10 Rules Of Writing--by Sea Wasp
Ken from Chicago
I'd like to say a hearty amen to number 4: BE CONSISTENT. Whatever rules you
break or make in SF, be consistent afterward--and if you do break your own
rules then EXPLAIN why you did (or didn't despite appearing to).
I'd like to give a shout out to
--5: Make it fun or at least not overwhelmingly depressing (I'm looking at
you, Stephen Baxter)
--6: SF is about wonder
--7: There are no more new original stories since 1957, they are all now
just tweeks and mashups (at least that's my interpretation of what Rik
said).
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Altho I think the professional writers here will get a special kick out
of 8.
Richard R. Hershberger
wrote:
Regarding #1: "Once it's written, it's done." Seriously? Even
granting that he goes on to soften this a bit, still: seriously? My
own writing is non-fiction, which I know is different, but in any
genre "looks like a first draft" is not praise. I suppose some
writers might have the knack for writing first drafts that don't show
it, and we certainly don't all need to emulate Oscar Wilde's quip
about spending the morning adding a comma, and the afternoon removing
it. But still: seriously?
Kurt Busiek
> On Mar 3, 6:09 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> http://seawasp.livejournal.com/176000.html
>>
>> I'd like to say a hearty amen to number 4: BE CONSISTENT. Whatever rules
>> you break or make in SF, be consistent afterward--and if you do break your
>> own rules then EXPLAIN why you did (or didn't despite appearing to).
>>
>> I'd like to give a shout out to
>> --5: Make it fun or at least not overwhelmingly depressing (I'm looking at
>> you, Stephen Baxter)
>> --6: SF is about wonder
>> --7: There are no more new original stories since 1957, they are all now
>> just tweeks and mashups (at least that's my interpretation of what Rik
>> said).
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>>
>> P.S. Altho I think the professional writers here will get a special kick out
>> of 8.
>
> Regarding #1: "Once it's written, it's done." Seriously? Even
> granting that he goes on to soften this a bit, still: seriously?
Yeah, that sure read like, "Quit after your first draft." Doesn't work
that way for me.
I also disagreed with #8, and I'm a professional writer. I have a
couple of unpaid assignments looming, for introductions to other
people's books, and they have deadlines and production schedules just
like any other assignment. If I wasn't prepared to prioritize them as
important, I shouldn't have taken them on.
I didn't agree with all of the rest of them, either, but they're his
rules, not mine.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Michael Stemper
>On 2010-03-03 09:55:33 -0800, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> said:
>> On Mar 3, 6:09 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> http://seawasp.livejournal.com/176000.html
>> Regarding #1: "Once it's written, it's done." Seriously? Even
>> granting that he goes on to soften this a bit, still: seriously?
>
>Yeah, that sure read like, "Quit after your first draft." Doesn't work
>that way for me.
Heinlein expressed a similar idea to what Wasp said. Something along the
lines of "don't revise without a specific request from somebody with a
check in hand."
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
"Writing about jazz is like dancing about architecture" - Thelonious Monk
Kurt Busiek
Stemper) said:
> In article <hmm91g$1fl$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Kurt Busiek
> <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>> On 2010-03-03 09:55:33 -0800, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> said:
>>> On Mar 3, 6:09 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> http://seawasp.livejournal.com/176000.html
>
>>> Regarding #1: "Once it's written, it's done." Seriously? Even
>>> granting that he goes on to soften this a bit, still: seriously?
>>
>> Yeah, that sure read like, "Quit after your first draft." Doesn't work
>> that way for me.
>
> Heinlein expressed a similar idea to what Wasp said. Something along the
> lines of "don't revise without a specific request from somebody with a
> check in hand."
And it clearly worked for him.
I'm more of the "get it done, let it sit, tune it up" mode.
Mike Schilling
> In article <hmm91g$1fl$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Kurt Busiek
> <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>> On 2010-03-03 09:55:33 -0800, "Richard R. Hershberger"
>> <rrh...@acme.com> said:
>>> On Mar 3, 6:09� am, "Ken from Chicago"
>>> <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> http://seawasp.livejournal.com/176000.html
>
>>> Regarding #1: "Once it's written, it's done." Seriously? Even
>>> granting that he goes on to soften this a bit, still: seriously?
>>
>> Yeah, that sure read like, "Quit after your first draft." Doesn't
>> work
>> that way for me.
>
> Heinlein expressed a similar idea to what Wasp said. Something along
> the
> lines of "don't revise without a specific request from somebody with a
> check in hand."
Asimov too. He said something like "Revising a finished story is like
chewing used gum".
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Yes. 95+% of what you see in anything published of mine is what was
written into the file the first time I wrote it. Virtually all changes
come from other people's input. I never understood the whole multiple
drafts idea and thought it was make-work invented by the schools when I
was a kid; it was years later I realized that some people -- most
people, in fact -- write, refine, refine, refine.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
have to have written enough and had enough time passed that my style of
writing has shifted and my memory of the story blurred enough that I can
look at it and see anything that should be changed.
art...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> --7: There are no more new original stories since 1957, they are all now
> just tweeks and mashups (at least that's my interpretation of what Rik
> said).
"The last original story" sounds like a good idea for a story (Even if
it is a tweek and or mashup).
But what was the last one?
Joseph Nebus
>Michael Stemper wrote:
>> Heinlein expressed a similar idea to what Wasp said. Something along
>> the
>> lines of "don't revise without a specific request from somebody with a
>> check in hand."
>Asimov too. He said something like "Revising a finished story is like
>chewing used gum".
... That would be the Asimov who after finishing a story would
completely retype it, producing a second draft after all? He estimated
the changes were minor, something like five percent of the content, but
an edit that changes just five percent of the content can do much to
improve it.
(I also note, a bit sulkingly, that in the handful of cases for
which we see Asimov actually doing a complete rewrite of the story ---
``Grow Old With Me'' becoming _Pebble In The Sky_, or the novella versus
the novel versions of _The End Of Eternity_, Asimov improved by around
an order of magnitude in the rewrite. Even in the looser thematic
rewrites --- thinking here of _Foundation and Earth_ turning into _Prelude
To Foundation_ --- the rewrite is better than the original. Granting that
quantity has a quality of its own, I think the evidence is, Asimov could
have had his literary reputation better-served by doing those rewrites he
thought so unnecessary.)
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remus Shepherd
> http://seawasp.livejournal.com/176000.html
I like most of those. I actually disagree with one, and I know it's
one that people are going to fight me about:
> --7: There are no more new original stories since 1957, they are all now
> just tweeks and mashups (at least that's my interpretation of what Rik
> said).
I think that there *are* original stories. They just do not appeal to
a large enough population that they are shared and remembered. They are,
in short, bad. There is a huge expanse of bad story ideas between the
islands of good ones. The reason people say that there are no original
stories is because only good ones get published and widely known, while
the bad but creative ideas never get circulated.
The question then becomes what's the best way to create new, original
ideas. What the human race has typically done is to nibble at the edges
of the ocean of bad ideas, claming a little bit of new territory by tweaking
nearly-good ideas into good ones. I wonder if it's possible to strike out
deep into the sea, take a bad concept and then make it good and wholly
original.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
Brian M. Scott
[...]
> I think that there *are* original stories. They just do
> not appeal to a large enough population that they are
> shared and remembered. They are, in short, bad.
That is either a non sequitur or an idiosyncratic definition
of bad.
Brian
htn963
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
<xnip>
> Yes. 95+% of what you see in anything published of mine is what was
> written into the file the first time I wrote it. Virtually all changes
> come from other people's input. I never understood the whole multiple
> drafts idea and thought it was make-work invented by the schools when I
> was a kid; it was years later I realized that some people -- most
> people, in fact -- write, refine, refine, refine.
I suppose that's the difference between those who write (mostly) for
themselves and those who write for others.
--
Ht
Butch Malahide
wrote:
> http://seawasp.livejournal.com/176000.html
It seems kind of suspicious that there are exactly 10 rules. It's
almost as if he had decided how many there were going to be before he
started making up rules.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I but follow the rules made up for the contest. I could've stopped
earlier, but decided to see if I could reach 10.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, it's the difference between seeing anything to revise, and not.
