Life as a Grownup in a Writing Group on Usenet
Jerv
Up Contributer to the Usenet Community", and all the rest respecting quality
in _my_ work; with the number of posts generated in various threads flying
at me from every direction there is no way I can continue to be a Grown Up
Contributer who is continually at work seeking to improve the quality of his
work, and stay current with fifteen billion posts, both. So, after reading
the latest batch of replies, the best any man could possibly do is attempt a
group answer in one post, which, in itself is going to require more time
than I can afford, but here goes...
To Mule: Thank for the correct spelling of "Mersey".
To Michael Sawyers: To be perfectly blunt and honest I don't have the least
recollection of reading in your post anything about 'cubism' in Faulkner.
If it is your implication that I would ever have a need of borrowing your
ideas or those of anyone else, that is resented to the Max, as also, in any
event that I do make reference to the idea of another I always give credit
where it is due. I don't remember reading anything by you on that subject at
all. On that same topic, someone else here has accused me of being a liar,
in my statement that I had not read a certain Syko post past the first
paragraph. Now you will see the reason that I no longer waste my time on
the person making that charge insofar as it has the result we have just seen
from Mr. Sawyers. There are TWO posts from Syko to which I responded; only
the second post contained words of mine to the stated effect, but it was the
first post which I did read in its entirety, and did respond to in a
paragraph of my own; yes, it was the FIRST post which contained the matter
referred to.
Now that really, really bothered me, because when I read Hope's post calling
me a "liar" and stating his reasons for that charge, I thought, "God! Did I
really play that fast and loose with the truth?" That really bugged me to
think that of myself, since, believe it or not, telling the truth is at the
top of my moral priorities. I thought to myself, "Good Christ! Am I
slipping? Have I gone back to my old all too common shared fault with the
rest of humanity of pussy-footing around with Truth?" Let me tell you, when
I read that post of Alan's I felt REAL SHAME. I thought maybe he was right;
it fooled me for a minute, as in taking his word for it, I then allowed him
to get away with conglomerating those two posts in _my_ head; I let that
sniveling, lying dog do _my_ thinking for me! I took him at his word! I
assumed that there was only one post in that thread to Syko. Imagine my
relief to discover once again that it is Alan Hope who is the fellow with no
moral compunction; the kind of guy who probably would steal somebody else's
idea without giving credit where it's due.
But again, as to Faulkner and Picasso? You can't compare his concept of
cubism in literature to mine because mine is mine, and his is his as each
was arrived upon independant of the other; just as my mention of cubism
arose totally indepant of any such mention of the concept by Mr Sawyers. In
fact, until I wrote that post I'd never even conceived the concept in
relation to my work or any other. Mr. Sawyers, I never have, do not now, nor
shall I ever have need of your ideas for the formation of MINE: Get that
straight, fella. If this is another case of Newton and Leibnitz both coming
up with calculus at once, independantly then there it is: I never read any
such notion in your post, as in fact, as must be obvious, taking as truth
what you say, that I have never read more than your first post, and I don't
so much as recall having read all of that. So, if it's there as you say,
that is very interesting; remarkable more than anything.
Now we see how all this manner of crap gets started, and starts rolling
downhill around here gathering all kind of dirty snow and rocks until it's a
whole avalanche of blanched bullshit.
Dr Zen---We have seen the same thing occur here as a result of your bullshit
in regard to my capabilities as a writer. Some people read mendacious
arguments like yours that simmer with the animus of your personal bias, and
they just miss seeing what's really there. People start taking your words
for fact on the subject of my writing. When Glen was here, you were not
permitted to get away that.
Laura Higley-- If your opinion on my writing is influenced in any way by the
rantings of Dr. Pig Vomit Zen, as I believe it may well be viz your mention
of the word "inadvertent" as a complaint was first lodged about that word
from him, then you see, what Dr. Pig Vomit Zen always misses in my prose is
the _irony_. This is the ironic statement of a character. It is in the
mouth of a character! It is not the narrator speaking. Why any fool can
see that "Aaron" is ironizing (see Anais Nin for the precedent in taking
that liberty with the word 'irony') his wife's claim that she and "Adrian"
just happened to _inadvertantly_ let the time slip by. So now, do you see
what happens to your own thinking when it is permitted to come under the
influence of the cluelessness of another?
