
you'll see she lost her mind to think I picked on her for being rich or
for anything else. I stated strong opinions strongly but never once did I
say "You Are Not Talented" like she imagined nor "You Have Money So You
Suck" like she imagined -- because I knew nothing about her writing
ability & I knew nothing about her income until she felt it necessary to
tell me she was wealthy. Whatever is going wrong in her life that makes
her think a random smartass is after her, that has absolutely NOTHING to
do with me. I'll pick on her now, though, you bet, because she makes
Ricardo Retardo seem as wise as he was sincere, & anyway she killfiled me
so I can say anything & not hurt her feelings ever again, right? And if
others feel equally insulted if I now & then answer a dumb question with a
wise-acre correction, they can laugh at it or add something to it or whine
about it or try to "get even" if they seriously feel abused or killfile
me, whatever fits their emotional requirement in the situation. You asked
a good question in the header of this thread. The answer may well be
"Because these people are too small, weak, & foolish to merit anything but
polite though secretly dismissive patronizing comments about their
exellence, fine talent, & big futures. Anything else will hurt their
feelings & cause them to fall all to pieces & ruin their nice little
community of mutually deluded beezerbums."
> Your style makes me think that maybe I shouldn't have used the words "lousy"
> and "boring" as I did.
The fact that you were instantly called a troll for speaking the truth
doesn't mean you should go back in your shell & be kind to wackies. That
you wrote your editorial in general terms but were individually insulted
for the effort seems to be a pattern in this ng, a method some are using
to keep reality at bay.
> I wish I'd written "lousy, boring WRITING" and not
> "writers"--because writing is an action, and one's writing can be a thing;
> but writers are always people and I'd hate to hurt a person with my words.
> By reading what you write, I'm reminded of the power of words to hurt and to
> heal.
What you should remind yourself of is that people who fear words are never
writers of merit. NEVER. I'm expert in Victorian & Edwardian literature
(especially the short story) & I imagine if some of these tremendous
writers of the past were on UseNet today, the easily insulted would be
killfiling Ambrose Bierce (called "bitter bierce" by those who were not
amused) and H. L. Mencken (called "the blond beast of baltimore") while
getting along dandy with Mrs. Humphry Ward (who outsold all the best
writers of the time, tried to blackmail her publisher into ceasing to
publish Oscar Wilde, & is now relegated to the shitpile where she always
belonged). Think of me as a filtering mechanism for sorting the mediocre
from the promising. Otherwise, as you learned just today, you'll be the
next one regarded a troll whether or not you go trolling.
-paghat the ratgirl
>
> --
> Belle Harper
paghat
<belle...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> It's also true that nearly every week, a new parody is posted of the lousy,
> boring writing I described. A parody is an indirect way of attacking someone
> without any intention of helping.
No, parody serves many potential purposes, including merely to be funny
with niether a higher nor lower purpose than to try to induce SOMEone to
spew coffee all over their computer screen.
But parody can also be an excellent vehicle of education or intellectual
stimulation.
> It can be clever, brilliant, and terribly
> well-written, and many I've seen here fit that description.
Then surely someone will "learn" by example.
> But IMHO it is
> every bit as bruising and discouraging to be parodied--even moreso--than
> being approached directly with a helpful suggestion.
>
> So you've put me down and tried to shame me for asking direct questions.
Now now, you'll need a thicker skin than that if you're going to become
one of the rare truth-tellers in this world. There will ALWAYS be troops
from "polite society" who want everything to remain milquetoast &
unthreatening to any humorless & uninteresting status quo. But
occasionally someone will STRONGLY disagree with you who has a better
point than those being made against you now, & whether someone is right or
wrong, the heat of the exchange should matter more than a few wishing to
make it personal.
-paghat
Belle Harper
I wrote:
>>Why are Lousy, Boring Writers Enabled Here?
Zero wrote:
>because of what the other writers are writing?
Buddy, I have to hand it to you: you make me laugh out loud!
Great answer, Mr. Staccato.
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
moira d wrote in message <7n511h$p0...@nntp.cig.mot.com>...
>shit! another anal grammar correction followup!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You've answered my question by example:
Good writers are so busy correcting their own mistakes that they don't have
time to meddle with those of others.
You crack me up,
Belle
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Mike Totty wrote in message <7n51tu$kh5$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>Fair enough. The above paragraph relies heavily on cliched phrasing.
>"foot in it", "sink to ears" and "painfully obvious" are all overused.
>Further the imagery associated with putting a foot in and sinking all
>the way up to the ears is confusing, to put it mildly. This confusion
>destroys the mildly ironic effect you might otherwise have created with
>the "sinking...can't stand it" construction.
Mike, I appreciate your help. I'm a nonfiction writer who admires folks who
can write fiction. I admit it, I'm a lousy fiction writer. You've pointed
out exactly why, too: cliches, confusing imagery, mixed metaphors, only mild
irony when any at all is achieved (and it's usually not); illogical
premesis, no, nemesis... no, premises.... oh, hell, forget it. You know.
Sputter. Hack. Groan. Cough.
Damn. Back to nonfiction!
--
Belle Harper
paghat
wrote:
>
> The classiest people in MW welcome *everyone* who is authentic, open-minded
> and considerate.
If you'd said OR considerate I'd take you seriously. Instead, you provide
a list of qualifications for what you personally regard as essential to
merit. And that shows you are not openminded, since the obvious deduction
is that anyone who fails to meet your stated qualifications lack class.
And having failed to meet all three qualifications yourself (lacking at
least openmindedness) I presume this is a confession of your personal lack
of class. Not that I recommend classism as a worthy philosophy in the
first place, so perhaps ultimately this means you're not totally lost of
potential in the merit rounds.
-paghat the ratgirl
> Everyone contributes *something* here. Whether or not you
> find it valueable is another thing altogether. I wonder how many new,
> lurking writers have been bruised and discouraged by your arrogant and
> self-righteous comments. What a shame.
>
> Ellen
>
>
> >Belle Harper wrote in message <7n4k0v$co6$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> >Well, I am going to put my foot in it. I may sink in all the way to my
> ears,
> >but I just can't stand it any more. I have to know: why are lousy, boring
> >writers enabled here, and why aren't they taught something about
> >self-improvement when it becomes painfully obvious soon enough that they
> >aren't improving at all?
>
> >
> >You know what I mean. Weekly someone writes a sly parody of these people;
> >others see it, too. These lousy writers post frequently and misspell ten
> >times as often as they post. Their grammar is appalling. They have never
> >been published. They have "piles" and "loads" of rejection slips that they
> >brag about as frequently as they brag about their boring children, pets,
> >spouses, jobs, and lives. They contribute nothing here. Yet they are
> enabled
> >and even welcomed by people who prove through their own writing that
> they're
> >discerning enough to know the difference between good and lousy writing.
> >
> >I've never seen anyone correct the writing of these lousy, boring writers.
> >I've never seen anyone honestly say, "Have you ever considered another line
> >of work, seeing as you've never been published and you're working on your
> >nth novel?"
> >
> >I'm all for being nice to people. But what about being truthful? Isn't it
> >possible to be truthful and kind? How cruel is it to enable people's
> fantasy
> >"writer" selves to continue to exist when it seems pretty evident that
> there
> >are many people who will simply never develop enough as thinkers or writers
> >to be able to publish anything useful? And why does a newsgroup full of
> >writers foster mediocrity and banality?
> >
> >Once at a party I noticed a woman dressed in a nice evening dress. She
> >looked fabulous until she turned around. In the back she had the largest,
> >fresh blood stain on her rear end. She'd started her period and no one, I
> >mean NO ONE said anything to her about it. I noticed men turning away with
> >embarrassment, and saw a group of women tittering as she walked by.
> >Imagining how horrified I'd be in the same situation, I took this woman a
> >drink and told her she had a problem. She was mortified but grateful. I see
> >these lousy, boring writers in a similar light. They're embarrassing
> >themselves and they don't know it. People titter behind their backs, are
> >embarrassed for them, and write parodies of them. But no one has had the
> >decency to tell them they need to work on their craft or go on to another
> >line of work. I'm intensely curious about why.
> >
Paul Harwood
<snip>
>If you read what I wrote in Patricia's self-publishing thread more carefully
Time out.
There's a difference between "self-publishing" and starting a
publishing business with yourself as an early author.
Paul Harwood
Been living off of my "self-publishing" for 8 years now, and I don't
even publish myself any more ...
Prince Richard Kaminski
Belle Harper wrote:
> But no one has had the
> decency to tell them they need to work on their craft or go on to another
> line of work. I'm intensely curious about why.
Ah, but you're not telling them either, are you, because you've mentioned no one
by name.
