Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

OT: writing sample (WAS OT: Photo of Trotsky)

25 views
Skip to first unread message

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 9:36:44 AM9/18/03
to
Greg challenged me to post something I'd written so he could tear it
to shreds. While I'm hardly the nice guy he claims I claim to be, I
have no problem honoring his request. This was written to amuse
friends rather than for professional publication (for that, check out
the next issue of CEMETERY DANCE or the March 2004 ASIMOV'S SCIENCE
FICTION), but I'm not ashamed of its craft (if only because I know no
shame). It's even vaguely on-topic for alt.horror. It's a bit early
to be posting this -- ideally, I should have waited until November --
but it was the only thing I had on hand that was this short, other
than a couple of similar trifles I wrote as Christmas cards, which
would be even less seasonal.


****************************

The Turkey:

a Tale for Thanksgiving

by Ian McDowell

Jeffy crept into the kitchen, his small bare feet cold on the tile
floor, and
flipped on the light. The huge turkey's dimpled pinkish-white breast
was
visible above the lip of the sink, where his stepmother had left it to
thaw.
Moving quietly, although there was little chance of waking his parents
from
their drunken slumber upstairs, he pushed the stool up to the sink and
climbed
atop it, to look down at the glorious carcass.

His strongest memory of his real mother, who'd died in a car crash
when he was five, was of her working in the kitchen, preparing the
Thanksgiving
turkey. He'd been fascinated by the way her hands probed the bird's
chill
flesh, folding back the brown and yellow skin, expertly exploring the
sacred
mystery of its naked body. She'd propped him up on the stool beside
her,
shown him how to reach into the close, clinging cavity and pull out
the
package of lovely red giblets, and he'd been fascinated to think he
was
rummaging around inside something that had once been alive. The
memory of his
mother's hand and his, linked together inside the turkey's body, was
one he'd
never lose. Dreaming of it tonight, he'd awakened, quivering with
feelings he
couldn't name.

This turkey was much bigger than that one had been. It was bigger
than
Julie, his two-year old stepsister, but unlike her, it was quiet and
still and
clean, not snotty and gurgling and squalling in perpetual distress.
He ran
his hands over the cool skin, caressing the plump breast, gently
extending the
rubbery wings, crossing and uncrossing the heavy legs. It was far
more
fascinating now that it would be after it was cooked. Then it would
be meat,
not flesh, and while meat was nice enough, it was a known quantity, an
everyday pleasure, nothing like the delicious mystery of flesh.
Bending over
the sink, he kissed it, then ran his tongue over the flap where its
neck had
once been. It tasted like cold, salty chicken soup. Balling his
fist, he
shoved his hand between its legs, exploring the body cavity, groping
the folds
of skin and fat, fingering the waxed-paper-wrapped treasures of its
giblets.
Feeling himself get hard, he looked down to see his Batman underoos
tented by
his small erection.

Jeffy had only been seriously masturbating for about two years now,
ever since
he turned ten, and his one experiment with a handful of calf's liver
had been
a qualified success. Might this be even better? Besides, the thought
of his
dad and stepmother's porky, beer-inflamed faces stuffed full of turkey
flesh
that he'd jacked off into was too good to resist. Maybe he could
salvage some
pleasure for himself out of this dreadful Thanksgiving after all.

Grasping the ends of the drumsticks, he hauled it dripping up onto the
kitchen
counter, then climbed on top it, ducking his head beneath the
overhanging
microwave. The opening between its legs was too roomy, so he fumbled
the
other end, finding the hole where its neck had been. Fortunately, it
was
fairly well thawed by now, and he managed not to prick himself on the
sharp
nubs of vertebrae, but the loose wet flap was so cold he almost lost
his
erection. Almost, for when he clutched the carcass to his abdomen his
penis
stiffened again, and then he was thrusting away, thrusting thrusting
thrusting
into still chill glorious flesh and fat and glorious folds of skin.
"Mommy!"
murmured a soft low voice that at first he didn't realize was his.
"Mommymommymommy!" He came quickly, but with great pleasure, lights
dancing
behind his closed eyes as he spurted, his dick tingling in the cool
enveloping
turkey folds.

When he was done, he shoved the turkey back into the sink, wiped its
pink
juices off the counter, and lurched happily back to bed.

#

The noise awoke him at seven a.m., the clatter from the kitchen, the
heavy
thumping, and then his father shouting in anger. He heard commotion
from his
parents bedroom, the sound of clothing hastily pulled on, more curses
from his
father and then his stepmother's mumbled whine. In the room next
door, Julie
began to bawl. "Shut up," yelled his father. "Just shut the hell
up!"