As I said elsewhere, it takes 4-5 years before I get to the point I can
revise a story. And that's mostly because in that interval I've learned
more tricks of writing, and the world I've been writing in has changed,
so the story HAS to be revised. Which is very annoying, sometimes.
trag
> On 2010-03-03 10:53:11 -0800, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael
> Stemper) said:
>
> > In article <hmm91g$1f...@news.eternal-september.org>, Kurt Busiek
> > <k...@busiek.com> writes:
> >> On 2010-03-03 09:55:33 -0800, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com> said:
> >>> On Mar 3, 6:09 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>http://seawasp.livejournal.com/176000.html
>
> >>> Regarding #1: "Once it's written, it's done." Seriously? Even
> >>> granting that he goes on to soften this a bit, still: seriously?
>
> >> Yeah, that sure read like, "Quit after your first draft." Doesn't work
> >> that way for me.
>
> > Heinlein expressed a similar idea to what Wasp said. Something along the
> > lines of "don't revise without a specific request from somebody with a
> > check in hand."
>
> And it clearly worked for him.
Did he or the editor revise "Stranger..." Because the edited version
is, in my opinion, far superior to the version with nothing cut.
Remus Shepherd
> Remus Shepherd wrote:
> > I think that there *are* original stories. They just do
> > not appeal to a large enough population that they are
> > shared and remembered. They are, in short, bad.
> That is either a non sequitur or an idiosyncratic definition
> of bad.
Can you expand that?
Maybe the word 'bad' is overloaded with connotation, and I
shouldn't have used it. But stories that do not appeal are
not good enough to be published, not good enough to remember,
not worth sharing and/or not worth duplicating. I'm just using
'bad' as a synonym for 'not good enough'.
Matt Hughes
> Regarding #1: "Once it's written, it's done." Seriously? Even
> granting that he goes on to soften this a bit, still: seriously?
My first drafts are usually 90 per cent right. Second drafts are
mainly to put in some bit of business in chapter two that will anchor
something that happens near the end of the book, and to make the whole
thing funnier. I write funny, but I'm not the kind who writes funny
situations; I write serious situations in a way that makes them funny
-- but sometimes I forget and write them straight to start with. The
only other thing I revise for is to look for places where I've used
the same word too many times, or where I've switched a couple of minor
characters' names or descriptions.
The best advice I can give to people looking for rules is: seek out
all the advice you can find, especially from people who actually write
for a living, then throw away anything that doesn't sound right to
you. There are a lot of different paths into the forest and some of
them will lead you astray.
Forex: years ago I read a book by Ken Follett's agent that said the
only way to write a bestseller was to put all the creativity and
thought into the outline, so the actual writing of the book became a
mechanical process. Trouble is, I can't outline worth a damn; I
start off with a character, a situation and a general idea of what the
story's about, then it unrolls from the guy in the back of my head at
about a thousand words a day. If I'd taken the agent's advice, I
would have given up in frustration years ago, and I'd still be writing
speeches for politicians and corporate CEOs -- which would make me
just another unhappy failed fiction writer. Instead of the cheerful,
world-wandering tale-spinner I have become.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
Mike Schilling
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Michael Stemper wrote:
>
>>> Heinlein expressed a similar idea to what Wasp said. Something along
>>> the
>>> lines of "don't revise without a specific request from somebody
>>> with a check in hand."
>
>> Asimov too. He said something like "Revising a finished story is
>> like chewing used gum".
>
> ... That would be the Asimov who after finishing a story would
> completely retype it, producing a second draft after all? He
> estimated the changes were minor, something like five percent of the
> content, but an edit that changes just five percent of the content
> can do much to improve it.
I think "finished" meant "after the retyping."
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
But in those days, "retyping" was very different than today. When I'm
writing, I'm doing the revisions in my head, fixing typos, switching
words around, in the few seconds I'm spending on the sentence before
moving on to the next. In Ye Olde Days, that kind of thing would have
been pretty much impossible -- you'd either have to stop and rip the
paper out of the carriage and retype the whole thing, paste paper over
the part to change and retype it, or farther along use white-out and
retype. Any of those would interrupt the writing flow, so that kind of
thing would get left FOR the re-typing, as Asimov described it. I'm
doing it in a single flow simply because I can do stuff while typing
that couldn't be done in Asimov's era.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
He cut it to editorial specification. Which is, in fact, how the
editing process usually works -- the editor will tell the author, "I
think this section drags, and we could use some more explanation over
here, and why didn't your hero use his cell on page 241 instead of
looking for a pay phone?"
The author will then trim that section, and add an explanation, have
the hero realize on page 240 that he left his cell phone in his other
jacket.
Or sometimes the author will make most of the suggested changes and
quietly ignore others, or will tell the editor that not everyone
shares his obsession with yappy little dogs so there's no need to add
one to the church scene, or whatever. The editor may suggest doing A,
and the author may acknowledge the existence of a problem but instead
do H and Q because A doesn't appeal to him. It's a collaborative
process.
In the case of _Stranger_ (I think it's in _Grumbles from the Grave_,
but I may have seen it elsewhere), Heinlein explained somewhere that
he did the editing himself at the editor's behest because everyone
involved agreed that the book was too long. I don't know how much
input the editor had on what got cut, but Heinlein did the cutting.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Brian M. Scott
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> Remus Shepherd wrote:
>>> I think that there *are* original stories. They just
>>> do not appeal to a large enough population that they
>>> are shared and remembered. They are, in short, bad.
>> That is either a non sequitur or an idiosyncratic
>> definition of bad.
> Can you expand that?
> Maybe the word 'bad' is overloaded with connotation, and
> I shouldn't have used it. But stories that do not appeal
> are not good enough to be published, not good enough to
> remember, not worth sharing and/or not worth duplicating.
> I'm just using 'bad' as a synonym for 'not good enough'.
This changes nothing: you are still equating 'does not
appeal to a large enough population' with some notion of
'bad', 'not good', or the like. That strikes me as utterly
absurd.
Brian
Kurt Busiek
I doubt that. Refining isn't just about making it work for others.
Kurt Busiek
I didn't like either version, but I don't know that it's relevant. If
Heinlein revised it, he did so with specific requests from somebody
with a check in hand.
kdb
Kurt Busiek
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
Very different for me. When I'm writing a story, I often
over-introduce, because I want to make sure the reader has the right
information, so in revising I cut bits that come up naturally later in
the story, or move bits to later if that makes the opening smoother.
Or realize I need to hit some point harder, or bury it more, or
whatever.
Or the first draft points up stuff I didn't know, so I vamp around it
in the draft, then do the research and get it right in the revision,
and so on. That, and just polishing clunky sentences, making sure the
characters speak in the appropriate speech patterns, and stuff like
that.
Christopher Adams
lot of them.
Not, shall we say, to the extent that I think people should never write
uplifting stories and always produce depressing stories, but rather that I
think *demanding* uplifting stories where the Good Guys Always Win and the
World Is Better Than It Was is ridiculously limiting.
I know Ryk's preferences in this matter are strong, but too much of that
list is not "how to write well" but "how to write a book Ryk wants to read",
which ain't the same thing. ;)
--
Christopher Adams
Sydney, Australia
Beadie Russell: Why me?
Jimmy McNulty: I don't know. I guess you don't live right.
- The Wire
Bill Snyder
<mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>Well, I didn't want to crap on Ryk on his own journal, but I disagree with a
>lot of them.
>
>Not, shall we say, to the extent that I think people should never write
>uplifting stories and always produce depressing stories, but rather that I
>think *demanding* uplifting stories where the Good Guys Always Win and the
>World Is Better Than It Was is ridiculously limiting.
>
>I know Ryk's preferences in this matter are strong, but too much of that
>list is not "how to write well" but "how to write a book Ryk wants to read",
>which ain't the same thing. ;)
You overlook the fact that to whatever extent your tastes differ
from his, yours are Wrong. (And he does seem, at times, to
believe that.)
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Ken from Chicago
"Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> wrote in message
news:15e694e9-e5a4-4945...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 3, 6:09 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> http://seawasp.livejournal.com/176000.html
>>
>> I'd like to say a hearty amen to number 4: BE CONSISTENT. Whatever rules
>> you
>> break or make in SF, be consistent afterward--and if you do break your
>> own
>> rules then EXPLAIN why you did (or didn't despite appearing to).
>>
>> I'd like to give a shout out to
>> --5: Make it fun or at least not overwhelmingly depressing (I'm looking
>> at
>> you, Stephen Baxter)
>> --6: SF is about wonder
>> --7: There are no more new original stories since 1957, they are all now
>> just tweeks and mashups (at least that's my interpretation of what Rik
>> said).