Prince Richard Kaminski
Belle Harper wrote:
to paghat:
> You know, I like a lot of your ideas, but there's a streak of cruelty you
> display that's shameful.
I suppose that's why she calls herself "ratgirl". Rats don't have a very nice
public image. But I'd like to know her secret list of newsgroups too, because
I've been looking for a group where literature is discussed. And I'm a former
staff journalist for a large paper, so not one of the writing newbies who aren't
welcome there.
Prince Richard Kaminski
Belle Harper wrote:
> Bill Oliver wrote in message <7n4qji$p4i$1...@saltmine.radix.net>...
> >No, but "lousy, boring ... " as an insult is hardly the kind of
> >innovative and evocative writing one would hope for in
> >a well-written polemic. More than anything else, a good
> >polemic, or even a good diatribe for that matter, should
> >contain original expression. A superior work would
> >also contain real humor, albeit at the expense of the
> >subject of the piece. Neither is present in the post
> >in question. I'm afraid it is, well, "lousy, boring
> >writing."
>
> I guess this is where I'm supposed to say, "oooh! ouch! your superior
> writing got me right where it hurts!" OK, for your satisfaction:
>
> "OOOH! OUCH! YOUR SUPERIOR WRITING GOT ME RIGHT WHERE IT HURTS!"
>
> Having gotten that out of the way, I didn't intend to write a diatribe,
> polemic, or humorous piece. I intended to open a controversial subject that
> I've given some thought to. It might be boring for some, and those people
> will pass it by, but I notice you've read it and even responded to it. Not
> every "lousy, boring" bit of writing receives the type of triangulating
> sideswipe you gave mine.
>
> So I'd say I hit the nail right on the head.
I have to chip in here on Belle's side. What she wrote was intelligent and
thought-provoking. But it appears a lot of people round here don't like having
their thoughts provoked.
Wolf Lahti
>
>You know, I like a lot of your ideas, but there's a streak of cruelty you
>display that's shameful.
>
and paghat said
>
>Only in the minds of the insecure, the humorless, or the oversensitive.
>
I've said before that much of what paghat says is accurate
and expressed reasonably intelligently, but the validity of
most of her posts is undermined by a nastiness that, if is
is meant to be taken as merely wry, is far off the mark.
When I read the above by Belle, I nodded and thought it well
expressed.
To claim that such an assessment can be held only by someone
beneath one's notice is narrowly dismissive and, perhaps, lacking
in an awareness of the effect one's words have on people. A
habitual in-your-face approach does not denote boldness or strength
or self-assurance.
=======================================================
"I hate quotations!" Wolf Lahti
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson Allen, Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
wd...@paccar.com
=======================================================
Bill Oliver
paghat <paggersSP...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>Sounds like your criticism is "the criticism didn't rise to a poetic level
>of high art so just shut up about it fuckface." If someone speaks the
>truth in an uncreative way, that doesn't prove that the bullshitters
>truthful & the talentless okay.
>
>-paghat the ratgirl
No. The correspondent's specific complaint was that we, as
a group did not critique and evaluate postings as if they
were attempts at literary work. I was merely trying to
oblige.
billo
paghat
Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com wrote:
> On 21 Jul 1999 18:27:51 GMT, paghat said in misc.writing:
>
> <snip>
>
> >If you read what I wrote in Patricia's self-publishing thread more carefully
>
> Time out.
>
> There's a difference between "self-publishing" and starting a
> publishing business with yourself as an early author.
>
> Paul Harwood
> Been living off of my "self-publishing" for 8 years now, and I don't
> even publish myself any more ...
And if I had a mere dollar for every start-up press that started up
publishing the "publisher's" own book, and never lasted long enough to
publish anything else, I could pay off my mortgage in one big chunk. It
can't be had both ways. You don't publish your own work & demand not to be
thought of as a self-publisher. Perhaps you can (in time) overcome that
first impression. Or as Patricia also threatened, to "disguise" the fact
that she's self-publishing by using pseudonyms. And I also outlined how I
dealt with being in the same position as editor of publishing any damned
thing I wanted & why that had to be anything but my own writing if I
wanted to be taken seriously by peers, readers, & distributors. The truth
remains on my side, & as for degree of "niceness" in presenting the truth,
Pattycakes even lost the highground there in her "I'm killfiling you you
troll" post that prattled on nonsensically in a way no innocent party
would've prattled on.
-paghat the ratgirl
Prince Richard Kaminski
moira d wrote:
> Depends. Did s/he ask for it? Or is s/he just shooting the
> breeze?
What happened to the "zie", "zir", "zim", "zat" etc?
Prince Richard Kaminski
Charles Kormos wrote:
> 90% of anything is crap.
100% of crap is crap.
Prince Richard Kaminski
moira d wrote:
> anal grammar error correction:
>
> On 21 Jul 1999 17:13:18 GMT, moira d was all...
> >Believe it or not, the denizens of this group *does* balk at
> >being rude.
>
> Believe it or not, the denizens of this group *do* balk at
> being rude.
It's rude to correct people's Usenet posts, moira.
Prince Richard Kaminski
Belle Harper wrote:
> Well, the charter says that this newsgroup is supposd to be about writing.
> Yet it doesn't critique work. It isn't designed to help people improve their
> writing. So what *can* the newsgroup do?
I can't answer for this newsgroup, you'll have to wait for an answer from the
long timers. But speaking generally, I think a writing group is there to discuss
writing, and not nitpick each other's work. If people want to do this, then they
can do it in a separate group where only people who are interested in such
"critiquing" hang out. I believe the proponents of MWM are intended to start
another group called workshop or something to address this very need.
Smokey
Belle Harper wrote:
> Smokey wrote in message <3795E18B...@hotmail.com>...
> <snipped some good comments>
>
> Jenny, I appreciate it that you took the time to actually think about my
> questions. I was afraid that people would personalize my question and assume
> that they were among the "lousy, boring writers" being "enabled here." Then
> I'd be attacked and my questions would never be answered. You took the time
> to think through some of the possibilities and I appreciate that.
Your welcome.
>
>
> You wrote:
> >Another could be dreams in general. Who wants to be the one to trash
> someone's
> >dreams?
>
> To use the example of the woman at the party, I think that trying to help
> someone with their problem isn't the same as trashing someone's dreams. By
> telling this woman that she had a stain on her dress that she couldn't see,
> I wasn't saying, "lose your dreams of being an attractive woman in a
> beautiful dress." She was an attractive woman in a beautiful dress. The
> dress happened to be stained. That could be remedied. Had she been an ugly
> woman in a beautiful dress, no amount of makeup or clothing could have
> changed her image and no one would have been cruel enough to say, "Wow, your
> dress is beautiful, but are you ever ugly!" You don't help people with
> something that can't be changed, right?
I think even things that seem like they can't be changed could be. Lets take
your lady in the beautiful dress. Lets say she was ugly. As you said yes,
probably no amount of make-up or clothing would make her beautiful. But that
would be trying to dress up the problem or hide it, however you'd like to look
at it.
But take that same lady and give her the proper out look and whala, she will be
beautiful, because she has been taught to believe she is. Personal out look
accounts for alot of how you come off.
>
>
> Similarly, IMHO helping people with their writing is not the same as
> trashing their dreams. If you're writing and submitting constantly and still
> not selling, I would have to tell you that you've either got a problem (a)
> with your writing, or (b) with choosing your markets.
<snip a bit, I think I answer some of it futher down>
Ok, in your original post it sounded (to me) like you were saying, why doesn't
someone tell these writers that they don't have a chance. That was just how it
came across to me. As with the Lady in the dress analogy were going with her,
the same as I wrote above applies to writing. Someone may be doing some pretty
godawful writing, not because they can not write, but because they don't believe
they can.
Self-confidence in your abilities (or self in general) can cause a decent, even
great writer to write crap. So you teach said writer how to build up confidence
in themselves, same as with the ugly lady in the beautiful dress. Whala, new out
look
better writing.
I believe in helping people when I can, if I'm asked. I ask for help from people
occasionally too. I don't believe I have asked anyone in this ng if they thought
I could write well or not. But I'm sure if I did, I'd get some yes and some no
answers. Which again is people's opinions, what they like, what they don't like.
But I think it's just as important for the writer to believe in their ability to
write.
>
>
> You wrote:
> >Yet another could be some of these people that you see as having no gift
> for
> >writing, may just not be using there total writing skills in their posts.
>
<snip some>
>
> You might have assumed, after eating that one
> meal, that I have no gift for cooking, when, in fact, I do have gifts in
> some areas of cooking.
>
> I'm bad at baking yeast breads.
I'm a terrible cook (never eat at my house if it's my night to make dinner), but
I can bake yeast breads <g>
> I wonder where the Sallys of the newsgroup are?