"I'm going with you!" he heard his stepmother hiss on the stairs.
"This time
you're going to punish that boy right; He's not spoiling another
holiday!"
There was more clattering from the kitchen, the sound of breaking
china, a
wordless shout from his father, then both began to scream.

They didn't scream long. Jeffy lay there, stiff in his bed as a
morning piss
hard-on, staring at the ceiling, wordless feelings buzzing in his
head.
Finally, unable to endure the silence, he got up, step by step like a
boy in
whispered campfire story, and forced himself across the floor, to the
door,
the hall, the landing, the stairs.

His stepmother had crawled back to the foot of the stairs before
dying, a
great red hole gaping between her shoulder blades. His father was in
the
kitchen, lying limp on his side, his head crushed out of shape like a
melon
that had been squeezed in a vise. The turkey towered over him.

It was much larger now, tottering on gloriously thick drumsticks that
were
bigger than Jeffy's whole body, its bloody wings outstretched, the
magnificent
raised skin folds around the hole where its neck had once been
scraping
plaster from the ceiling. The wings, featherless, disproportionately
small,
ending in sharp bone, reminded him of the arms of a praying mantis.
The last
joint of the left one was completely red from where it had plunged
into his
stepmother's back. The left one was less evenly coated with
splattered blood
and graying goo; that one had crushed his father's head.

He stared at it with much wonder but no fear, his eyes as big and
bright as
those of a child who's just surprised Santa Claus working beneath the
tree. It
clumped towards him, moving with surprising delicacy for something so
big and
awkward, a dressed carcass larger than the prehistoric birds in his
school
science book. The drumsticks slid apart in wide V , lowering the
turkey's
body to the floor like a cheerleader doing a split, then it toppled
onto its
back, exposing the huge chasm between its legs, dark and pink and
inviting,
hung with folds of loose mottled skin and yellow, butter-like fat.
Crouching
down on the slick tiles, smeared with blood and turkey juices, Jeffy
parted
those magical curtains of thick, loose pinkish-yellow skin and
climbed
happily inside, curling up into a happy ball in the cool wet endless
comforting darkness.

This was the best Thanksgiving ever.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 2:16:12 PM9/18/03
to

Ian McDowell wrote:
> Greg challenged me to post something I'd written so he could tear it
> to shreds. While I'm hardly the nice guy he claims I claim to be, I
> have no problem honoring his request. This was written to amuse
> friends rather than for professional publication (for that, check out
> the next issue of CEMETERY DANCE or the March 2004 ASIMOV'S SCIENCE
> FICTION), but I'm not ashamed of its craft (if only because I know no
> shame). It's even vaguely on-topic for alt.horror. It's a bit early
> to be posting this -- ideally, I should have waited until November --
> but it was the only thing I had on hand that was this short, other
> than a couple of similar trifles I wrote as Christmas cards, which
> would be even less seasonal.

Okay, the intro. is already boring as hell.


> ****************************
>
> The Turkey:
>
> a Tale for Thanksgiving
>
> by Ian McDowell


And you wrote the title wrong. It should read: Ian McDowell: The
Turkey, a Tale for Thanksgiving.

> Jeffy crept into the kitchen, his small bare feet cold on the tile
> floor, and
> flipped on the light. The huge turkey's dimpled pinkish-white breast
> was
> visible above the lip of the sink, where his stepmother had left it to
> thaw.


Are you trying to emulate descriptive prose from the thirties?


> Moving quietly, although there was little chance of waking his parents
> from
> their drunken slumber upstairs, he pushed the stool up to the sink and
> climbed
> atop it, to look down at the glorious carcass.
>
> His strongest memory of his real mother, who'd died in a car crash
> when he was five, was of her working in the kitchen, preparing the
> Thanksgiving
> turkey.


Wow, you've equated a Thanksgiving turkey to "Lord of the Rings"--that
isn't very nice.


He'd been fascinated by the way her hands probed the bird's
> chill
> flesh, folding back the brown and yellow skin, expertly exploring the
> sacred
> mystery of its naked body. She'd propped him up on the stool beside
> her,
> shown him how to reach into the close, clinging cavity and pull out
> the
> package of lovely red giblets, and he'd been fascinated to think he
> was
> rummaging around inside something that had once been alive. The
> memory of his
> mother's hand and his, linked together inside the turkey's body, was
> one he'd
> never lose. Dreaming of it tonight, he'd awakened, quivering with
> feelings he
> couldn't name.