Glen Wall--Get your butt back in here! These goddam natives are getting
restless!
Ms Higby--Further, as to your most recent post with all the talk about
"stick drawings", amateurism and the like, your advice about how a writer
should break his butt to "communicate" to his reader. Okay, first: I have
been writing since college; I am 55 and have a stack of my published work
that is God damn near knee high from the floor. Furthermore, I don't dumb
my work down to fucking "communicate" slavishly with "my reader"; either my
reader digs where my work is coming from or they don't; for so many as there
are that do, there are equally as many as don't. So it goes with every
author in the territory. I advise you to get the notion out of your head
right now that you are talking to some dilettante when you're talking to me.
If you are one of those who is _that_ susceptible to the opinions of others
that it clouds your own perception of what you read, then baby, you are not
drawing at the level of a 'stick figure', you are _thinking_ like one.
Don't condescend to preach to me about what constitutes good craft in
writing, as in fact I think I know better than you, and 98% of the others
here about that.
Jabelson--see what your clueless, inane; totally ignorant concept of what
constitutes good writing engenders around here? Hey! I've had it 'up to
here' with you and your cheap shots; you don't know what you're looking at
in my work. You haven't a clue. You and that trussed up hussy of an
industrial writing editor Zen, Man? Get a clue: That rule book of his that
he treats like the Bible, if followed to the letter will make of any man an
industrial writer, but not a creative writer because a creative writer
writes with license, with irony, with experimental forms which are things he
cannot grok. You don't listen to that guy if you want to write creatively.
Do you want to put the lettering on blueprints? Listen to Dr. Pig Vomit.
Glen had his number; he hasn't a clue. He thinks Henry Miller is just a
writer of dirty books! I'll venture to say that even YOU know better than
that, Jeff.
Now for once for and all to...
ALL--From now on, when you see my work posted here, you might like to know
that it is not being posted here for "suggestions" or "advice". It is
being published here for no other reason than to publish it here; that's
all. It is being published here, not as common property but as MY work, for
YOUR entertainment and nothing else! From now on, I am regarding my work as
being above reproach on strictly structural matters--since I happen to know
that for the most part this is the case. People who have to look up the
word "conflicted" in the dictionary to find out what I'm talking about are
qualified to enjoy my work or hate it, but not necessarily to judge it on
structural grounds. When you see my work here, for all intents and purposes
(whether later revisions occur in my computer or not) when it appears here
in its first form; it is appearing here as done work for these purposes.
From now on, either you are going to like my work or you are not going to
like it, as is. People are free to comment in any way they like as to
whether they like the stuff or don't like it; whether they think it has
quality as good writing or none at all. Y'all're free to speak as you see
fit just so long as you know that when you see it here, you see it as a
done, published work, and suggestions are more like to be ignored than
accepted.
If any comment of advice is gratefully received by me, you will receive a
thank you by email; but I will henceforth make no responses negative or
positive to suggestions and advice on line. If you liked my work, and you
say so, you will hear a "Thank you" from me, or my own praised of the goddam
thing; or whatever, I might call you "a gentleman and a scholar". If you
didn't like it and you say so, in cordial terms you will still get a polite
reply. If you want to flame the work, you are less apt to hear a "Go stick
it up your bum" from me than nothing from me at all. Because I don't have
the time to play kid games with flamers, unless you did a real good job of
getting my goat.
This is my view of Life as a Grownup in a Writing Group on Usenet.
Frank S.
Usenet. >>
Outsider view always lends perspective.
Thanks.
Alan Hope
then Jerv goes:
>If any comment of advice is gratefully received by me, you will receive a
>thank you by email; but I will henceforth make no responses negative or
>positive to suggestions and advice on line.
Yeah, right.
>If you liked my work, and you
>say so, you will hear a "Thank you" from me, or my own praised of the goddam
>thing; or whatever, I might call you "a gentleman and a scholar". If you
>didn't like it and you say so, in cordial terms you will still get a polite
>reply. If you want to flame the work, you are less apt to hear a "Go stick
>it up your bum" from me than nothing from me at all.
Has anyone started a book on this already?
>Because I don't have
>the time to play kid games with flamers, unless you did a real good job of
>getting my goat.
Oh, right. The escape clause. Well, we'll see how good that has to be,
shall we?
Let the goat-getting begin.