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>>
>> P.S. Altho I think the professional writers here will get a special kick
>> out
>> of 8.
>
> Regarding #1: "Once it's written, it's done." Seriously? Even
> granting that he goes on to soften this a bit, still: seriously? My
> own writing is non-fiction, which I know is different, but in any
> genre "looks like a first draft" is not praise. I suppose some
> writers might have the knack for writing first drafts that don't show
> it, and we certainly don't all need to emulate Oscar Wilde's quip
> about spending the morning adding a comma, and the afternoon removing
> it. But still: seriously?
Yeah, I had quibbles with that one. I interpreted that as doing a major
rewrite on the story, something that's easy to do in the age of electronic
writing where before you kinda stuck with it because you had it typed or
written and changes, even for typos, was such a hassle you kept going.
I think the key word is "revision", which I think might have a specific
meaning beyond just "proofing" for typos, punctuation and grammatical errors
and "editing" of sentences and paragraphs for clarity (e.g., establishing
where a scene takes place, sorting out the sequence of events, introducing
who new characters, etc.), but "revising" where you make wholesale changes
(e.g., a college co-ed Dorothy Gale is visiting Oz with a more take-charge
attitude, packing heat, kicking butt and taking names).
I understood Ryk to be saying, ala Miles of LOST, whatever happened,
happened; once it's written, it's written. Revising, wholesale changes to
the story, should be rare and seriously justified. Or as Ryk puts it, trust
your first instinct. Don't second guess yourself.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Kurt Busiek" <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in message
news:hmm91g$1fl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 2010-03-03 09:55:33 -0800, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com>
> said:
>
>> On Mar 3, 6:09 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> http://seawasp.livejournal.com/176000.html
>>>
>>> I'd like to say a hearty amen to number 4: BE CONSISTENT. Whatever rules
>>> you break or make in SF, be consistent afterward--and if you do break
>>> your
>>> own rules then EXPLAIN why you did (or didn't despite appearing to).
>>>
>>> I'd like to give a shout out to
>>> --5: Make it fun or at least not overwhelmingly depressing (I'm looking
>>> at
>>> you, Stephen Baxter)
>>> --6: SF is about wonder
>>> --7: There are no more new original stories since 1957, they are all now
>>> just tweeks and mashups (at least that's my interpretation of what Rik
>>> said).
>>>
>>> -- Ken from Chicago
>>>
>>> P.S. Altho I think the professional writers here will get a special kick
>>> out
>>> of 8.
>>
>> Regarding #1: "Once it's written, it's done." Seriously? Even
>> granting that he goes on to soften this a bit, still: seriously?
>
> Yeah, that sure read like, "Quit after your first draft." Doesn't work
> that way for me.
Some draw with pencils.
Some draw with pens.
Some draw with hammers and chisels.
For some, they'd get lost in cycles of self-revision and endless changes
unless they strap themselves in and force themselves to trust in their skill
and dam up a potential flood of self-doubt that would undermine their
initial creative process of (what others would consider) the first draft.
Others swim in said flood of self-doubt, or self criticism, and use it to
power thru their revisions, their looking for possible flaws and
improvements--sometimes during the first draft, sometimes afterwards.
> I also disagreed with #8, and I'm a professional writer. I have a couple
> of unpaid assignments looming, for introductions to other people's books,
> and they have deadlines and production schedules just like any other
> assignment. If I wasn't prepared to prioritize them as important, I
> shouldn't have taken them on.
>
> I didn't agree with all of the rest of them, either, but they're his
> rules, not mine.
>
> kdb
> --
> Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Ah, Kurt, you can't tease us with that. What would your (10 or so) rules of
writing be?
-- Ken from Chicago
Kurt Busiek
<mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> said:
> Well, I didn't want to crap on Ryk on his own journal, but I disagree with a
> lot of them.
>
> Not, shall we say, to the extent that I think people should never write
> uplifting stories and always produce depressing stories, but rather that I
> think *demanding* uplifting stories where the Good Guys Always Win and the
> World Is Better Than It Was is ridiculously limiting.
>
> I know Ryk's preferences in this matter are strong, but too much of that
> list is not "how to write well" but "how to write a book Ryk wants to read",
> which ain't the same thing. ;)
Well, he did say, "As with the others, they're my rules, and may not
apply to you. Actually, I know for a fact that many of mine are
absolutely the opposite of many other peoples'."
I think they're more, "How Ryk approaches writing," not "How Ryk thinks
others should approach writing."
Kurt Busiek
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
> "Kurt Busiek" <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in message
> news:hmm91g$1fl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I didn't agree with all of the rest of them, either, but they're his
>> rules, not mine.
>
> Ah, Kurt, you can't tease us with that.
That's not teasing. Other professional writers have commented here,
and it didn't constitute a tease when they did, either.
> What would your (10 or so) rules of writing be?
Haven't thought much about it. I can't say I'm interested in working
up a list. I'm recuperating from surgery, and once I'm feeling a
little better, I've got deadlines to meet.
Mike Schilling
>> I know Ryk's preferences in this matter are strong, but too much of
>> that list is not "how to write well" but "how to write a book Ryk
>> wants to read", which ain't the same thing. ;)
>
> You overlook the fact that to whatever extent your tastes differ
> from his, yours are Wrong. (And he does seem, at times, to
> believe that.)
That's not how I would have said that, proving once again how limited your
powers of expression are.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Well, I didn't want to crap on Ryk on his own journal, but I disagree with a
> lot of them.
>
> Not, shall we say, to the extent that I think people should never write
> uplifting stories and always produce depressing stories, but rather that I
> think *demanding* uplifting stories where the Good Guys Always Win and the
> World Is Better Than It Was is ridiculously limiting.
>
> I know Ryk's preferences in this matter are strong, but too much of that
> list is not "how to write well" but "how to write a book Ryk wants to read",
> which ain't the same thing. ;)
>
They're exactly the same thing when they're MY rules about MY writing,
which is what ALL those rules are.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Don't do any of that. I don't spellcheck -- I can't see anything I
misspelled once it's actually fully typed (I'll catch myself messing it
up WHILE typing and fix it). I don't do grammar checks because I don't
know grammar rules, I just write what sounds the way I think it's
supposed to sound. And if it's not clear, I can't tell myself; someone
else has to read it and tell me, because it was OBVIOUSLY clear to me or
I wouldn't have written it that way.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Ew. What kind of surgery?
Kurt Busiek
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
Removal of lots of sinus polyps.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On 2010-03-03 18:14:47 -0800, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>
>> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>> On 2010-03-03 18:02:54 -0800, "Ken from Chicago"
>>> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>> "Kurt Busiek" <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hmm91g$1fl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> I didn't agree with all of the rest of them, either, but they're
>>>>> his rules, not mine.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, Kurt, you can't tease us with that.
>>>
>>> That's not teasing. Other professional writers have commented here,
>>> and it didn't constitute a tease when they did, either.
>>>
>>>> What would your (10 or so) rules of writing be?
>>>
>>> Haven't thought much about it. I can't say I'm interested in working
>>> up a list. I'm recuperating from surgery, and once I'm feeling a
>>> little better, I've got deadlines to meet.
>>
>> Ew. What kind of surgery?
>
> Removal of lots of sinus polyps.
>
> kdb
Unpleasant indeed. My father in law had a lot of those -- partially
apparently from drastically over-using Afrin.
Kurt Busiek
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> On 2010-03-03 18:14:47 -0800, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>>
>>> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>>> On 2010-03-03 18:02:54 -0800, "Ken from Chicago"
>>>> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> "Kurt Busiek" <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hmm91g$1fl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> I didn't agree with all of the rest of them, either, but they're his
>>>>>> rules, not mine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, Kurt, you can't tease us with that.
>>>>
>>>> That's not teasing. Other professional writers have commented here,
>>>> and it didn't constitute a tease when they did, either.
>>>>
>>>>> What would your (10 or so) rules of writing be?
>>>>
>>>> Haven't thought much about it. I can't say I'm interested in working
>>>> up a list. I'm recuperating from surgery, and once I'm feeling a
>>>> little better, I've got deadlines to meet.
>>>
>>> Ew. What kind of surgery?
>>
>> Removal of lots of sinus polyps.
>
> Unpleasant indeed. My father in law had a lot of those -- partially
> apparently from drastically over-using Afrin.
This is about the seventh time I had to have it done, but it's been
nine years since the previous time, so I count that as success. And
we're taking new steps to keep them from coming back.