They're out there.
>
> Where are the writers who will say to an unpublished writer, "Can I help you
> with your work?"
I think there are a few who would.
> Do new writers want that kind of help? Where do they go to
> get it? Do you offer one another help in email? Have I been missing the Real
> Help threads? Or does everyone ignore the bad writing and just go on?
Like (I think it was moira) said, mw isn't a critique group. We aren't suppose
to post our work. I think sometimes work gets snuck in under the guise of
something else on occasion, but, we don't do it. Nope no one does it. Don't let
them tell you different<g>
Lets see, as to the real help threads, I remember seeing one Xena had posted,
not to long ago, about a poem she had on her site. She wanted feed back and she
did get it. That one was just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more
that have to do with what your asking about. Really all you need to do is ask, I
found if you ask something in here you'll get some great answers and some great
help when you need it or want it.
Jenny
>
>
> Belle
>
> --
> Belle Harper
Peter Hickman
paghat wrote:
> In article <3795F64E...@rtp.ppdi.com>, Peter Hickman
> <Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com> wrote:
>
> > Bill Oliver wrote:
> >
> > > In article <7n4ocu$46q$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > > Jessie <jessic...@hotspam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Come, on, that's silly. It's not like "lousy,boring writers" is a
> cliche or
> > > >something. So thinks they are lousy and boring, she described them
> as lousy
> > > >and boring, end. Using a word does not necessarily make it apply to the
> > > >user. (what - are we playing 'I'm rubber, you're glue" here?)
> > > >
> > > >Jessie
> > >
> > > No, but "lousy, boring ... " as an insult is hardly the kind of
> > > innovative and evocative writing one would hope for in
> > > a well-written polemic. More than anything else, a good
> > > polemic, or even a good diatribe for that matter, should
> > > contain original expression. A superior work would
> > > also contain real humor, albeit at the expense of the
> > > subject of the piece. Neither is present in the post
> > > in question. I'm afraid it is, well, "lousy, boring
> > > writing."
> > >
> >
> > You are overlooking what a stroke of genius "enable" is...now that's a new
> > one isn't it? I kinda like the notion of enabling the lousy (lousy!),
> those with
> > lice.
> >
> > Now for the rebuttle: I pick 1A..."You have described case A, but you are
> > yourself a case of Case A".....
> >
> > Rebuttlingly......................Pete
>
> Okay, let's start with the hypothosis that Pete & everyone else on this
> topic, including me, are all equally talentless fucks. The ones who can
> discuss the truth are nevertheless far ahead of those who are pissed off
> by the truth.
Why don't we start with a discussion of how useful the notion of a hypothesis really
is? Or rather let's have a purely heuristic discussion of how useful the notion of
hypothesis really is.
Hypothetically.................................................Pete
Bill Oliver
Belle Harper <belle...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>I guess this is where I'm supposed to say, "oooh! ouch! your superior
>writing got me right where it hurts!" OK, for your satisfaction:
>
>"OOOH! OUCH! YOUR SUPERIOR WRITING GOT ME RIGHT WHERE IT HURTS!"
>
>Having gotten that out of the way, I didn't intend to write a diatribe,
>polemic, or humorous piece. I intended to open a controversial subject that
>I've given some thought to. It might be boring for some, and those people
>will pass it by, but I notice you've read it and even responded to it. Not
>every "lousy, boring" bit of writing receives the type of triangulating
>sideswipe you gave mine.
>
>So I'd say I hit the nail right on the head.
>
>
But, my dear Ms. Harper, I am merely trying to acceed to your
wishes. Your specific complaint is that posts to this newsgroup
are not criticized as literary works. You complain that we,
by assuming that quick posts to a discussion may not reflect
the quality of work that one produces professionally, are not
doing our duty to point out the literary failings of each post.
Now, my posts are off-the-cuff memos. I don't proofread, I don't check
my spelling, and I am not a great typist. I am primarily concerned with
getting something down in the few seconds I have between other tasks.
I am not intrested in putting each of my posts through the four or five
rewrites that other works tend to get. Email/newsgroup postings are
somewhere between oral conversation and true literary correspondence.
It is no more appropriate to make literary judgements on the basis of
email/newsgroup postings than it is to criticize grammar in a recorded
vocal conversation. Nobody uses good grammar when engaging in
curbside chatter.
When folk post questions addressing specific problems of
expression, they are answered with alacrity here. People do
not, however, tend to critique each post as if it were such
a submission.
But that is specifically your complaint. So, I'm trying to help
you get what you want out of this group.
Now to return to the quality of your posts. I would like to oblige you
with a full critique, but I'm afraid that I must stop in a minute or
two when my compile completes. So, please accept these few pointers,
in response to yur request for them. Not only is your use of "lousy"
and "boring" less than optimal, I would also suggest that you overused
capital letters in your response this time. This "OOH OUCH" stuff
merely makes you seem petulant, and I don't think that is what you are
going for.
In addition, in the first paragraph, you incorrectly use
capitalization in your quoted text. While this may be
an intended affectation, as it is for some posters
here, your lack of consistency makes it seem merely
an error.
The lead sentence of the next paragraph, beginning with
"Having gotten..." is a little clumsy, in
my opinion. It gives the impression that your lack
of intention didn't occur until after your exclamation,
which is of course is not the case. It would be more
correct to write something like "Having..., I would
like to point out that...," or "Now that I have
said that... , let me add that..." Personally, however,
I think the construction is awkward no matter what you do.
Finally -- there is much more, of course, but
time is limited -- the image evoked by the terms
"triangulated sideswipe" is unclear. Why triangulated?
Is there some analogy or metaphor in which I can be seen
"triangulating" on you? I think not. Why "sideswipe?"
My comments were neither made in passing nor were they
oblique. Leaving aside the fact that I was merely
trying to do what you want me to do, and thus any
accusation of attack is factually incorrect, the
stylistic choices you have made in making this
claim are suboptimal.
I suggest that you try to evoke some feeling of malign
motivation or character flaw on my part while at the
same time positioning yourself as an innocent victim.
Another possibility, of course is to play a gender
or race card. Perhaps you could fit "alpha male"
in there or something like that. For instance,
instead of "not every piece... deserves ... triangulating
sideswipe..." you might try "My intent was serious and
thoughtful and deserves more than an arrogant and
superficial dismissal."
Note that in doing this, you load two good things
on yourself, while at the same time load two character
flaws on me. Even more important for the construction
of a newsgroup post, you are technically criticizing
my *dismissal* of your post and not me personally,
even though the terms imply character flaws on my part.
Thus, if I take umbrage, you can claim that
you had no intention of making such an implication, and
any such conclusion on my part displays a sad tendency
towards paranoia or intolerance. All in all, it is
a much more efficient tactic than invoking "triangulation"
and "sideswiping."
By the way, as I have stated, I do not request that
you criticize my posts as literary works, since I
do not construct them to be such.
I hope this helps, and I look forward to helping you
become a better writer by criticizing your posts!
billo
paghat
(paghat) wrote:
> In article <37a01355....@news.supernews.com>,
> Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com wrote:
>
> > On 21 Jul 1999 18:27:51 GMT, paghat said in misc.writing:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >If you read what I wrote in Patricia's self-publishing thread more
carefully
> >
> > Time out.
> >
> > There's a difference between "self-publishing" and starting a
> > publishing business with yourself as an early author.
> >
> > Paul Harwood
> > Been living off of my "self-publishing" for 8 years now, and I don't
> > even publish myself any more ...
>
> And if I had a mere dollar for every start-up press that started up
> publishing the "publisher's" own book, and never lasted long enough to
> publish anything else, I could pay off my mortgage in one big chunk. It
> can't be had both ways. You don't publish your own work & demand not to be
> thought of as a self-publisher. Perhaps you can (in time) overcome that
> first impression. Or as Patricia also threatened, to "disguise" the fact
> that she's self-publishing by using pseudonyms. And I also outlined how I
> dealt with being in the same position as editor of publishing any damned
> thing I wanted & why that had to be anything but my own writing if I
> wanted to be taken seriously by peers, readers, & distributors. The truth
> remains on my side, & as for degree of "niceness" in presenting the truth,
> Pattycakes even lost the highground there in her "I'm killfiling you you
> troll" post that prattled on nonsensically in a way no innocent party
> would've prattled on.
>
> -paghat the ratgirl
PS: Plus all my comments on self-publishing were under a header entitled
"Self-pub/any thoughts?" & I don't know if Pattycakes came up with that
title when it started but it sure wasn't me who dragged her ass into that
thread to get whumped. The discussion was about self-publishing; I was on
topic & so was she. Only after the fact did she decide the shoe didn't fit
& threw a tirade about & tried to claim that I insulted her by even using
the term "self-publish." And she wouldn't've thrown such a tantrum if the
shoe hadn't fit better than I had imagined!