Again, I would advise therapy, rather than boring people with tales of
young lads and their vague remembrances of their mothers.


> This turkey was much bigger than that one had been. It was bigger
> than
> Julie, his two-year old stepsister, but unlike her, it was quiet and
> still and
> clean, not snotty and gurgling and squalling in perpetual distress.
> He ran
> his hands over the cool skin, caressing the plump breast, gently
> extending the
> rubbery wings, crossing and uncrossing the heavy legs. It was far
> more
> fascinating now that it would be after it was cooked. Then it would
> be meat,
> not flesh, and while meat was nice enough, it was a known quantity, an
> everyday pleasure, nothing like the delicious mystery of flesh.
> Bending over
> the sink, he kissed it, then ran his tongue over the flap where its
> neck had
> once been. It tasted like cold, salty chicken soup.


What made a raw turkey salty? Is it one of those kosher ones that has
been soaked in brine? How long till the kid dies from salmonella?


Balling his
> fist, he
> shoved his hand between its legs, exploring the body cavity, groping
> the folds
> of skin and fat, fingering the waxed-paper-wrapped treasures of its
> giblets.
> Feeling himself get hard, he looked down to see his Batman underoos
> tented by
> his small erection.
>
> Jeffy had only been seriously masturbating for about two years now,
> ever since
> he turned ten,


Jeffy is twelve and has small feet? Is he a dwarf, or does he have a
birth defect?


I get it, it's like "American Pie", minus the entertainment value.
Don't even tell me you have "friends" that say they liked this. Also,
if you'r going to use prose that is reminiscent of the thirties, "jacked
off" and "dick" are inappropriate. How did I know you'd have trouble
scoring any style points?


Wow, pretty good analogy for a twelve year old. Might you change it to,
"...reminding the writer of the arms of a praying mantis"?


Ian, that was godawful. I'm not just saying that because you're a dick,
either. I assumed you posted it here for the shock value, but I think
it was only shocking because of how much time you spent contemplating
the kid's dick. I can think of one guy that would like it, and that's
Victor Salva.

Greg P.

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 3:39:18 PM9/18/03
to
"Ian McDowell" <mcdol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a88873e.03091...@posting.google.com...
<snip>

What the fuck? You have scarred me for life dude. How the fuck can I eat a
turkey now without seeing a "Dark, inviting crevice that seems so sweet of a
release for my penis"?. =P

So this kid fucks a turkey (instead of eating it like any normal being), and
his sperm (does he have any yet?) brings it to life like Re-Animator and it
falls in "lust" for him, killing all those who challenge his well-being?

Bah, I can't talk too much shit. I wrote a poem once (that one a local
award! But I will not post it out of embarrassment) that describes a guy
seeing Death sitting atop his bed when he turns around in the middle of the
night, begging him to come along. He has a sexual embrace with Death, and in
the throws of passion, runs his fingers across the cloak ripping it
off....revealing what it really is before they both disappear into oblivion.
But dude, it wasn't a turkey!!! =P


trotsky

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 3:56:14 PM9/18/03
to

Greg P. wrote:
> "Ian McDowell" <mcdol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6a88873e.03091...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
>
> What the fuck? You have scarred me for life dude. How the fuck can I eat a
> turkey now without seeing a "Dark, inviting crevice that seems so sweet of a
> release for my penis"?. =P
>
> So this kid fucks a turkey (instead of eating it like any normal being), and
> his sperm (does he have any yet?) brings it to life like Re-Animator and it
> falls in "lust" for him, killing all those who challenge his well-being?
>
> Bah, I can't talk too much shit. I wrote a poem once (that one a local
> award! But I will not post it out of embarrassment) that describes a guy
> seeing Death sitting atop his bed when he turns around in the middle of the
> night, begging him to come along. He has a sexual embrace with Death, and in
> the throws of passion,


Here's your fan club, Ian: guys talking about the "throws of passion".
And the laugh riot continues.

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 5:23:36 PM9/18/03
to
trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

> Ian, that was godawful. I'm not just saying that because you're a dick,
> either. I assumed you posted it here for the shock value, but I think
> it was only shocking because of how much time you spent contemplating
> the kid's dick. I can think of one guy that would like it, and that's
> Victor Salva.