Every time I have sinus surgery, I'm amazed by how much medicine has
advanced. The surgery's not bad at all, any more, but it still
requires recuperation. I'm beat.
William George Ferguson
<mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>Well, I didn't want to crap on Ryk on his own journal, but I disagree with a
>lot of them.
>
>Not, shall we say, to the extent that I think people should never write
>uplifting stories and always produce depressing stories, but rather that I
>think *demanding* uplifting stories where the Good Guys Always Win and the
>World Is Better Than It Was is ridiculously limiting.
Only limiting if one ever wants me to read a second book of theirs.
I am not interested in reading stories that are downbeat and depressing. A
'happy ending' doesn't necessarily have to be 'and they all lived happily
ever after', but it does have to be upbeat, if it is to be an ending I'm
interested in reading.
A pair of examples I have used in live conversations to illustrate this
point, George Romero's Night of the Living Dead and Paul Gallico's The Snow
Goose. In both cases, the primary viewpoint character dies at the end,
almost arbitrarily. The difference is one is a tremendously upbeat, if you
will a 'happy' ending, while the other is an extremely depressing ending. I
saw Night of the Living Dead once, and never particularly want to see it
again.
Yes, for a story to be one I enjoy, the good guys do need to 'win', but
the win can be an existential victory. If it's all pointless and then you
die, and nothing you did matters anyway, then why the hell did you bother
to write the story.
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)
tkma...@yahoo.co.uk
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> http://seawasp.livejournal.com/176000.html
>
> I like most of those. I actually disagree with one, and I know it's
> one that people are going to fight me about:
>
>> --7: There are no more new original stories since 1957, they are all now
>> just tweeks and mashups (at least that's my interpretation of what Rik
>> said).
>
> a large enough population that they are shared and remembered. They are,
> islands of good ones. The reason people say that there are no original
> stories is because only good ones get published and widely known, while
> the bad but creative ideas never get circulated.
Occasionally, there are genius authors who'll write a story with a neat
original idea & forget to give it even a title, let alone go to the
trouble of publishing it at a well known venue! Eventually putting it at
a venue where even publisher doesn't notice the story is untitled! It
bothered me when I first saw this 2006 story by Steve Carper:
<http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2006/12/medgadget_sci_fi.html>
You need to click "Read More" at bottom of the page & search for author
since the story itself doesn't have a title (page has several stories by
multiple authors)!
Couple of other recent good ones with original ideas (but they did get
published in well known venues, though the first one seems to have
received little publicity):
Gareth Owens - "A New Note For Nat"
<http://www.concatenation.org/futures/a_new_note_for_nat.pdf>
Ted Kosmatka - "Divining Light"
<http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_1003/art/divininglight.pdf>
This is novelette size, with interesting bits tucked away in second half.
--
<http://variety-sf.blogspot.com/>
<http://twitter.com/varietysf>
Jack Bohn
>I'm more of the "get it done, let it sit, tune it up" mode.
For short stories?
I tend to think of you more as a serials writer; I don't suppose
you have months of material waiting for you to tune it up, so how
does that work? Basically has the story ever shifted under you
that you wish you could have revised the already-published
portion? I know you aren't the type of writer to just make up
the mysteries as you string them along.
--
-Jack
erilar
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Christopher Adams wrote:
> > I know Ryk's preferences in this matter are strong, but too much of that
> > list is not "how to write well" but "how to write a book Ryk wants to
> > read",
> > which ain't the same thing. ;)
> >
>
> They're exactly the same thing when they're MY rules about MY writing,
> which is what ALL those rules are.
Exactly. What works for one person doesn't need to work for everyone.
As a reader(or TV watcher), I have a couple basic rules I insist on:
#1 Consistency--whatever rules the writer sets up for the
culture/society/etc. must be observed unless any exception is VERY
convincingly rationalized.
#2 There has to be SOMEONE I can like in a fairly important role. This
is where both Martin's gore and torture books and BG and SGU lost me.
The world of books has many writers who satisfy me in many genre
categories on these two points, though there are many who don't.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
erilar
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> But in those days, "retyping" was very different than today. When I'm
> writing, I'm doing the revisions in my head, fixing typos, switching
> words around, in the few seconds I'm spending on the sentence before
> moving on to the next. In Ye Olde Days, that kind of thing would have
> been pretty much impossible -- you'd either have to stop and rip the
> paper out of the carriage and retype the whole thing, paste paper over
> the part to change and retype it, or farther along use white-out and
> retype. Any of those would interrupt the writing flow, so that kind of
> thing would get left FOR the re-typing, as Asimov described it. I'm
> doing it in a single flow simply because I can do stuff while typing
> that couldn't be done in Asimov's era.
A trick I learned from my brother back in those days was to cut a page
across and tape in(on the back) a piece of paper for an insertion. At
least then when I typed the final draft, pieces were in the right place.
I refer here to academic papers, but it applies to fiction in the past
as well 8-) Now if I want to write something, I can do it my way--from
the middle out. I needed a computer when I was in grad school!
Kurt Busiek
<wmgf...@newsguy.com> said:
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:40:01 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
> <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Well, I didn't want to crap on Ryk on his own journal, but I disagree with a
>> lot of them.
>>
>> Not, shall we say, to the extent that I think people should never write
>> uplifting stories and always produce depressing stories, but rather that I
>> think *demanding* uplifting stories where the Good Guys Always Win and the
>> World Is Better Than It Was is ridiculously limiting.
>
> Only limiting if one ever wants me to read a second book of theirs.
That sounds pretty limiting.
Make sure all works appeal to W.G. Ferguson" is a fairly restrictive
rule, I'd say.
> I am not interested in reading stories that are downbeat and depressing. A
> 'happy ending' doesn't necessarily have to be 'and they all lived happily
> ever after', but it does have to be upbeat, if it is to be an ending I'm
> interested in reading.
>
> A pair of examples I have used in live conversations to illustrate this
> point, George Romero's Night of the Living Dead and Paul Gallico's The Snow
> Goose. In both cases, the primary viewpoint character dies at the end,
> almost arbitrarily. The difference is one is a tremendously upbeat, if you
> will a 'happy' ending, while the other is an extremely depressing ending. I
> saw Night of the Living Dead once, and never particularly want to see it
> again.
And yet millions disagreed with you, so there doesn't seem to be any
reason George Romero should have limited himself to telling stories
you'll want to experience.
I don't much like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD myself, but then Romero
wasn't limited to trying to please my tastes, either.
> Yes, for a story to be one I enjoy, the good guys do need to 'win', but
> the win can be an existential victory. If it's all pointless and then you
> die, and nothing you did matters anyway, then why the hell did you bother
> to write the story.
Possibly because that idea (or whatever idea you're missing out on by
assuming that such a story means it's all pointless and nothing one
does matters) is one the author wanted to get across, and he's not
actually aiming to delight you or Ryk.
Kurt Busiek
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>
>> I'm more of the "get it done, let it sit, tune it up" mode.
>
> For short stories?
Them too.
> I tend to think of you more as a serials writer; I don't suppose
> you have months of material waiting for you to tune it up, so how
> does that work?
I don't let it sit for months, in most cases. But in comics, I have
the advantage that running it through the filter of the artist alters
my perception of it just fine, and I'll do script revisions before it's
lettered.
> Basically has the story ever shifted under you
> that you wish you could have revised the already-published
> portion?
Often. But it's published, it's published. Then again, when we
republished THE WIZARD'S TALE, I tweaked the script here and there,
too, so it's not always fixed and unchangeable even then.
> I know you aren't the type of writer to just make up
> the mysteries as you string them along.
No, I'll have an outline the whole way. But that doesn't mean I can't
figure out better ways I could have told the story during the process.
Sometimes I can make those adjustments at revision stages, sometimes
they occur to me after it's too late.
Richard R. Hershberger
wrote:
> "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com> wrote in messagenews:15e694e9-e5a4-4945...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
As I said, my writing is non-fiction. I am currently working on a
piece about why baseball surpassed cricket in the late 1850s as the
most popular American team sport. I have the basic facts and
argument, but I have to put a lot of thought into how to present them
as a coherent whole. I have about a one hour commute each way to
work, and this gives me time to run it through in my mind. But once I
start actually writing I still find that some things which worked just
fine in my head don't work on the page. In the old days this would
have resulted in multiple drafts, possibly even with physical cutting
and pasting of paragraphs to rearrange the various thoughts. Nowadays
this is done electronically, but there are lots of fits and starts
involved. Once I get it done I will save it permanently as a draft
and then go back a month or two later to see if it still makes sense.