-paghat havin' fun
moira d
<G>
But nonfiction requires cognizance of those SAME issues, yes?
Cliches, mixed metaphors, confusing imagery, etc.
helpfully yours,
--
moira
Without males, there would be no such sport as professional lawn mower
racing. -- Dave Barry
moira d
>
>moira d wrote in message <7n4v3e$p0...@nntp.cig.mot.com>...
<snip>
>You wrote:
>>Mainly because that has never been a function of this group. To
>>"help" the poorer writers by critiquing their Usenet posts would
>>be, in my opinion, *worse* than critiquing their work. The
>>charter and posting guidelines forbid the posting of work. The
>>group doesn't generally engage in critiquing work. And critiquing
>>Usenet posts, which are informal conversations, is rude.
>
>
>Well, the charter says that this newsgroup is supposd to be about writing.
>Yet it doesn't critique work. It isn't designed to help people improve their
>writing. So what *can* the newsgroup do?
Discuss writing technique, I suppose. Discuss writing situations.
Discuss writers, and the lives they lead. Observe characterisations.
Observe or practice pacing and flow. and provide a backdrop for
writers and writers wannabe to hang out.
But I see your points below, about actually trying to help the
writers in more ways than just talking about what agents to
avoid.
<snip>
>>So ... why? Why "foster" banality? Because the group doesn't
>>see it as it's job, here to do otherwise.
>
>
>OK, that's what I wanted to know. I've read the FAQs and thought I
>understood the purpose of this group. What it says it does and what it
>actually seems to do are sometimes poles apart, just as there are spoken and
>unspoken rules in families, workplaces, and other groups. Got it (I think).
It has drifted from its (most likely) original purpose, yes.
>My question is why, when lousy or
>boring writing appears here (and is even parodied and pointed out indirectly
>by others) do folks sit there, stare, turn away, snicker, and parody the
>lousy or boring writing rather than pointing it out directly or trying to
>help? Because that's not in their mw job description?
The snickering, the parodying, yes that isn't very helpful. It
COULD be, but it isn't the best method for helping someone because
it can be so hurtful. It is probably due more to human nature.
It is also due to the way misc.writing has evolved into a hang-out,
a "bar" where almost anything goes.
You may have observed my recent loss of control. After being
badgered and hounded by misunderstandings and accusations, I
finally had just had it. I decided, "what the f*ck? they
say I'm sniping, I'll show 'em REAL sniping!" And I started
to let loose. It's easily done, here. I'm not "on", here. I
don't have to be a particular persona, as I do at work, where
I am looked to as a technical lead. I can let loose here, and
so I do. So do many, here.
<snip>
>[...] it's a little frustrating to come to a writing
>newsgroup and find so much on it that's about anything but writing.
<snip>
>But if I go to a writing workshop and 80% of the time is spent
>talking about (for example) logging, cats, childbirth, the prime rate, and
>real estate in Florida, and the clearly stated purpose of the workshop is
>writing, then at the least I'm going to feel like I've been tricked or am
>stupid, I'm possibly in the Twilight Zone, and I'm in the wrong place. This
>feeling will increase if the workshop participants carp at and argue with
>each other incessantly.
The missing element here, or the misconception here, is that
this was *intended* to be a workshop. It wasn't. Or, rather,
it isn't. Not now. Not sure it ever was, since it's stated
that the posting of work for critique is discouraged.
>I'm a tourist visiting mw trying to decide if I can ever fit in or find a
>place to belong here.
I understand. One option is to just work on making it the
kind of place you want to live in. Or accept what it is,
once you've understood what that is. Or, finally, move
on, if it's not to your liking. Personally, I hope you find
a cross between the first and second options. <smile>
--
moira
Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food: frequently
there must be a beverage. -- Woody Allen, "Without Feathers"
Wendy Chatley Green
<belle...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:
:I wrote:
:>:. . . . But no one has had the
:>:decency to tell them they need to work on their craft or go on to another
:>:line of work. I'm intensely curious about why.
:
:
:Wendy Chatley Green wrote <3799e1e9...@news.cc.utexas.edu>...
:> Sometimes, it's done via e-mail. Private is often the best
:>way to handle such corrections. After all, you didn't step up on a
:>table and shout, "Hey, lady--need a tampon?"
:
:
:Right! Who wants to humiliate the other person? So if a seasoned, published
:writer sees some glaring example of lousy, boring writing happening on the
:newsgroup, how does she/he handle it here? Really?
Depends--if the someone has asked for help, I give it.
Otherwise, we all have our off-days. Most of us aren't here to
impress others. Heck--I usually don't bother to spellcheck (except
for TPW posts)
:
:You wrote:
:> Other times, the address shows that the writer probably is
:>using English as a second language. We tend to be a bit more tolerant
:>in those cases.
:
:
:I hadn't thought of that, but the few cases of ESL I've seen have actually
:been better than the native writers/speakers.
Oh, I wish that were true of all of them!
:You wrote:
:> And, sadly, it is often obvious that the writer needs 'way
:>more help than can be given quickly. I know that I haven't time to
:>teach an entire English grammar and spelling course; I'm already doing
:>the usual supplemental parental stuff for my son.
:
:
:So would you tell someone that he/she needed some real help with grammar and
:spelling, or just let him/her go on and on, and ignore what s/he wrote?
Mostly ignore it--do you want to know that I find the he/she
formulation boring and that I think it's the lazy way to construct a
sentence and that I think that anyone who uses it needs "some real
help?" <g>
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Maggie Forest
<belle...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Right! Who wants to humiliate the other person? So if a seasoned, published
>writer sees some glaring example of lousy, boring writing happening on the
>newsgroup, how does she/he handle it here? Really?
Belle, there's one great fallacy with your whole question. You assume
that the 'good writers' come here to improve the world.
they come here to relax. sometimes to share their knowledge, but not
to run a class.
So - if a seasoned, published writer sees some glaring example of
lousy, boring writing happening on the news group, he or she will
probably breeze right past it and write something glittering of their
own.
just relax, Belle. You don't need to save the world from itself.
/mmy
Good communication is as stimulating as black coffee,
and just as hard to sleep after - Anne Morrow Lindbergh
Fredrick Rea O'Keefe
encouraging and correcting those of us who would benefit from such
guidance. Although I do little editing of what I write on NG's, in part
because of my slow and fumblefingered typing, in part due to the press
of work, if something I wrote (other than tasteless humor) seemed worthy
of criticism - any criticism would seem to be a compliment to me.
IMO, a problem with implementing Belle's fine, well considered
suggestion has been mentioned - most of the messages are quickly
scribbled and posted. Many's the time I re-read a posting of mine,
thinking how much better I should have done. But then, although many of
the postings are indeed essays, we don't post writings designed to be
critiqued here, do we? (Re. the FAQ)
Rick
Prince Richard Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:37961CCC...@lineone.net...
>
>
<SNIP - hoping I snipped properly>
Paul Harwood
<snip>
>Your welcome.
What about my welcome?
Paul Harwood
Unless you're trying to say my fly is open again. Man, I hate it when
that happens ...
Mike Totty
>
>
>Mike, I appreciate your help. I'm a nonfiction writer who admires folks
who
>can write fiction. I admit it, I'm a lousy fiction writer. You've
pointed
>out exactly why, too: cliches, confusing imagery, mixed metaphors, only
mild
>irony when any at all is achieved (and it's usually not); illogical
>premesis, no, nemesis... no, premises.... oh, hell, forget it. You
know.
>Sputter. Hack. Groan. Cough.
I was just having a little fun. The subtle point was that you probably
didn't take any time to carefully craft this little rant. Many of us do
this stuff between minutes at the office and just can't sit around
crafting the most eloquent prose.
For the record, I have neglible fiction sales and make my living as a
corporate hack.
mike
Paul Harwood
<snip>
>tried to claim that I insulted her by even using the term "self-publish."
Anyone starting a legit publishing business *would* be insulted when
called a "self-publisher".
It's the difference between starting a business and massaging an ego.
Paul Harwood
Paul Harwood
>Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com wrote:
>
>> Been living off of my "self-publishing" for 8 years now, and I don't
>> even publish myself any more ...
>
>And if I had a mere dollar for every start-up press that started up
>publishing the "publisher's" own book, and never lasted long enough to
>publish anything else, I could pay off my mortgage in one big chunk.
Someone else's failure really isn't my concern, is it? The point is
that there is a large difference between self-publishing and starting
a publishing company.
The correct question isn't "Did you write the book yourself", but: Do
you have a business model? Do you have financial backing? Have you
identified a niche? Do you have distributors lined up? What other
authors are you talking to?