Thank you for your opinion, Greg. Your feedback is much appreciated. :)

bod

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 5:55:53 PM9/18/03
to

"Ian McDowell" <mcdol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a88873e.03091...@posting.google.com...
snip...

the kid....its trotsky isnt it....bwhahaha!!!


--
regards from BOD!

"dont worry yoko, its only a friggin water pist...."
JOHN LENNON 1980

see bod pissing in the wind at...
www.bodland.co.uk the home of bod!


WareWolf

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 5:43:47 PM9/18/03
to

Dude, that was sick.

Congratulations!

Dusty

--
This Week's column: Requiescat in Pace, That's All She Wrote
http://dusty.booksnbytes.com/columns/2003/2003_0914.html

rande...@rrogers.com

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 9:13:53 PM9/18/03
to
On 18 Sep 2003 06:36:44 -0700, mcdol...@hotmail.com (Ian McDowell)
wrote:

Even a dead turkey doesn't deserve homosexual pedophile inspired rape.
-Rich

trotsky

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 9:42:16 PM9/18/03
to
bod wrote:

> "Ian McDowell" wrote in message


> news:6a88873e.03091...@posting.google.com...
> snip...
>
> the kid....its trotsky isnt it....bwhahaha!!!
>

"bod", as any alt.horror regular knows, you're BY FAR the most likely to
be fucking the carcass of a dead animal. I doubt any of the clique will
disagree with me on that. In fact, how many times have you already said
"I just fucked a bird" in the past?

McNeeley... Cheaper, faster, better...

unread,
Sep 19, 2003, 11:29:33 AM9/19/03
to
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:13:53 GMT, rande...@rrogers.com wrote:

>
>Even a dead turkey doesn't deserve homosexual pedophile inspired rape.
>-Rich

Oh Christ... You Aryan mutherfuckers find homosexual pedophile
inspired rape in everything.

Cheers,

Todd "homosexual pedophile inspired rape this,
homosexual pedophile inspired rape that,
you're a broken gaddamn record." McNeeley

The dog from that film you saw

unread,
Sep 19, 2003, 12:16:54 PM9/19/03
to

"Ian McDowell" <mcdol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a88873e.03091...@posting.google.com...

> He stared at it with much wonder but no fear, his eyes as big and


> bright as
> those of a child who's just surprised Santa Claus working beneath the
> tree. It
> clumped towards him, moving with surprising delicacy for something so
> big and
> awkward, a dressed carcass larger than the prehistoric birds in his
> school
> science book. The drumsticks slid apart in wide V , lowering the
> turkey's
> body to the floor like a cheerleader doing a split, then it toppled
> onto its
> back, exposing the huge chasm between its legs, dark and pink and
> inviting,
> hung with folds of loose mottled skin and yellow, butter-like fat.
> Crouching
> down on the slick tiles, smeared with blood and turkey juices, Jeffy
> parted
> those magical curtains of thick, loose pinkish-yellow skin and
> climbed
> happily inside, curling up into a happy ball in the cool wet endless
> comforting darkness.
>
> This was the best Thanksgiving ever.


is this the plot of the next david cronenberg film?


--
Gareth
quote of the day
'nostradamus? -sounds like a rock group to me!'
see my ebay auctions a
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F4B314E61


lisa g

unread,
Sep 22, 2003, 8:41:12 AM9/22/03
to

"Ian McDowell" <mcdol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a88873e.03091...@posting.google.com...


I love to read short stories (I love reading anything really) and enjoyed
this a lot. I used to write them myself but havent had the time for ages.
This has inspired me to get back on with it.


trotsky

unread,
Sep 22, 2003, 11:18:33 AM9/22/03
to
lisa g wrote:

>
>
>
> I love to read short stories (I love reading anything really) and enjoyed
> this a lot. I used to write them myself but havent had the time for ages.
> This has inspired me to get back on with it.
>
>


I really believe you, too. I'm sure the turkey neck will give you all
kinds of possibilities.

lisa g

unread,
Sep 22, 2003, 11:26:24 AM9/22/03
to

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:dpEbb.2422$gR1....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Yeah, well it would have to be a humming bird for you to get anything out of
it.
>


trotsky

unread,
Sep 22, 2003, 1:45:06 PM9/22/03
to
lisa g wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message

Is that a proposition for oral sex?

WareWolf

unread,
Sep 22, 2003, 6:24:39 PM9/22/03
to
lisa g wrote in rec.arts.movies.current-films :

She shoots, SHE SCORES!