At the very least this will involve a lot of minor re-writing for
clarity. The idea of sitting down and writing straight through and
having this result in something intelligible is wildly implausible, at
least for me.
Richard R. Hershberger
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
And you're describing something akin to doing an R&D proposal for me.
In which I do, actually, have multiple drafts, or at least a lot of
tinkering (do this part first, now that one, fix the first part so it
flows into the second, etc.)
This is not in any way similar to writing fiction. Certainly not for
me. As just one obvious common difference, when writing stuff set in a
universe I created, I don't need to consult outside sources to verify
why things work a certain way, who did what to who, etc. It's all in my
memory banks.
erilar
<9f107056-0889-4ce4...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
"Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
> The idea of sitting down and writing straight through and
> having this result in something intelligible is wildly implausible, at
> least for me.
Going to another field for comparison: Not everyone can do what Mozart
did, but others have also written great music--after a lot of rewriting
8-)
William George Ferguson
>On 2010-03-03 21:49:14 -0800, William George Ferguson
><wmgf...@newsguy.com> said:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:40:01 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
>> <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I didn't want to crap on Ryk on his own journal, but I disagree with a
>>> lot of them.
>>>
>>> Not, shall we say, to the extent that I think people should never write
>>> uplifting stories and always produce depressing stories, but rather that I
>>> think *demanding* uplifting stories where the Good Guys Always Win and the
>>> World Is Better Than It Was is ridiculously limiting.
>>
>> Only limiting if one ever wants me to read a second book of theirs.
>
>That sounds pretty limiting.
Not really. I'm only one person, and not particulary a bellweather type of
person at that.
>Make sure all works appeal to W.G. Ferguson" is a fairly restrictive
>rule, I'd say.
But 'make sure that works you want to appeal to W.G. Ferguson are uppeat'
is a much less restrictive rule.
We're probably failing to argue at cross-puposes here. I have no problem
with other people liking other things, and makers of other things filling
that liking. I also have no problem with me liking other things, and am
willing to say what I do and don't like (never seen one of the Godfather
movies all the way through. That doesn't make them bad movies, just movies
I don't like)
Kurt Busiek
<wmgf...@newsguy.com> said:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:04:55 -0800, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-03-03 21:49:14 -0800, William George Ferguson
>> <wmgf...@newsguy.com> said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:40:01 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
>>> <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I didn't want to crap on Ryk on his own journal, but I disagree with a
>>>> lot of them.
>>>>
>>>> Not, shall we say, to the extent that I think people should never write
>>>> uplifting stories and always produce depressing stories, but rather that I
>>>> think *demanding* uplifting stories where the Good Guys Always Win and the
>>>> World Is Better Than It Was is ridiculously limiting.
>>>
>>> Only limiting if one ever wants me to read a second book of theirs.
>>
>> That sounds pretty limiting.
>
> Not really. I'm only one person, and not particulary a bellweather type of
> person at that.
>
>> Make sure all works appeal to W.G. Ferguson" is a fairly restrictive
>> rule, I'd say.
>
> But 'make sure that works you want to appeal to W.G. Ferguson are uppeat'
> is a much less restrictive rule.
>
> We're probably failing to argue at cross-puposes here.
Probably. The idea that you're not going to like anything unless it's
green is personal preference; it was likely the part at the end where
you went off into "why the hell would anyone even want to write
something green?" that made me think you were assuming people _should_
write to your tastes.
Christopher Adams
>
> Only limiting if one ever wants me to read a second book of theirs.
>
> I am not interested in reading stories that are downbeat and
> depressing. A 'happy ending' doesn't necessarily have to be 'and
> they all lived happily ever after', but it does have to be upbeat, if
> it is to be an ending I'm interested in reading.
Fine, William, but *I* don't give a fuck if a book has a downbeat ending,
and I think it's a shame that so many people seem only to read for comfort
and escapism.
Christopher Adams
>
> Yes, for a story to be one I enjoy, the good guys do need to 'win',
> but the win can be an existential victory. If it's all pointless and
> then you die, and nothing you did matters anyway, then why the hell
> did you bother to write the story.
Bad form to respond twice to a single post, but what the hell.
I just want to point out that existentialism is more in tune with a
statement like this:
"If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do."
than your idea that the actions of the hero have to have an intrinsic
meaning.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> William George Ferguson wrote:
>> Only limiting if one ever wants me to read a second book of theirs.
>>
>> I am not interested in reading stories that are downbeat and
>> depressing. A 'happy ending' doesn't necessarily have to be 'and
>> they all lived happily ever after', but it does have to be upbeat, if
>> it is to be an ending I'm interested in reading.
>
> Fine, William, but *I* don't give a fuck if a book has a downbeat ending,
> and I think it's a shame that so many people seem only to read for comfort
> and escapism.
>
I don't. It would be a shame if NO ONE would read other types of
stories, as this would seriously cut into the markets of those who write
such stories, but as I'm reading, and writing, for comfort and escapism,
the more who read that stuff, the more I'll sell, hopefully.
My PERSONAL position is that if I want dark, I can look in the real
world and get more than enough of it. And even FUTILE dark, since I
can't do much, if anything, to change it. So really, no need for any
more in my fiction.
Christopher Adams
> Christopher Adams wrote:
>> William George Ferguson wrote:
>
>>> Only limiting if one ever wants me to read a second book of theirs.
>>>
>>> I am not interested in reading stories that are downbeat and
>>> depressing. A 'happy ending' doesn't necessarily have to be 'and
>>> they all lived happily ever after', but it does have to be upbeat,
>>> if it is to be an ending I'm interested in reading.
>>
>> Fine, William, but *I* don't give a fuck if a book has a downbeat
>> ending, and I think it's a shame that so many people seem only to
>> read for comfort and escapism.
>
> I don't. It would be a shame if NO ONE would read other types of
> stories, as this would seriously cut into the markets of those who
> write such stories, but as I'm reading, and writing, for comfort and
> escapism, the more who read that stuff, the more I'll sell, hopefully.
Well, I didn't say "it's a shame that people read for comfort and escapism",
I said "only . . ."
I mean, I read DIGITAL KNIGHT and enjoyed it. I haven't read any of your
other books published since, but that's not because I object to your upbeat
endings, it's because you've been writing books in which I am not
particularly interested on grounds of premise (BOUNDARY) or style (GRAND
CENTRAL ARENA).
I suppose technically, if we're inventing a binary between
"comfort/escapism" and "non-comfort/escapism", people who read both are not
likely to read twice as much as people who only read one or the other, but
you've already allowed people who don't write for comfort/escapism their
share of the market, so it's wash.
Besides, it's not a binary. I think it's probably more common for people to
make decisions about what to read on other criteria - like my example
upthread of being happy to read your story about vampires and werewolves but
not your Doc Smith-style space opera, you know? Hell, I've sought out
specific books in the same genre by authors like James Ellroy and made no
effort to acquire others, for more specific and particular reasons.
The reason I think it's a shame that so many people *only* read for comfort
and escapism is that I, personally, find it sad that people will ignore
excellent work by talented authors just because it doesn't make them feel
all warm and fuzzy afterwards. The existence of an upbeat ending doesn't
guarantee that the story will be any good, but some people act like the
absence of one makes the story bad.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> Christopher Adams wrote:
>>> William George Ferguson wrote:
>>>> Only limiting if one ever wants me to read a second book of theirs.
>>>>
>>>> I am not interested in reading stories that are downbeat and
>>>> depressing. A 'happy ending' doesn't necessarily have to be 'and
>>>> they all lived happily ever after', but it does have to be upbeat,
>>>> if it is to be an ending I'm interested in reading.
>>> Fine, William, but *I* don't give a fuck if a book has a downbeat
>>> ending, and I think it's a shame that so many people seem only to
>>> read for comfort and escapism.
>> I don't. It would be a shame if NO ONE would read other types of
>> stories, as this would seriously cut into the markets of those who
>> write such stories, but as I'm reading, and writing, for comfort and
>> escapism, the more who read that stuff, the more I'll sell, hopefully.
>
> Well, I didn't say "it's a shame that people read for comfort and escapism",
> I said "only . . ."
>
> I mean, I read DIGITAL KNIGHT and enjoyed it. I haven't read any of your
> other books published since, but that's not because I object to your upbeat
> endings, it's because you've been writing books in which I am not
> particularly interested on grounds of premise (BOUNDARY) or style (GRAND
> CENTRAL ARENA).