These are the questions a publisher asks. A "self-publisher" has his /
her cherished project that has been turned down by n publishing
houses, and decides to hire a vanity press. These people generally
wind up with a garage full of books. Sometimes they sell; sometimes
not. But there is usually no business planning involved.
>It can't be had both ways.
My point exactly. It's incorrect of you to point your finger at a new
publisher and sneer because the publisher's first choice is in-house
work.
Would it really matter that much if a new publisher chose in-house
work *second* instead of first?
This is an emptyheaded rhetorical argument you're using: You seem to
insist that any publishing company that publishes works by its
employees is engaged in "self-publishing". It just ain't so.
>You don't publish your own work & demand not to be
>thought of as a self-publisher.
Excuse me, but this is simply not true.
>Perhaps you can (in time) overcome that first impression.
Perhaps, if you do things right, you never have to deal with it in the
first place.
>Or as Patricia also threatened, to "disguise" the fact
>that she's self-publishing by using pseudonyms. And I also outlined how I
>dealt with being in the same position as editor of publishing any damned
>thing I wanted & why that had to be anything but my own writing if I
>wanted to be taken seriously by peers, readers, & distributors.
I apologize: I missed this part of the conversation. I don't know what
you're referring to.
>The truth remains on my side
AFAICT, your *opinions* remain on your side, and they are opinions
that, in my experience, bear little resemblance to the real world.
>-paghat the ratgirl
I still don't get the "ratgirl" reference.
Paul Harwood the not-ratboy
Does "paghat" rhyme with "maggot"? Or what?
moira d
>On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:44:34 -0400, Smokey said in misc.writing:
>
><snip>
>
>>Your welcome.
>
>What about my welcome?
See? Paul's trying to help!
--
moira
When sign makers go on strike, is anything written on their signs?
Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:
:In article <7n4vfv$aik$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>, "Ellen" <ecr...@erols.com>
:wrote:
:>
:> The classiest people in MW welcome *everyone* who is authentic, open-minded
:> and considerate.
:
:If you'd said OR considerate I'd take you seriously.
We do welcome everyone. After a while, though, we killfile
some of them.
paghat
Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com wrote:
>
> >Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com wrote:
> >
> >> Been living off of my "self-publishing" for 8 years now, and I don't
> >> even publish myself any more ...
> >
> >And if I had a mere dollar for every start-up press that started up
> >publishing the "publisher's" own book, and never lasted long enough to
> >publish anything else, I could pay off my mortgage in one big chunk.
>
> Someone else's failure really isn't my concern, is it? The point is
> that there is a large difference between self-publishing and starting
> a publishing company.
>
> The correct question isn't "Did you write the book yourself", but: Do
> you have a business model? Do you have financial backing? Have you
> identified a niche? Do you have distributors lined up? What other
> authors are you talking to?
These are excellent questions but this topic began in a thread titled
"Self-Pub..." & that was what I addressed. No one dragged Pattycake's ass
into that topic, she went there to post about self-publishing & only later
decided I'd insulted her by addressing the topic realistically.
> These are the questions a publisher asks. A "self-publisher" has his /
> her cherished project that has been turned down by n publishing
> houses, and decides to hire a vanity press. These people generally
> wind up with a garage full of books. Sometimes they sell; sometimes
> not. But there is usually no business planning involved.
Actually to self publish is to publish anything by yourself, period. In
the totality of my comments I did say the rank odor of self-publishing can
& often is overcome, especially in highly specialized areas -- if I recall
I gave the example of an encyclopedic book on breeding insects -- there
was no professional market for such a book because it was way too
specialized -- but the self-publisher put it through five editions &
everyone who ever had a use for such a book was happy to pay top dollar to
get it. It remains if you HOPED to establish a credible publishing firm
that was NOT just to promote your own poems, novels or tales, you would
NOT test the waters by promoting your own writing because you'd have no
way of measuring how much of what you thought you learned applied only to
self-publishing which is simply not thought highly of & mine is by NO
means the minority opinion among professional writers, editors,
librarians, distributors, publishers, nor even among readers.
> Would it really matter that much if a new publisher chose in-house
> work *second* instead of first?
I think it would, but not by a long shot. August Derleth self-published
all his short stories which would in all likelihood never have been
collected at all if he hadn't done it himself. Yet he STARTED by
publishing the writer he most admired, H. P. Lovecraft. If you could lay
hands on that book, THE OUTSIDER & OTHERS, it would cost you beat-up $600
& fine $2000 to $4000. But if you want Augy's collections, despite that he
is famous too & a good enough writer really, the rarest of his collections
would only cost $100, & most would be less than $50 -- though the press he
founded remains one of the most collectable of the last fifty years. There
are many far, far less famous examples of the relative merits of
publishing yourself vs publishing.
> This is an emptyheaded rhetorical argument you're using: You seem to
> insist that any publishing company that publishes works by its
> employees is engaged in "self-publishing". It just ain't so.
A small press run by its key author & her husband has no employees & is a
hell of a lot closer to my model than yours. Though initially I spoke in
broad terms in a thread about self-publishing & it was Pattycakes, not me,
who decided my assessment of self-publishing was a personal assault on her
& started her unintentionally comical campaign of starting
multiple-threads about how she's going to killfile me if she ever learns
how & run away & hide in the meantime because Paghat is shitty & evil.
> >You don't publish your own work & demand not to be
> >thought of as a self-publisher.
>
> Excuse me, but this is simply not true.
Well you're right, many people DO self-publish and demand not to be called
self-publishers. I meant you don't do it & sound like an intelligent human
being. You might intelligently launch an argument for what is good about
self-publishing (even I outlined credible exceptions) but if you have no
leg to stand on you whine about being insulted & start claiming the ng you
own & is yours personally has been spoiled for you by a revolting troll.
> >Perhaps you can (in time) overcome that first impression.
>
> Perhaps, if you do things right, you never have to deal with it in the
> first place.
>
> >Or as Patricia also threatened, to "disguise" the fact
> >that she's self-publishing by using pseudonyms. And I also outlined how I
> >dealt with being in the same position as editor of publishing any damned
> >thing I wanted & why that had to be anything but my own writing if I
> >wanted to be taken seriously by peers, readers, & distributors.
>
> I apologize: I missed this part of the conversation. I don't know what
> you're referring to.
>
> >The truth remains on my side
>
> AFAICT, your *opinions* remain on your side, and they are opinions
> that, in my experience, bear little resemblance to the real world.
>
> >-paghat the ratgirl
>
> I still don't get the "ratgirl" reference.
>
> Paul Harwood the not-ratboy
> Does "paghat" rhyme with "maggot"? Or what?
I will post the Paghat FAQ in another thread for you.
-ye ratgirl
Smokey
moira d wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:10:25 GMT, Paul Harwood was all...
> >On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:44:34 -0400, Smokey said in misc.writing:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>Your welcome.
> >
> >What about my welcome?
>
> See? Paul's trying to help!
See? I was right. MW a very helpful bunch.
HEY!Somebody put that on a T-shirt!
Jenny
Bil & Tag
Belle Harper wrote:
[snip]
>
> I've never seen anyone correct the writing of these lousy, boring
writers.
> I've never seen anyone honestly say, "Have you ever considered another
line
> of work, seeing as you've never been published and you're working on your
> nth novel?"
>
[snip]
Belle,
Recently, in a thread titled something along the lines of "Writer's
stick-to-it-iveness," you and I discussed this a little. I told you that I
am in fact working on my nth novel (where n=4) despite the fact that as of
today I've not yet published the previous n-1 efforts. So, when I read
this part of your note today I cringed. However, I have two points to
make:
(1) You have never seen my fiction writing. Basing an opinion regarding
my fiction writing on what you see here on usenet is like rating a golfer
by how he performs on a putt-putt circuit. It's simply not the same thing.
Usenet is, as other people have noted (Bill O. in particular), closer to a
conversation than literary exposition.
(2) If ever you took me aside and told me that I shouldn't be wasting my
time writing I would, as politely as is possible, explain to you how far up
your ass you could shove your keyboard. I do hope to be a published
novelist in the near future. However, even if it takes another five books
or even if it never happens, I'll still be trying. The reason is that I
love the process of creation. While I'm sure I would enjoy having written
a published book, I am even more sure that I do enjoy the writing itself.
I appreciate any tips or any suggestions you'd be willing to share but
don't ever believe that I need your approval to continue doing what I do.
Thank you, at least, for a thought provoking post. Sorry if I bored you
with my lousy writing.
_____________________________________
"Bil & Tag"
a.k.a. William and Tracey Greene
e-mail: remove (NOSPAM)
Bil & Tag
Steve Pritchard <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> moira d wrote in message <7n5ff3$c7...@nntp.cig.mot.com>...