Greg P.

unread,
Sep 22, 2003, 8:14:25 PM9/22/03
to
"WareWolf" <dus...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19d94171...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
| She shoots, SHE SCORES!

Isn't that the last text seen on the movie Debbie Does Dallas?


WareWolf

unread,
Sep 22, 2003, 8:56:06 PM9/22/03
to
Greg P. wrote in rec.arts.movies.current-films :

My God! You're RIGHT!

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 1:52:01 PM9/25/03
to
Sorry to have been out of the phosphor loop for a week, but between
going to the mountains last weekend, catching the crud , taking care
of Lily while she had the crud, and turning in a DVD review column,
I've been too busy to toss more bones at Greg. Still playing catch
up, but here's more raw material for his hugely entertaining analysis.

This is the opening scene of "Dead Loves," a story I wrote way back in
1991 for John Skipp and Craig Spector's infamously unlucky BOOK OF THE
DEAD 3 (granted, most of the "bad luck" was due to one of the editors
going insane and either them or their agents pissing off people like
Stephen King by not paying promised royalties, but never mind that
right now). BOOK OF THE DEAD 3, aka THE ART OF GORE, aka THE LAST
FUCKING BOOK OF THE DEAD ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER, has gone through many
permutations and publishers over the years. I've been paid for my
story by two different publishers and I've proofed two different sets
of galleys. The latest word is that Cemetery Dance publications is
going to be bringing it out "real soon now" as MONDO ZOMBIE. We'll
see.

Like the first two BOOK OF THE DEAD anthologies, it's set in a world
not unlike that of the LIVING DEAD trilogy (Romero gave his blessing
and wrote the intro to the first anthology, while my former neighbor
Tom Savini wrote it for the second one), in which the dead are rising
to eat the living. In my story, which now seems set in an alternate
1992 rather than the near future, society is more or less coping. I'd
post the whole thing here, but CD Publications might object.

*************************

Dead Loves

by Ian McDowell

With her own close-cropped mousy hair and no make-up, Tim almost
didn't recognize her. She was just a tiny, sad-looking, middle-aged
woman with crowsfeet and a slight double chin, looking for all the
world like his Aunt Edith, or at least like Edith would have looked if
he'd ever seen her dead and naked, with a car battery wired to her
skull by two small pins that had been driven in behind each ear. He
tried not to look at her mottled, blue-lipped face, so different
without glittery cosmetics.

Deprived of the trademark mountainous wig, her head seemed
disproportionately small, dwarfed by the celebrated breasts, which
were pale and flaccid, criss-crossed by purple veins and tipped with
large blue nipples. Once, when he was twenty-one and still had
musical ambitions, he'd played drums in a New Orleans strip joint,
backing a performer billed as Chesty Morgan. "Chesty" had been so
obscenely buxom that, when she stood with her hands on her head and
her back to the band, the musicians directly behind her could still
see her doughy breasts, swaying out past her waist on either side.
The dead woman's figure wasn't quite that top-heavy, but it ran a
close second.

Tim saw evidence of many years of cosmetic surgery, enlargements and
reductions both, with further scars on her pleated abdomen. The
Toyshop experts in charge of removing and preserving her skin would
have to worry about those blemishes. All he had to do was take a
partial body cast, to create a believable corpse for the open-casket
ceremony. It didn't even have to be too convincing, not nearly as
painstaking as the work he'd done before the dead started to rise, and
nobody wanted to watch horror movies anymore.

Although he'd been working for the Magic Toyshop for four years now,
he still felt queasy, and this one was the worst. It wasn't just the
natural fear involved with prepping someone famous, where the chances
of discovery and arrest were so much higher. Last year, he'd done the
heartthrob from that old show Beverly Hills 90120, the one who died in
a crackhouse in Lincoln Heights. He'd never watched that program, and
it wasn't like he knew the corpse. But this was different. Although
he was no fan of country music, she was uncomfortably familiar from
countless talk shows, bouncy and vivacious and full of cornpone charm.
It felt profoundly indecent, seeing her this way, dead and
defenseless, sprawled on his work table with electricity scrambling
her zombie brain while he troweled plaster and modeling compound over
her flaccid, discolored flesh.