>This is my view of Life as a Grownup in a Writing Group on Usenet.
Nice oxymoron, moron.
AH
mule
they worship the ground the mule walks on at the top of each post.
I thank you,
mule
--
"jewels and binoculars hang from the head of the mule"
Bob Dylan
Jabelson1
>From: "Jerv" dadd...@yifan.net
>Jabelson--see what your clueless, inane; totally ignorant concept of what
>constitutes good writing engenders around here?
Yes - the proper condemnation of the shit you call writing...
>you don't know what you're looking at
>in my work.
Really? I thought I was looking at strings of weak prose -
mule
<oOzr5.3617$3U2....@nntp3.onemain.com>:
>
> To Mule: Thank for the correct spelling of "Mersey".
No problem.
> ALL--From now on, when you see my work posted here, you might like to know
> that it is not being posted here for "suggestions" or "advice". It is
> being published here for no other reason than to publish it here; that's
> all. It is being published here, not as common property but as MY work, for
> YOUR entertainment and nothing else! From now on, I am regarding my work as
> being above reproach on strictly structural matters--since I happen to know
> that for the most part this is the case. People who have to look up the
> word "conflicted" in the dictionary to find out what I'm talking about are
> qualified to enjoy my work or hate it, but not necessarily to judge it on
> structural grounds.
Now this doesn't just take the biscuit it takes the goddamn cake,
pastry, croissant and tart as well. Why do you consider the use of a
dictionary such a failing? (Guess what - you can even find mercy and
Mersey in mine.) To consider yourself above and beyond all, to think
you have nothing to learn from others is such an arrogant thing to
say it could only be said by a dunderhead of the first class. And
coming from a man who arrogantly assures us his use of the semicolon
is second to none only to find his little brown ladybird book of
grammar disagrees with him.
For the chrissakes Jervis, you are indeed a man of many
contradictions.
>When you see my work here, for all intents and purposes
> (whether later revisions occur in my computer or not) when it appears here
> in its first form; it is appearing here as done work for these purposes.
In which case why the heck are you bothering the group with it?
Stick it on your toilet wall and call it published if it makes you
happy, it won't improve it one bit. Taking on board some of the
criticisms you receive here could; so long as you look at the
criticisms and the work objectively.
> From now on, either you are going to like my work or you are not going to
> like it, as is.
I don't think anyone ever assumed otherwise. What the fuck did you
think?
> People are free to comment in any way they like as to
> whether they like the stuff or don't like it; whether they think it has
> quality as good writing or none at all. Y'all're free to speak as you see
> fit just so long as you know that when you see it here, you see it as a
> done, published work, and suggestions are more like to be ignored than
> accepted.
Thank the Jervis for that, I thought you were going to tell us we
weren't suitably familiar with your little brown grammar helper to
be permitted to make posts to an unmoderated group on usenet.
> This is my view of Life as a Grownup in a Writing Group on Usenet.
The sooner you get some objectivity, the sooner you'll be able to
improve.
No thanks necessary; indeed you only have to reply if you want to,
no obligation, none whatever.
Laura Higley
<snip>
> If your opinion on my writing is influenced in any way by the
> rantings
<major snip>
I edit by myself, not by committee. Thanks for the reminder
to continue--good advice!
I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, especially with my
clumsy analogy of art. I'm surrounded by art, most of it
drawn by my children--inspiration doesn't excuse my
ineptitude. I apologize.
I don't normally offer editorial advice in here, as I
generally come here for a break from work, not for more of
it. But I liked your story.
> ALL--From now on, when you see my work posted here, you might like to know
> that it is not being posted here for "suggestions" or "advice". It is
> being published here for no other reason than to publish it here; that's
> all. It is being published here, not as common property but as MY work, for
> YOUR entertainment and nothing else!
Be that as it may, when you share your work, it's likely to
get reviews. That just happens. Most editing suggestions
aren't meant as personal attacks. Some could be offered with
more grace, I'll grant you. Take what you need and leave the
rest. If you don't need any, take none. There's no need to
stand on the defensive.
--
Laura Higley, President http://www.nitelinks.com
Nitelinks, Inc. * PO BOX 41 Haskell, NJ 07420 * 973-831-1263
Daddio
Sometimes I get into a bit of a snit under pressure of flame-throwers
blasting from every direction. If it seems as though I was being rather
unfair to you, then it's probably so. Thank you for your courteous
response despite the blast from _my_ flamthrower.