> >On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:10:25 GMT, Paul Harwood was all...
> >>On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:44:34 -0400, Smokey said in misc.writing:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>Your welcome.
> >>
> >>What about my welcome?
> >
> >
> >See? Paul's trying to help!
>
>
> Earlier this week I made the "Your/You're" switch in a post and groaned
> when I saw it go through. It's one of the rules that my brain knows but
my
> fingers rebel against.
I did it a couple of nights ago. I saw it after it hit the newsgroup and I
probably should have corrected it but I just figured it would slide
through. However, Wolf was kind enough to post a correction. Isn't that
swell?
Donna deMedicis
Belle Harper wrote:
>
> ad hominem
Seven
Donna
http://www.wowwomen.com/tapestry/ (Check out "View from the South")
William Penrose
>
> Well, I am going to put my foot in it. I may sink in all the way to my ears,
> but I just can't stand it any more. I have to know: why are lousy, boring
> writers enabled here,
Because they want to become better writers?
Because even good writers may have to write n novels before getting
published, and even then they may never see the fruits of their labors?
Maybe because nobody can (or wants to) keep them out?
Bill (and who told you about my lice?)
--
************************************************************
Information on gas sensors and related instruments:
Check us out at http://www.customsensorsolutions.com
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618,
email wpen...@customsensorsolutions.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D and product development to this
and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************
Steve Pritchard
Belle Harper wrote in message <7n4tbk$p7a$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>Smokey wrote in message <3795E18B...@hotmail.com>...
><snipped some good comments>
>
>Jenny, I appreciate it that you took the time to actually think about my
>questions. I was afraid that people would personalize my question and
assume
>that they were among the "lousy, boring writers" being "enabled here."
How many of us wondered "Does she mean me?"
To be honest, Belle, it wouldn't really matter to me if you did lump me
with that same group or not. I write for fun - my fun - and nothing else.
I don't complete massive works then send them out to agents and publishers
en masse. I don't chase up freelance work. I don't keep trying to make
connections, or solicit work whenever I think there is a chance of doing
so.
Writing is one of my relaxation toys, similar to cooking or reading.
There are many types of writers here and even the bad ones (wonders again
if he is one of these) tend to write for the enjoyment it gives them. Some
here do it for money too but nearly everyone gets a kick out of doing it.
Critique is only really done after it is requested, and then only if
someone wants to make the effort of going out and dragging the article
from a web site. Jenny mentioned my dislike of poetry. I can read poetry
and say whether or not I'd judge it good or bad. My opinions on poetry
don't really mean all that much though and I'd not really want to give a
critique of such work. there are things I believe that I'm a better judge
of in terms of quality but then again I'd not want to criticise unless
specifically requested to do so.
If you're a hardened, "pro" in the writing world unflattering critique
doesn't hurt so much. Many of these "lousy boring writers" will be crushed
by it and, after they have received it, may lose the joy they find in
writing. I wouldn't want to do that to anyone.
The "lousy boring writers" who come here and claim to be great at the
craft, those who post their works here and then denigrate others for
daring to critique it, they are the ones that need to be told the truth.
The hobby writers should be left to reap the enjoyment they gain from
writing.
>Similarly, IMHO helping people with their writing is not the same as
>trashing their dreams. If you're writing and submitting constantly and
still
>not selling, I would have to tell you that you've either got a problem
(a)
>with your writing, or (b) with choosing your markets. I'm wondering why
more
>writers here aren't more honest with the younger or less experienced or
less
>published writers.
See, this is a fair point. However, many writers here are not the
submitting and selling types. Many of them don't really envisage selling
anything (at least not openly or seriously). If help is warranted then
give it but often it isn't.
We get a fair mix of folks here, Belle. The ones that want and need help
slowly become more obvious, as do those that are here merely for the fun.
Steve Pritchard
Steve Pritchard
Prince Richard Kaminski wrote in message
<37961CCC...@lineone.net>...
>I have to chip in here on Belle's side. What she wrote was intelligent
and
>thought-provoking. But it appears a lot of people round here don't like
having
>their thoughts provoked.
One person, Richard, responded negatively to this thread. One.
Do you have this desire to colour the "ruling elite" in a broad, black
swathe every time one person gives out any sort of opinion?
Steve Pritchard
moira d wrote in message <7n50e5$p0...@nntp.cig.mot.com>...
>Any seasoned, published writer sees where I can use some
>help, please do feel free to let me know. Seriously.
Not a seasoned, published writer, but...
your name is short a capital letter, moira.
<g>
Steve Pritchard
Belle Harper wrote in message <7n524b$fap$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>Yes, I've seen that. I saw a denizen doing the same thing yesterday that
>s/he roundly criticized me for only a month or two ago. The SAME thing. I
>was going to shoot off a note to this person about his/her own
inconsistency
>(and even hypocrisy), and then said, "Nah, it's not that important." But
>people do seem to apply different rules to others than they apply to
>themselves. I chalk that up to human nature: we excuse in ourselves what
we
>criticize in others.
True. I appreciate it when certain folks - those whose opinions I have
grown to trust and repect - send me email that says "Steve, you're
ranting. Please stop." When I get those I wake up, realise I've lost
control and stop being so irate.
Works for me.
Prince Richard Kaminski
Steve Pritchard wrote:
I wasn't referring only to the reactions to Belle's post.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
<snip>
>
>I wasn't writing about the unwashed and the elite. I hope that any new
>newsgroup isn't going to be about ranking writers and measuring up and being
>good enough. I thought that behavior was for college fraternities and
>sororities and that artists could at least try and get beyond that.
>
>But I do want to know why more effort isn't being made to encourage talent
>or to develop it where it seems to be non-existent. I think everyone has
>some ability and can use that ability to communicate. Communication,
>including writing, is learned behavior and if it's learned, it can also be
>taught. You say you're an aspiring writer. Are you getting the help, advice,
>and mentoring you'd like to have? If not, what is it you want? When you have
>gotten it, have you gotten it here? If you're not getting it here, what are
>you hoping for?
>
>--
>Belle Harper
>
>
I've been here a tad longer than you have, Belle, and I have
one possible answer. Though I'm sure it's not the complete
answer.
If they don't ask, the rest of us can't help. And I'm not
talking here about the folks who are pros. I'm also
speaking of the serious beginners and the serious readers.
Sometimes the reader is the best person to point out
problems. They may not have the technical expertise to
solve the problem, but they will have a clearer idea of what
works and doesn't work for them. Pros, on the other hand,
may be too mired in the technicalities to be able to pick
out the problem accurately.
Once the problem is identified, then the pros will be able
to step in and offer the technical solution.
But if the question isn't asked, the help isn't solicited,
the answers and support can't be given without folks acting
like superior busybodies.
Sharon
Pray, n. To ask the laws of the universe be annulled
on the behalf on a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.
Ambrose Bierce
The Last Real Marlboro Man
Goldsborough) wrote:
>The quality of discourse in this newsgroup
>has sunk to an all-time low. Just about all everybody does is
>disparage one another.
No shit.
....?
HEY! I resent that!
- Wayne (I think....)
paghat
Goldsborough) wrote:
> On 21 Jul 1999 16:23:33 GMT, paggersSP...@my-deja.com (paghat)
> wrote:
>
> >I'm always amused when some goober picks on a witch for doing precisely
> >what the goober is doing much less well.
> >
> >-paghat the ratdyke
>
> Oh, yeah. Then I'm always amused when a person thinking they're being
> clever by picking a self-effacing begins behaving just as the name
> suggests.
What's a "self-effacing begins" ?
-paghat
Ellen
post-go-round early this afternoon. It seems you've calmed down, and that's
good, because I feel calmer now, too.
I decided to read through all the threads that have accumulated in this
thread before composing a reply. It looks like some other folks did a fine
job explaining the dynamic of this newsgroup with more patience than I could
gather before throwing out my testy "this isn't a workshop" remark. And, a
few posters told you in a very nice way that you can relax --you don't need
to "improve" anybody unless they actually ask you to try.
When I read your post, I had just come down with a serious case of
newbieitis. This infection is accompanied by itchy rash, headache, blurred
vision, mental confusion, jimmy-legs and overall pissy attitude. I think I
got it from certain newbie posters I won't name but who have the letters R,
L and P (among others) in their names.
With that excuse whipped up and served to you on a fine china plate, perhaps
you'll see why your original post sounded so much like another "newbie"
why-can't-things-be-the-way-*I*-like-them rant to me. I'm fed up to here
with the recent stampede of impatient, impertinent newbies who have arrived
with some very elegant "fuck you" language and then, who whine and complain
because there isn't much applause while they smash up all the funiture.