>
Did you read "Diamonds Are Forever", which is very much like Digital
Knight? (short novel in "Mountain Magic")
> The reason I think it's a shame that so many people *only* read for comfort
> and escapism is that I, personally, find it sad that people will ignore
> excellent work by talented authors just because it doesn't make them feel
> all warm and fuzzy afterwards. The existence of an upbeat ending doesn't
> guarantee that the story will be any good, but some people act like the
> absence of one makes the story bad.
>
It is a bad feature which requires that the story has to be *that much
better* in all other areas to overcome, for those of us who dislike bad
endings. So a mediocre writer can write story X, which features a
reasonbly happy ending, and I can enjoy it, but it takes a masterful
writer to make me enjoy story Y, which ends in dark and depressing
circumstances.
In other words, "excellent work by talented authors" is pure opinion,
and if you're looking for the stuff that makes your world a little
brighter, in general, then Christopher Adams' "excellent work" becomes
your "ehhh, okay work" when the "talented author" decides that The World
is a Dark and Lonely Place is the right point to finish up at.
There are other similar things you might encounter -- a story written
with heavy dialect that's hard to get past. If you LIKE that kind of
thing, it's a plus. If you prefer not to have to work just to understand
the words on the page, it's a minus, and the story better have a LOT
more to offer.
A story which ignores basic science that happens to matter to you,
personally, will have to have a hell of a lot to overcome the initial
knee-jerk "BUT THAT'S WRONG!" reaction.
Fanfic has other examples; a story which has a "pairing" which is
nonstandard, or which doesn't make sense to your view of the original
source, may have to work a lot harder to be "good".
Christopher Adams
> Christopher Adams wrote:
>
>> I mean, I read DIGITAL KNIGHT and enjoyed it. I haven't read any of
>> your other books published since, but that's not because I object to
>> your upbeat endings, it's because you've been writing books in which
>> I am not particularly interested on grounds of premise (BOUNDARY) or
>> style (GRAND CENTRAL ARENA).
>
> Did you read "Diamonds Are Forever", which is very much like Digital
> Knight? (short novel in "Mountain Magic")
I have seen it available online, and have it open in a window here, but . .
. well. I have a poor tolerance for folksy backwoods stuff, so we'll see if
I finish it. :p
Christopher Adams
>
> I have seen it available online, and have it open in a window here,
> but . . . well. I have a poor tolerance for folksy backwoods stuff,
> so we'll see if I finish it. :p
Turns out I bailed shortly after Clint tells Jodi the deal with his family.
I think the problem was that there was SO MUCH buildup of this folksy family
stuff, and then the pace of the story picks up to skip over everything that
I think would actually be interesting. Also there is no way known that I
believe the Slades would just all unanimously agree they need to do the
Right Thing now just because some New York Jewish girl burst their bubble.
William George Ferguson
<mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>William George Ferguson wrote:
>>
>> Yes, for a story to be one I enjoy, the good guys do need to 'win',
>> but the win can be an existential victory. If it's all pointless and
>> then you die, and nothing you did matters anyway, then why the hell
>> did you bother to write the story.
>
>Bad form to respond twice to a single post, but what the hell.
>
>I just want to point out that existentialism is more in tune with a
>statement like this:
>
>"If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do."
Well, I can't argue with someone having an epiphany.
>than your idea that the actions of the hero have to have an intrinsic
>meaning.
I'm clearly failing to communicate well. The actions of the hero need to
have an intrinsic meaning, to him or her. They don't necessarily need to
have an extrinsic meaning to anyone else. To correct Yoda's misstatement,
there is no do or don't do, there is only try.
You shouldn't be fighting the good fight because you want to be Pinocchio,
but because it Is the good fight (or you could just pick some random group
of bad guys who haven't been heard of before, kill them, and declare
victory).
W. Citoan
> William George Ferguson wrote:
> >
> > Only limiting if one ever wants me to read a second book of theirs.
> >
> > I am not interested in reading stories that are downbeat and
> > depressing. A 'happy ending' doesn't necessarily have to be 'and
> > they all lived happily ever after', but it does have to be upbeat,
> > if it is to be an ending I'm interested in reading.
>
> Fine, William, but *I* don't give a fuck if a book has a downbeat
> ending, and I think it's a shame that so many people seem only to
> read for comfort and escapism.
Right, because the darker genre works aren't escapist entertainment of a
different flavor; they're really serious & important literature full of
deep meaning.
- W. Citoan
--
A man cannot be too careful in his choice of enemies.
-- Oscar Wilde
erilar
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> I don't. It would be a shame if NO ONE would read other types of
> stories, as this would seriously cut into the markets of those who write
> such stories, but as I'm reading, and writing, for comfort and escapism,
> the more who read that stuff, the more I'll sell, hopefully.
>
> My PERSONAL position is that if I want dark, I can look in the real
> world and get more than enough of it. And even FUTILE dark, since I
> can't do much, if anything, to change it. So really, no need for any
> more in my fiction.
Well said 8-) Very few things I read--and I read a LOT--have ever been
on a national bestseller list, so there are obviously plenty of people
reading things I don't. This doesn't bother me as long as there are
people out there writing the ones I DO like 8-)
erilar
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> A story which ignores basic science that happens to matter to you,
> personally, will have to have a hell of a lot to overcome the initial
> knee-jerk "BUT THAT'S WRONG!" reaction.
Oddly enough, that never bothers me much as long as the author is
consistent(one of my two really basic requirements in fiction), but when
it's a historical novel set in a period I know well, the history HAS to
be correct. Ken Follett kicked me right out of his recent sequel to
_Pillars of the Earth_ for that reason. I couldn't stand it past the
first 100 pages. Back when I read Pillars, I knew less about the period.
Joy Beeson
<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> A trick I learned from my brother back in those days was to cut a page
> across and tape in(on the back) a piece of paper for an insertion. At
> least then when I typed the final draft, pieces were in the right place.
> I refer here to academic papers, but it applies to fiction in the past
> as well 8-) Now if I want to write something, I can do it my way--from
> the middle out. I needed a computer when I was in grad school!
I triple-spaced my drafts and reserved a full third of the page for
the left margin.
Scissors and tape also helped.
Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Gene Wirchenko
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Don't do any of that. I don't spellcheck -- I can't see anything I
>misspelled once it's actually fully typed (I'll catch myself messing it
>up WHILE typing and fix it). I don't do grammar checks because I don't
>know grammar rules, I just write what sounds the way I think it's
>supposed to sound. And if it's not clear, I can't tell myself; someone
>else has to read it and tell me, because it was OBVIOUSLY clear to me or
>I wouldn't have written it that way.
I tried using Word's grammar advice a few times. I could never
understand it. It complained about perfectly good usages. I do not
have much trouble with grammar so I do not need a helpful idiot.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 3, 5:09�am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> http://seawasp.livejournal.com/176000.html
>
>It seems kind of suspicious that there are exactly 10 rules. It's
>almost as if he had decided how many there were going to be before he
>started making up rules.
So macho rule makers chop off a finger before starting?
How is Stephen Covey?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
[snip]
>You overlook the fact that to whatever extent your tastes differ
>from his, yours are Wrong. (And he does seem, at times, to
>believe that.)
Who does not believe that?
While I respect other people's opinions, I have my own. Other
people's different opinions are wrong, at least for me. I understand
that they may think the same about my opinions. I can change my
opinions, but not just because someone says that I should.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
[snip]
>Probably. The idea that you're not going to like anything unless it's
>green is personal preference; it was likely the part at the end where
>you went off into "why the hell would anyone even want to write
>something green?" that made me think you were assuming people _should_
>write to your tastes.
Or does not understand why someone would have such a preference.
I cop to that one on occasion.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Bill Snyder
I said tastes, not opinions. If you happen to like, say,
chocolate ice cream best, do you consider that anyone who prefers
strawberry is capital-W Wrong?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
erilar
Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> I tried using Word's grammar advice a few times. I could never
> understand it. It complained about perfectly good usages. I do not
> have much trouble with grammar so I do not need a helpful idiot.
I've never considered using a grammar check, considering how spellcheck
can get upset about unusual words. I leave it on to catch typos, and
give it extra exercise by sometimes typing things in Other Languages!!
8-)
Mike Schilling
No. But if they prefer Budweiser to genuine beer, then yes, very much so.