--
Jerv
In article <39AFA9AD...@onyxcat.net>,
--
--==--
Jervis http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
--==--
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Daddio
mu...@wibble.co.uk wrote:
> "Jerv" <dadd...@yifan.net> wrote in article
> <oOzr5.3617$3U2....@nntp3.onemain.com>:
>
> pastry, croissant and tart as well. Why do you consider the use of a
> dictionary such a failing? (Guess what - you can even find mercy and
> Mersey in mine.) To consider yourself above and beyond all, to think
> you have nothing to learn from others is such an arrogant thing to
> say it could only be said by a dunderhead of the first class. And
> coming from a man who arrogantly assures us his use of the semicolon
> is second to none only to find his little brown ladybird book of
> grammar disagrees with him.
>
> For the chrissakes Jervis, you are indeed a man of many
> contradictions.
You're right. I was being a first rate asshole, which, given certain
conditions of stress is not a difficult thing to accomplish, not that
there is really any excuse for such an accomplishment, but as I look
this over again, I do see that it was indeed quite an accomplshment. I
have enjoyed being recipient of your input these past few days and can
plainly see that I was biting off my nose to spite my face.
We can permit this thread to die the death it rightfully deserves. I
was wrong. Perhaps this was all being done to a higher purpose? I
mean, like, toward the edification of those who think I'm an asshole
all the time, that they might see what's it's like when I'm really
doing it up right?
--
Jerv
Daddio
What you're looking at is the flashing of the bulb at the end of your
nose. While there are faults in my work, knots in the wood, original
sin in the soul, flyspecks on the window, even so you are such a fellow
who can't see the wood for the knots, the scene beyond the window for
the specks. In that, you are quite like your friend, Dr. New Zealand,
and quite unlike many another here whose experience has been quite
otherwise. Others find a value that is entirely lost to you, and so
long as I have their words to console me, I am able to put up with the
likes of you, tiresome as it gets. Your potshots are just potshots as
others here have plainly recognized. People wonder what your thing is
but they really needn't it's as plain as that red light flashing as
mentioned hereinbefore.
Have a nice weekend. Go stand out in front of a whorehouse and make
yourself useful.
Caio!
--
Jerv
Laura Higley
>
> Thank you, Laura.
>
> Sometimes I get into a bit of a snit under pressure of flame-throwers
> blasting from every direction. If it seems as though I was being rather
> unfair to you, then it's probably so. Thank you for your courteous
> response despite the blast from _my_ flamthrower.
Very gracious of you. Well done.
I'm writing this privately to honor your request in another
message about ending the thread. If the intrusion is
unwelcome, I apologize again.
FWIW, I would have emailed my editorial comments on your
story privately, but we had never corresponded before, and
it seemed rather presumptuous. But then again, so is this.
--
Laura Higley, President http://www.nitelinks.com
Welcome to the world of electronic books!
Laura Higley
Ok, maybe I'm not writing privately.
PButler111
>I'm writing this privately to honor your request in another
>message about ending the thread. If the intrusion is
>unwelcome, I apologize again.
>
>FWIW, I would have emailed my editorial comments on your
>story privately, but we had never corresponded before, and
>it seemed rather presumptuous. But then again, so is this.
>
>
>--
>Laura Higley, President http://www.nitelinks.com
What is it you're president of again?
Laura Higley
>
> What is it you're president of again?
The
Oops-I-didn't-make-sure-to-verify-the-recipients-of-my-private-mail
Club.
--
Laura Higley, President http://www.nitelinks.com
mule
<8ooiq9$pq3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
> In article <vp6vqs0p3ej8li42a...@4ax.com>,
> mu...@wibble.co.uk wrote:
> > "Jerv" <dadd...@yifan.net> wrote in article
> > <oOzr5.3617$3U2....@nntp3.onemain.com>:
> >
> > contradictions.
>
> You're right.
Very big of you to admit it Jerv. You surprise me once again. I take
back the aggressive tone and petty mockery of my response.
> We can permit this thread to die the death it rightfully deserves.
Gladly,
Jabelson1
>so
>long as I have their words to console me, I am able to put up with the
>likes of you, tiresome as it gets.