Just so you know, I didn't jump on your case because you "asked direct
questions." It was the tone and attitude I found objectionable for the
reason offered above. I'm willing to consider the possibility that you
meant to be helpful, though, and will look forward to reading more from you.
Ellen
Belle Harper wrote:
<snip>
>So you've put me down and tried to shame me for asking direct questions.
>I've already admitted that I wish I'd written "lousy, boring writing"
rather
>than "lousy, boring writers." My mistake. Corrected by another writer, and
I
>appreciate that. But my questions still stand and you explained nothing
>about this newsgroup's dynamics. Do you have any answers? Or is your only
>response an ad hominem attack? Where is your response to my ideas and my
>questions?
Prince Richard Kaminski
Ellen wrote:
to Belle
> When I read your post, I had just come down with a serious case of
> newbieitis. This infection is accompanied by itchy rash, headache, blurred
> vision, mental confusion, jimmy-legs and overall pissy attitude. I think I
> got it from certain newbie posters I won't name but who have the letters R,
> L and P (among others) in their names.
>
> With that excuse whipped up and served to you on a fine china plate, perhaps
> you'll see why your original post sounded so much like another "newbie"
> why-can't-things-be-the-way-*I*-like-them rant to me.
Strange. My newsreader has most of the "why can't things be the way I like them
here" posts coming from established regulars, not newbies. Perhaps I have
misconfigured my newsreading software.
Alex Jay Berman
wrote:
Context would demand that the word "name" or "handle" or "nickname" be
inserted between the two words.
Alex Jay Berman
-- and I'm having trouble not seeing this as an intentional grammar
flame; if I'm wrong, I apologize.
Wolf Lahti
>
>I did it [the your/you're switch] a couple of nights ago. I saw it
>but I just figured it would slide through. However, Wolf was kind
>enough to post a correction. Isn't that swell?
>
Kindness had nothing to do with it.
I think.
I don't recall. To the best of my recollection, that is.
Um--what are we talking about?
=======================================================
"I hate quotations!" Wolf Lahti
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson Allen, Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
wd...@paccar.com
=======================================================
Belle Harper
><snip>
>>Your welcome.
Paul wrote:
>What about my welcome?
>Paul Harwood
>Unless you're trying to say my fly is open again. Man, I hate it when
>that happens ...
Paul, were you asking Jenny to help you with your fly, or me to help you
with your fly?
Or, were you asking Jenny to make you welcome, or me to make you welcome?
Or, were you asking Jenny to thank you, or me to thank you?
If I am involved in any way, please let me know what you expect.
I'll let you know by return mail whether I can deliver or not.
But I will sharge you a $90 reading fee.
No, no, don't thank me,
Belle
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Smokey wrote in message <37962321...@hotmail.com>...
>I think even things that seem like they can't be changed could be. Lets
take
>your lady in the beautiful dress. Lets say she was ugly. As you said yes,
>probably no amount of make-up or clothing would make her beautiful. But
that
>would be trying to dress up the problem or hide it, however you'd like to
look
>at it.
>But take that same lady and give her the proper out look and whala, she
will be
>beautiful, because she has been taught to believe she is. Personal out look
>accounts for alot of how you come off.
That's right. And outward appearances only take into account what's seen.
What's unseen is of more value, anyway ("Man looketh on the outward
appearance, but God looketh upon the heart."). My, you have a very sweet
spirit.
<snip>
>Ok, in your original post it sounded (to me) like you were saying, why
doesn't
>someone tell these writers that they don't have a chance. <snip>
Although this isn't what I intended to communicate, I'll take your word for
it that it came off that way. I'm learning to be a better writer already,
just by being here. ;-) But to reiterate what I wrote to someone else, I
wouldn't want to tell someone else that he/she didn't "have a chance" as a
writer. I might want to tell someone to go get some help with grammar,
spelling, style, imagery, pacing, organization, and whatnot, though. <G>
Jenny wrote:
>Self-confidence in your abilities (or self in general) can cause a decent,
even
>great writer to write crap. So you teach said writer how to build up
confidence
>in themselves, same as with the ugly lady in the beautiful dress. Whala,
new out
>look better writing.
Do you mean that arrogance or conceit could cause a decent or great writer
to write crap, whereas self-confidence can produce better writing? Arrogance
and conceit are pride-based, and pride is based on imagination and
self-hatred, whereas self-confidence is reality-based (IMHO). I think that
self-confidence is appropriate when a person is good at something, or at
least good at working at becoming good <G>. Otherwise, it's a waste of
psychic energy.
Jenny wrote:
>I believe in helping people when I can, if I'm asked. I ask for help from
people
>occasionally too. I don't believe I have asked anyone in this ng if they
thought
>I could write well or not.
Why haven't you asked anyone? Do you care? Or do you think that there's
little or no hope that anyone here could help you? Just curious. I do ask
people for information, advice, and help. I ask because sometimes I feel I'm
crazy or weird and want to try and reassure myself that, as a writer, I'm at
least Within Normal Limits. I've learned that there are so many other crazy
writers out there that it doesn't matter either way: I'm in good company.
Also, I can learn something here, and I want to learn something. I'd like to
not have to wade through 3,000 senseless arguments to get to the learning,
though. ;-)
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Steve Pritchard wrote in message
<932602292.13843.6...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>How many of us wondered "Does she mean me?" [of "lousy, boring writers"
tag]
Well, Steve, I didn't mean you or anyone in particular. I realized within
the first five responses that I should have written "lousy, boring WRITING,"
because writers are people and if you attack a writer, you are attacking a
person. I don't want to attack a person. The only person I'd want to attack
would be the one physically assaulting me or someone else. It's not worth it
to attack people in other situations (yes, yes, now someone will come along
and correct me on that, but that's OK, I'm writing off the cuff). I'm sorry
I wasn't as exact as I could have been at the outset.
Steve wrote:
>To be honest, Belle, it wouldn't really matter to me if you did lump me
>with that same group or not. I write for fun - my fun - and nothing else.
>I don't complete massive works then send them out to agents and publishers
>en masse. I don't chase up freelance work. I don't keep trying to make
>connections, or solicit work whenever I think there is a chance of doing
>so.
Steve, I don't have the credentials, ability, or desire to lump anyone in
with any group. I've grown increasingly frustrated with the thousands of
off-topic, inane, boring, and lousy posts to this newsgroup. I probably have
some sort of unwarranted, misguided, psychological claim that deserves no
attention whatsoever. I might be like a petulant child, demanding the ice
cream NOW, I want it NOW! ICE CREAM! I WANT THE ICE CREAM ***NOW***!!! See?
It's about me and my frustrated claims to the right to come to this
newsgroup and read only witty, entertaining, helpful things, and not endless
arguments about moderated newsgroups, Kosovo, Clinton, JFK Jr., sick or dead
animals, or whatever. But, of course, *I* have the right to write about
anything I want.
So, I'm sorry my note rankled. I figured it would not go over very well with
some. I probably could have taken more care to write a politically- and
emotionally-correct note that would offend no one. How bland.
<snip> You wrote:
>If you're a hardened, "pro" in the writing world unflattering critique
>doesn't hurt so much. Many of these "lousy boring writers" will be crushed
>by it and, after they have received it, may lose the joy they find in
>writing. I wouldn't want to do that to anyone.
You're right. I wouldn't want to crush anyone, either, much less strangle
their joy. Joy's such a rare and fragile thing, anyway. Again, I should have
written "lousy, boring writing." Some people write lousy, boring stuff on
bad days, and some (like me) write it even on good days. There's a chapter
in my latest book that bores even me; but I had to put it in there to prove
the points I made in the rest of the book. But even I, its mother, think
that chapter is boring. I tried to gussy it up and give it some
conversational lessons, but it really didn't help much. It's boring, plain
and simle.
To my comment about helping writes who want to sell, you responded:
>See, this is a fair point. However, many writers here are not the
>submitting and selling types. Many of them don't really envisage selling
>anything (at least not openly or seriously). If help is warranted then
>give it but often it isn't.
Well, about now I feel I should say "duh." Earlier, in another thread, a
fellow made the point that not every guy who goes out to the garage to
tinker with his car on the weekend aspires to be an auto mechanic. People
who sail for recreation don't want to be professional sailors. I'm one of
those people who is compelled to write (impelled? is that a word?), and who
wouldn't be satsified without readers. I want to sell what I write; selling
it validates me in a way that not shopping it would not. So I wrongly
assumed that everyone who writes really, even if secretly, wants to sell it.