Bill Snyder
Oh, nonsense. There's very little actual difference; and anyway,
all you people who prefer beer to ale should be ruthlessly
exterminated.
Kurt Busiek
Ale is beer. You mean lager.
I prefer ales, generally, but anyone who thinks there's very little
difference between lagers is invited to experience what I did when my
father in law "topped off" what was left of my St. Pauli Girl with Bud.
Bleh.
And St. Pauli Girl isn't even a great lager.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>On 2010-03-06 17:42:42 -0800, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> said:
I don't see that the color of the horse actually matters much. Its
diet, now . . .
>I prefer ales, generally, but anyone who thinks there's very little
>difference between lagers is invited to experience what I did when my
>father in law "topped off" what was left of my St. Pauli Girl with Bud.
>
>Bleh.
>
>And St. Pauli Girl isn't even a great lager.
>
>kdb
--
Kurt Busiek
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:46:08 -0600, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> You overlook the fact that to whatever extent your tastes differ
>> from his, yours are Wrong. (And he does seem, at times, to
>> believe that.)
>
> Who does not believe that?
Me.
> While I respect other people's opinions, I have my own. Other
> people's different opinions are wrong, at least for me. I understand
> that they may think the same about my opinions. I can change my
> opinions, but not just because someone says that I should.
Understanding that other people's opinions aren't Wrong, and may even
be interesting, does not require one either to change their opinions
because someone says they should, or not to have them in the first
place.
Other people's opinions give me new ways of looking t and thinking
about things, when articulated well. Sometimes they change my
opinions, sometimes they don't. When they do change my opinions, it
isn't necessarily to match the other person's. But another perspective
can be thought-provoking.
Those who think that opinions they don't share are Wrong strike me as
closed-minded.
Kurt Busiek
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:12:04 -0800, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-03-06 17:42:42 -0800, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> said:
>>
>>> all you people who prefer beer to ale should be ruthlessly
>>> exterminated.
>>
>> Ale is beer. You mean lager.
>
> I don't see that the color of the horse actually matters much.
So you prefer ale to lager, but you think it's all horse piss? Well,
you keep getting it from the horse of your choice; the rest of us will
just let you.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>On 2010-03-06 18:14:52 -0800, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> said:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:12:04 -0800, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-03-06 17:42:42 -0800, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> said:
>>>
>>>> all you people who prefer beer to ale should be ruthlessly
>>>> exterminated.
>>>
>>> Ale is beer. You mean lager.
>>
>> I don't see that the color of the horse actually matters much.
>
>So you prefer ale to lager, but you think it's all horse piss? Well,
>you keep getting it from the horse of your choice; the rest of us will
>just let you.
Obviously I should have used an irony glyph there somewhere.
Consider it inserted.
Kurt Busiek
Do we really need to hear about what you choose to insert?
I mean, really. Propriety, sir, propriety.
W. Citoan
Er, I've seen you repeatedly in this group cast derision upon opinions
you don't agree with. Some opinions are indeed Wrong to those who don't
share them.
- W. Citoan
--
I do not wish to die, but care not if I were dead.
-- Cicero
Kurt Busiek
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> On 2010-03-06 15:32:47 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> said:
>>>
>>> While I respect other people's opinions, I have my own. Other
>>> people's different opinions are wrong, at least for me. I
>>> understand that they may think the same about my opinions. I can
>>> change my opinions, but not just because someone says that I should.
>>
>> Understanding that other people's opinions aren't Wrong, and may even
>> be interesting, does not require one either to change their opinions
>> because someone says they should, or not to have them in the first
>> place.
>>
>> Other people's opinions give me new ways of looking t and thinking
>> about things, when articulated well. Sometimes they change my
>> opinions, sometimes they don't. When they do change my opinions, it
>> isn't necessarily to match the other person's. But another
>> perspective can be thought-provoking.
>>
>> Those who think that opinions they don't share are Wrong strike me as
>> closed-minded.
>
> Er, I've seen you repeatedly in this group cast derision upon opinions
> you don't agree with.
Can you cite an instance where I meant it seriously?
> Some opinions are indeed Wrong to those who don't share them.
There are opinions I find rephensible, but opinons are, by nature,
subjective. If they could actually be Right or Wrong they'd be facts.
W. Citoan
> On 2010-03-06 19:38:37 -0800, "W. Citoan" <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com>
> said:
>
> > Kurt Busiek wrote:
> >> On 2010-03-06 15:32:47 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> said:
> >>>
> >>> While I respect other people's opinions, I have my own. Other
> >>> people's different opinions are wrong, at least for me. I
> >>> understand that they may think the same about my opinions. I can
> >>> change my opinions, but not just because someone says that I
> >>> should.
> >>
> >> Understanding that other people's opinions aren't Wrong, and may
> >> even be interesting, does not require one either to change their
> >> opinions because someone says they should, or not to have them in
> >> the first place.
> >>
> >> Other people's opinions give me new ways of looking t and thinking
> >> about things, when articulated well. Sometimes they change my
> >> opinions, sometimes they don't. When they do change my opinions,
> >> it isn't necessarily to match the other person's. But another
> >> perspective can be thought-provoking.
> >>
> >> Those who think that opinions they don't share are Wrong strike me
> >> as closed-minded.
> >
> > Er, I've seen you repeatedly in this group cast derision upon
> > opinions you don't agree with.
>
> Can you cite an instance where I meant it seriously?
Vat women, et. al. (I didn't say anything about whether the derision was
warranted or not).
> > Some opinions are indeed Wrong to those who don't share them.
>
> There are opinions I find rephensible, but opinons are, by nature,
> subjective. If they could actually be Right or Wrong they'd be facts.
Wrong has more connotations than just being incorrect about facts. It
also includes meaning related to immoral, unethical, unjust, injurious,
etc. As in used in a context of Wrong, I don't see that as literal a
meaning to start with vs. a figure of speech.
- W. Citoan
--
It matters not now long we live, but how.
-- P.J. Bailey
Kurt Busiek
In what way is that stuff saying someone's opinion is wrong? I think
his proposal is stupid in the extreme, won't do what he thinks it will
and is sexist and hateful besides. I deride his proposals because
they're stupid. But I think he has his facts wrong and draws doofy-ass
conclusions from them; that's not the same thing as thinking opinions
are right or wrong.
But his opinion isn't right or wrong, because it's an opinion.
Disagreeing with someone -- even thinking they're a racist,
bloodthirsty moron -- does not require elevating opinion to the level
of "right" and "wrong."
>>> Some opinions are indeed Wrong to those who don't share them.
>>
>> There are opinions I find rephensible, but opinons are, by nature,
>> subjective. If they could actually be Right or Wrong they'd be facts.
>
> Wrong has more connotations than just being incorrect about facts. It
> also includes meaning related to immoral, unethical, unjust, injurious,
> etc. As in used in a context of Wrong, I don't see that as literal a
> meaning to start with vs. a figure of speech.
I think you're using Wrong in a different sense than it's been used in
this thread. When Wasp says that other's opinions are Wrong, he means
in a Right/Wrong dichotomy; his are Right and others are Wrong. When
pressed, he'll admit that he means this only as far as his own
enjoyment is concerned.
But he's not saying that it's unethical to disagree with him. He's
saing his tastes are correct.
So if you want to change the meaning of the word in the context I was
using it in, fine, but don't expect me to go down that road with you.
I was using it in the sense of correctness or incorrectness.
ppint. at pplay
bsn...@airmail.net "Bill Snyder" erred slightly, but significantly:
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>But if they prefer Budweiser to genuine beer, then yes, very much so.
>
>Oh, nonsense. There's very little actual difference; and anyway, all
>you people who prefer beer to ale should be ruthlessly exterminated.
- s/to/or/
(- shirley?) (- [a])
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
[1] - "I like rhetorical questions;
I usually get them right."
- joann l.dominik, 6/95
W. Citoan
>
> I think you're using Wrong in a different sense than it's been used
> in this thread.
> So if you want to change the meaning of the word in the context I was
> using it in, fine, but don't expect me to go down that road with you.
> I was using it in the sense of correctness or incorrectness.
You presented a very sweeping & generic statement about opinions which
was given in response to a generic statement about opinions. If you
only meant it in the original context of tastes, then fine, but you
seemed like you were thread drifting to me & making a statement about
all opinions.
- W. Citoan
--
...If you can measure that of which you speak, and can express it by a
number, you know something of your subject.
-- [Lord Kelvin] William Thompson
W. Citoan
>
> I think you're using Wrong in a different sense than it's been used
> in this thread.