Difference between you and I - I don't need the kind words of peers to
"console" me - that's why my work stays at home for revision and sending out -
I only care about one thing - writing - your nonsensical vignettes - these
serial absurdities that you post and then brag about - are grade-school
exercises in belly-button gazing.
>Have a nice weekend. Go stand out in front of a whorehouse and make
>yourself useful.
But your old lady is plaid for the night...
> People wonder what your thing is
>but they really needn't it's as plain as that red light flashing as
>mentioned hereinbefore.
If they wonder -- all they need do is ask - i don't hide. I used to write real
crits for your work - you acted like an asshole - now I just say what I feel
like saying - unlike YOU, I don't blab on and on and then slip back into the
same old bullshit - and your writing is the same static crap - as you try to
show off - I've actually received email cheering me on, old boy - and carping
about your shitty writing. Take solace in the words of friends, old man -
you'll need it!
Jerv
Jabelson1 <jabe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000905111343...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >Daddio dadd...@yifan.net
> I've actually received email cheering me on, old boy - and carping
> about your shitty writing. Take solace in the words of friends, old man -
> you'll need it!
Ooooh, hey, all right! Got your own little ol' Green Weenie fan club going
there, eh? I can just see the stellar list of names on it. 1) A. Dope 2)
fWank 3) Dr. Zilch 4)Fishwit 5)Unejucaided Pencilneck, and of course your
own noble self, JBabbleson. Misery loves company, so does The Emotion
Beneath Contempt and/or Mention.
<G>
Jerv
>
Jerv
>
> >so
> >long as I have their words to console me, I am able to put up with the
> >likes of you, tiresome as it gets.
>
> Difference between you and I - I don't need the kind words of peers to
> "console" me - that's why my work stays at home for revision and sending
out -
And coming back with the editor/reader's words stamped on it: "What the
hell is this shit?"
> I only care about one thing - writing - your nonsensical vignettes - these
> serial absurdities that you post and then brag about - are grade-school
> exercises in belly-button gazing.
Now, that does piss me off, this implication that there is something to be
despised in drawing from one's own life experience for fiction. Now, if
indeed that was the case here rather than pure invention of fantasy, then
who else stands to be condemned by it? J.D. Salinger in being queried about
_Catcher in the Rye_ at one time admitted (and his biography confirms) that
Holden was drawn entirely from the figure of himself, in youth. All of
Fitzgerald's finnished novels were based on his life and marriage to Zelda.
Ford Maddox Ford's "The Good Soldier" is based on his own experience of
marriage, adultery and divorce. So it was also with D.H. Lawrence in _Lady
Chatterly's Lover_. Scholars and biographers now insist that "Molly Bloom"
is Mrs. James Joyce.
So, like, "navel-gazing"? Jabberson, you are so full of The Emotion Beneath
Contempt and/or Mention that I really have to thank the gods for you're
being here as a continual sort of Med School theatrre cadaver that I can
always haul out of the formeldehyde to dissect before an audience of
students interested in the pathology of unresolved Oedipal narcissism. I
really should thank you for being here--even despite the smell.
--
Jerv
Jerv
> All of
> Fitzgerald's [finished] novels were based on his life and marriage to
Zelda.
>
> So, like, "navel-gazing"? Jabberson, you are so full of The Emotion
Beneath
> Contempt and/or Mention that I really have to thank the gods for [your]
> being here as a [continually available] sort of Med School theatrre
cadaver...
>
> --
> Jerv
>
>
>
Frank S.
"Jerv" <dadd...@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:Fm8t5.15002$wS1.7...@nntp2.onemain.com...
At last: a JerviZ post of reasonable length.
Happy to be mentioned in such company, happy to not be forgotten.
Every time JerviZ looks at the backs of his hands on the keyboard, he
remembers all the lessons we have taught him.
That means his aberrations are intentional.
Pobre creatura.
Alan Hope
alt.writing, we read:
Why don't you show them all, Jerv. Get one of these things published,
and see how envious they all are when there's finally something to be
envious of.
My money's on this one fizzling out before the end just like
everything else you've ever started in here. You'll move on to a
rock-climbing soap, or a car-wash soap or some other fucking thing.
Leaving your little audience all unsatisfied, going off to the
bathroom to finish off alone, by hand. Story of your life.
AH