It's hard for me to understand that a person would write as a hobby. Sure, I
can understand writing for fun--if it wasn't fun, interesting, and
challenging I would stop writing. But I also would stop writing if I
couldn't sell anything. I don't need writing as a hobby--I will do
needlework, or paint, or garden if I want a hobby. But I guess I'm going to
have to believe that some people write as a hobby. I don't understand why,
but I'll believe it (gulp).
Lousy thinker sometimes,
Belle
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Paul Harwood wrote in message <37a53bb3....@news.supernews.com>...
>Anyone starting a legit publishing business *would* be insulted when
>called a "self-publisher".
>It's the difference between starting a business and massaging an ego.
Paul, I'm reading through this sub-thread and discussion on self-publishing.
I think there's nothing you or anyone else can say that will convince paghat
to change her mind; but I'm glad you posted the balance in the discussion
and agree with you.
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Bill Oliver wrote in message <7n59bp$mj5$1...@saltmine.radix.net>...
>But, my dear Ms. Harper, I am merely trying to acceed to your
>wishes. Your specific complaint is that posts to this newsgroup
>are not criticized as literary works.
<snip>
>I hope this helps, and I look forward to helping you
>become a better writer by criticizing your posts!
Dear Mr. Brillo:
Thank you so much for your critique. I laughed my head off!
But, no worries--this won't affect my writing ability AT ALL!
Fond regards,
Belle
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Leslie wrote in message <37962E...@postmark.net>...
>"Lousy."
>I think that there can be "lousy writing," but if applied to a human
>being, "lousy" really means "infested with lice."
>I do think one can be a boring writer of lousy material, or a writer of
>boring and lousy material, as I, for one, have spent a ridiculous amount
>of time demonstrating in and to this group.
>Of course I could be wrong about this usage. If I am, don't worry,
>someone will be along any moment to gleefully point that out.
Leslie, I think you're right. In fact, I've stated several times now that I
ought to have written "lousy, boring WRITING" rather than "lousy, boring
WRITERS."
Some writers here may be louse-infested (I wonder about the rat girl, for
example, but I have no personal knowledge of it.
Standing corrected,
Belle
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Prince Richard Kaminski wrote in message <37961BE8...@lineone.net>...
<snip>
>But I'd like to know her secret list of newsgroups too, because
>I've been looking for a group where literature is discussed. And I'm a
former
>staff journalist for a large paper, so not one of the writing newbies who
aren't
>welcome there.
My guess is that no such list will be forthcoming to the likes of anyone
here, particularly since to reveal it would be to nullify its secret nature.
If they even exist,
Belle
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Prince Richard Kaminski wrote in message <37961CCC...@lineone.net>...
<snip>
>I have to chip in here on Belle's side. What she wrote was intelligent and
>thought-provoking. But it appears a lot of people round here don't like
having
>their thoughts provoked.
Gosh, Richard, I don't know if having you on my side is good or bad for me.
;-)
But I could have provoked thoughts in a more thoughtful and less abrasive
way, even by writing "lousy, boring writing" instead of "lousy, boring
writers."
I don't mind learning; and I think that plenty of people here do like having
their thoughts provoked; they're just provoked to disagree or to insult
someone who's written something they perceive as insulting.
It's OK, really. I anticipated attacks, and so far I haven't had anything
said to me that qualifies as cruel or unusual punishment.
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
paghat wrote in message <7n6dd0$mt2$0...@199.201.191.2>...
>What's a "self-effacing begins" ?
He meant "self-effacing Baggins," as in Bilbo Baggins, of course.
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
<37966c2f...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
<snip>
>But if the question isn't asked, the help isn't solicited,
>the answers and support can't be given without folks acting
>like superior busybodies.
Sharon, I have the highest respect for all you do on this newsgroup. It's
writers like you who attracted me to the group in the first place and are
responsible for my staying; also others who, while not yet published as they
want to be, are working at it and in the meantime are engaging, fun,
interesting, even surprising people who entertain, amuse, shock, inform, and
otherwise interest me with what they write.
But, with all due respect, I'd like to point out that some of us are too
inexperienced to ask good questions or to even know which questions ought to
be asked. Lacking omniscience, the typical human can't possibly anticipate
all the possible questions that ought to be asked. I've given birth to
several children, but each time I went through childbirth, new problems,
challenges, or issues arose that generated new questions. My last two
children are twins, and having twins was altogether different than having a
singleton. I didn't have a clue what sorts of questions to ask. Thank God, I
subscribed to a mailing list of mothers of multiples, who taught me a lot
about the questions that needed to be asked--and could offer several
answers.
My suggestion is that those writers as well published and experienced as you
(and those who have left) might anticipate some of the questions or
encourage younger writers to have the confidence in their abilities to
actually ask for help. I think that many young writers want to be writers so
much that they're afraid something inside will die if they have to give up
the dream. They're afraid that producing lousy writing is the same as being
a lousy writer--and it's not. They might need to be led to see that they can
improve and that they have something unique to offer.
We might need to be led to see the questions.
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Maggie Forest wrote in message <379a30d2...@news.iconz.co.nz>...
>Belle, there's one great fallacy with your whole question. You assume
>that the 'good writers' come here to improve the world.
No, Maggie, I don't assume that good writers come to misc.writing to improve
the world.
But I do wonder why good writers tolerate days and weeks of lousy or boring
writing in threads discussing moderating or not moderating the group,
penises, sick or dead animals, etc. rather than what they're reading that
compels them to improve their writing, what new ideas they've been toying
with, how many ideas for books or articles they could get out of one news
story (Russian girls being imported into the U.S. to have babies for
infertile couples, for example), and so on.
You wrote:
>just relax, Belle. You don't need to save the world from itself.
[Glaring] OH, YES I DO!!! That's my job! I'm a first-born female!!!!
Belle
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Belle wrote:
>>I'm not a troll.
Reid wrote:
>But your message was transparently incendiary. Without calling these
>people "lousy, boring writers" over and over, you could have
>empathetically described the behavior of these poor souls without a
>life so they might glean a bit of self-revelation. I can relate to
>your frustration though. The quality of discourse in this newsgroup
>has sunk to an all-time low. Just about all everybody does is
>disparage one another.
Reid, you're right. I knew my article would be incendiary because of the
nature of my questions. But I could have used other words and still gotten
answers. I've said it several times, but I'll say it again: I wish I'd
written "lousy, boring writing," and not "lousy, boring writers." I don't
regret using the words "lousy" and "boring." I see plenty of lousy writing
and boring writing here. I agree with you that the arguments and attacks
against people are frustrating and discouraging--in fact, I find most of the
arguing boring, too.
So. If you were going to re-write my original note, or express the heart of
it empathetically in such a way that these "poor souls" would "glean a bit
of self-revelation," how would you do it? I'll open this question up to
everyone, because I suspect from the parodies that are posted and the
frustrations and discontent others have posted, that I'm not alone with my
feelings. It's easier to write a parody or diatribe than it is to write a
thoughtful, empathetic plea for improvement on a writer's newsgroup.
How would you ask the same question?
--
Belle Harper
Belle Harper
Belle wrote:
>>Mike, I appreciate your help. I'm a nonfiction writer who admires folks
who
>>can write fiction. I admit it, I'm a lousy fiction writer. You've pointed
>>out exactly why, too: cliches, confusing imagery, mixed metaphors, only
mild
>>irony when any at all is achieved (and it's usually not); illogical
>>premesis, no, nemesis... no, premises.... oh, hell, forget it. You know.
>>Sputter. Hack. Groan. Cough.
>>Damn. Back to nonfiction!
Moira replied:
>But nonfiction requires cognizance of those SAME issues, yes?
>Cliches, mixed metaphors, confusing imagery, etc.
I'm relying on other, more experienced nonfiction writers to answer this,
too, but my answer is that, while nonfiction requires cognizance of these
same issues, it does not require them to the same degree. Many of the
nonfiction bestsellers rely on cliches--I'm thinking of the "Chicken Soup"
and "Road Less Traveled" series. What began as an original idea becomes
cliche.
As for mixed metaphors, some nonfiction writers don't even use metaphors.
They're called technical writers <G>. And it's possible to write nonfiction
and never use imagery once--any IRS publication is a good example. <smirk>
OTOH, turning to good nonfiction, I'd say that some of the best nonfiction
I've ever read could probably be held to many of the same standards as
fiction. I think of books like "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek" or "Gift from the
Sea," for example. The first chapter of my latest nonfiction books reads
like very good fiction--the editors said that they couldn't put the first
chapter down when they read it. It's my best nonfiction writing that leads
me to believe that some day I could try fiction. But I don't have the guts
for it right now. It's too scary to make stories up out of my own head, or
heart. I need the framework of hard, solid, and sometimes cold facts.
<shrug> It's my particular handicap.
But yours is a point well taken. There's a cliche for you.
--
Belle Harper