> So if you want to change the meaning of the word in the context I was
> using it in, fine, but don't expect me to go down that road with you.
> I was using it in the sense of correctness or incorrectness.
You presented a very sweeping & generic statement about opinions which
was given in response to a generic statement about opinions. If you
only meant it in the original context of tastes, then fine, but you
seemed like you were thread drifting & making a statement about all
opinions.
- W. Citoan
--
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, perhaps you
have misunderstood the situation.
-- Graffiti
Howard Brazee
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>No. But if they prefer Budweiser to genuine beer, then yes, very much so.
While I don't care for lagers (my choice is for Belgian ales), I wish
my tastes were more broad. The famous beer critic Michael Jackson
(whose Hollywood star people mistook for the singer when the singer
died a week before he died), believed there were times when a beer
such as Budweiser was entirely appropriate and appreciated - such as
at a hot ball game.
Only the "no true Scotsman" argument can say that Budweiser isn't a
beer. And there is no reason we all should have the same taste in
beers.
Demanding that everybody has the same taste as me is why we have so
many Righteous people committing so much evil in the world.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Kurt Busiek
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>
>> I think you're using Wrong in a different sense than it's been used
>> in this thread.
>
>> So if you want to change the meaning of the word in the context I was
>> using it in, fine, but don't expect me to go down that road with you.
>> I was using it in the sense of correctness or incorrectness.
>
> You presented a very sweeping & generic statement about opinions which
> was given in response to a generic statement about opinions. If you
> only meant it in the original context of tastes, then fine, but you
> seemed like you were thread drifting to me & making a statement about
> all opinions.
Opinions are subjective by definition. They're not "wrong" or "right."
If that's sweeping and generic, so be it; it's also true. If you want
to start using alternate meanings of "right," "wrong" and even
"opinion" (since you seem to think that disagreeing with someone about
a proposal to create vat-women is a matter of declaring their opinions
wrong rather than, say, declaring their proposals cack-brained and
silly), then feel free, but I won't join you. I'll stick with what I
actually said.
Kurt Busiek
> The famous beer critic Michael Jackson
> (whose Hollywood star people mistook for the singer when the singer
> died a week before he died), believed there were times when a beer
> such as Budweiser was entirely appropriate and appreciated - such as
> at a hot ball game.
And Robert B. Parker once had his character, Spenser, think, "The worst
beer I ever had was wonderful."
Me, I'd say a hot day at the ballpark's a good time for a lager or a
blonde ale. But if all they had available was Budweiser (or similar
mass-market American lagers), I'd stick with ice water. This doesn't
make the people enjoying their Budweiser wrong, it just means I
wouldn't be one of them.
Luckily, the ballparks I'm likely to go to have more beers available
than that. The guys walking around in the stands selling beer seem to
invariably have some crap like Miller or Coors, but up in the
concession area there's more variety to be had.
My favorite quote from Michael-Jackson-the-beer-expert is "When
American brewers developed the category 'light beer,' it was like
Volkswagen announcing that it would extend its range by starting to
build small cars."
W. Citoan
> If you want to start using alternate meanings of "right," "wrong" and
> even "opinion" (since you seem to think that disagreeing with someone
> about a proposal to create vat-women is a matter of declaring their
> opinions wrong rather than, say, declaring their proposals
> cack-brained and silly), then feel free, but I won't join you. I'll
> stick with what I actually said.
It you want to limit the meaing of "wrong" to only a single one of the
several definitions in the dictionary, feel free, but I won't join you.
I'll stick with the English language.
Kurt Busiek
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> If you want to start using alternate meanings of "right," "wrong" and
>> even "opinion" (since you seem to think that disagreeing with someone
>> about a proposal to create vat-women is a matter of declaring their
>> opinions wrong rather than, say, declaring their proposals
>> cack-brained and silly), then feel free, but I won't join you. I'll
>> stick with what I actually said.
>
> It you want to limit the meaing of "wrong" to only a single one of the
> several definitions in the dictionary, feel free, but I won't join you.
> I'll stick with the English language.
So by "single" you also mean a one-base hit in baseball, of course, and
a slice of individually wrapped cheese, too, not to mention a song
released on its own rather than as part of an album -- because in your
use of the English language, a word carries all its meanings at once
rather than which usage of it was intended.
Please, don't join me in using English normally; you'll be fun to watch
this way.
But yes, I'll stick to using words to carry specific meanings as
needed, rather than all of them at once.
erilar
Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
> Those who think that opinions they don't share are Wrong strike me as
> closed-minded.
I could suggest stronger adjectives. . .
erilar
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Snyder wrote:
> >
> > I said tastes, not opinions. If you happen to like, say,
> > chocolate ice cream best, do you consider that anyone who prefers
> > strawberry is capital-W Wrong?
>
>
> No. But if they prefer Budweiser to genuine beer, then yes, very much so.
8-) It is, however, useful to have enough people sharing your tastes
to keep the things you like available. MY favorite ice cream flavor is
banana, which is such a minority choice that it's next to impossible to
find where I live, except as a Ben & Jerry's flavor with other stuff in
it. My taste in books is at least eclectic enough that I can almost
always find something I like to read.
erilar
enough for a German friend of mine to enjoy. It can only be found in
Europe, as far as I know, and is, I believe, Czech.
W. Citoan
Right... You might want to reciprocate with that last line of your
previous post.
Kurt Busiek
> Budweiser note: There is another Budweiser, which is apparently good
> enough for a German friend of mine to enjoy. It can only be found in
> Europe, as far as I know, and is, I believe, Czech.
There are at least two others, and yes, they're Czech.
"Budweiser Beer" literally means "beer from Budweis," and what's known
as Budweiser in the US was originally inspired by pilsner beers from
Budweis. So they used the name to describe the style.
The two predominant beers actually brewed in Budweis are known in the
US as "Czechvar" and "B.B. Bürgerbraü" for trademark reasons, while
Anheuser-Busch's Budweiser is known as "Bud" or "Anheuser-Busch B."
If your German friend is buying his Budweiser in Germany, what he's
drinking is the one called "Czechvar" here.
Kurt Busiek
Have fun storming the castle, W.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>My favorite quote from Michael-Jackson-the-beer-expert is "When
>American brewers developed the category 'light beer,' it was like
>Volkswagen announcing that it would extend its range by starting to
>build small cars."
Very good.
Doug Wickström
<bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 17:18:26 -0800, "Mike Schilling"
><mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Bill Snyder wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:32:47 -0800, Gene Wirchenko
>>> <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:46:08 -0600, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> You overlook the fact that to whatever extent your tastes differ
>>>>> from his, yours are Wrong. (And he does seem, at times, to
>>>>> believe that.)
>>>>
>>>> Who does not believe that?
>>>>
>>>> While I respect other people's opinions, I have my own. Other
>>>> people's different opinions are wrong, at least for me. I understand
>>>> that they may think the same about my opinions. I can change my
>>>> opinions, but not just because someone says that I should.
>>>
>>> I said tastes, not opinions. If you happen to like, say,
>>> chocolate ice cream best, do you consider that anyone who prefers
>>> strawberry is capital-W Wrong?
>>
>>
>>No. But if they prefer Budweiser to genuine beer, then yes, very much so.
>>
>Oh, nonsense. There's very little actual difference; and anyway,
>all you people who prefer beer to ale should be ruthlessly
>exterminated.
As a compromise between Budweiser and ale, there is Budweiser
American Ale, which is actually, both an ale, and surprisingly
drinkable. YMMV, of course.
--
Doug Wickström
gary hayenga
> but you
> seemed like you were thread drifting & making a statement about all
> opinions.
I suspect that you were the only one who came to that conclusion though.
Christopher Adams
>
> Right, because the darker genre works aren't escapist entertainment
> of a different flavor; they're really serious & important literature
> full of deep meaning.
It's possible that some people read them for escapism; I wouldn't know,
because I don't. "Not escapist" is not the same as "serious & important".
They're certainly not going to be reading them for comfort.
--
Christopher Adams
Sydney, Australia
Beadie Russell: Why me?
Jimmy McNulty: I don't know. I guess you don't live right.
- The Wire
Christopher Adams
>
> Or does not understand why someone would have such a preference.
>
> I cop to that one on occasion.
Yeah, I understand why people enjoy Tolkien even though I don't in the
least; I don't and perhaps can't understand why anyone reads Goodkind for
pleasure (as distinct from irony or schadenfreude).