For the first time in several years, he was unable to stop thinking
about what they were going to do at the Toyshop. Her skin would be
removed, along with the contents of her abdominal cavity, although the
former would be bathed in the same biosynthetic "tanning" agent that
produced those popular new Livehide jackets, while the later would be
discarded, to be replaced with Styrofoam peanuts or some similar fill.
The eyes would go, exchanged for glass ones, probably made by the
same guys in Fresno who used to supply the eyes for all of his
animatronic heads. Her teeth would be bonded together, both to block
off her stomach cavity and to keep her from biting. Her flayed body,
like something in an old Clive Barker film, would be injected with
preservatives and sprayed with polymer sealant. Then the rendered
skin would be cunningly sewn back on, the stitches hidden with latex
and makeup, her fingernails replaced by castings of soft rubber. The
electrodes would be removed from her skull, and no longer rendered
comatose by alternating current, her re-upholstered corpse would jerk
back to spasmodic animation. It would be blind, of course, unable to
inflict injury or satisfy its ravenous appetite, a clumsy groping
thing that would stumble about at certain select parties, a prized
possession, perhaps even a moving sex toy. Oh, Jesus, he didn't know
whether to cry or vomit. No wonder Marta couldn't stand to touch him
anymore. He was a fucking ghoul. At least Burke and Hare had been
serving medical science, not jaded thrill seekers.

As he adjusted the position of her lolling head, one of the wires came
loose. It shouldn't have, but it did. The circuit broken, she
immediately began to flop like a landed trout, sending his supplies
flying. Then she sat up, dripping wet plaster, breasts sagging to her
pleated navel, and opened her milky eyes. The blue lips spread back,
exposing the grey gums and incongruously pearly teeth, and there was a
rumble of gas from inside her. He backed away, as she stumbled off
the table and came lurching after him, her small hands outstretched,
still possessing their glittering fake nails, her white teeth
snapping.

He had what the Toyshop zombie crews called a Stunner, a kind of
combination nail gun and cattle prod, that could supposedly subdue her
without permanent damage, but it was on the other side of the work
table, with her between him and it. He'd been an idiot to leave it
out of reach, but a wire had never come loose before, not in all his
years of prepping stiffs. In fact, she was the first moving one he'd
ever seen, and he found himself starting to panic.

Despite her sagging voluptuousness, she was scarcely bigger than a
child; he should have been able to restrain her, but he didn't dare
risk being scratched or bitten. Instead, he hit her, hard, putting all
his weight behind it, the way he wanted to hit Marta when she pulled
away from him, and then he kicked her, catching her fleshy hip and
spinning her around to fall on her face, her large buttocks sticking
up in the air, mottled with pooled blood. Once again, he felt ashamed
to be seeing her like this.

Clumsy, but faster than he would have expected, she was up again, and
coming after him, snapping like a turtle. He found himself backed
into a corner, with no weapons available except the toolbox on the
shelf beside him. Terror guided his hand; as she closed in, he found
the claw hammer, and brought it down on her plaster-smeared forehead,
which crunched sickeningly as it caved in. She reeled and he hit her
again, and this time the hammer got stuck deep in the skull, but she
collapsed, finally and permanently dead, and of no use to his
employers. Shit. Shit, shit, shit.

He lied on the phone, claiming he'd grabbed the Stunner but it had
misfired, then tried to shift the blame to whomever had done the wire
job. Finally, after a string of threats and obscenities, Tony told
him to forget the casting, to prep the corpse as best he could, so the
van could pick it up and have it flown to Pigeon Forge, for the
burial. There'd be no money for this fuck-up, of course, and his next
few jobs would be at a distinctly lower rate, but at least they
weren't going to kill him. Now all he had to worry about was facing
Marta. There was no question of not telling her. He couldn't not
tell her anything, especially when it came to something he'd messed
up. Oh, she despised what he did, but she needed the money just as
much as he did, more so, because she was the one with the habit.
Shit. Things were gong to be really bad.

He looked down at the dead woman, smaller and more pathetic than ever.
At least it would really be her at the funeral, and in the grave
afterwards, not his rubber and fiberglass replica. She might be lying
on his garage floor with a hole in her head, but she never be some
rich pervert's toy. He'd done her a favor, he told himself. He
should, at least, feel good about that.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 2:09:18 PM9/25/03
to
Ian McDowell wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but I didn't even have to make it through the first
sentence to know the writing's bad.

Greg P.

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 2:20:53 PM9/25/03
to
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:ibGcb.3056$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

| Maybe it's just me, but I didn't even have to make it through the first
| sentence to know the writing's bad.

I liked it Ian! Wish you would have posted more though =/


trotsky

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 3:06:06 PM9/25/03
to
Greg P. wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message

Yes, it's a pity that the book was doomed by the mad editor and
such--kind of reminds me of the mad Arab who purportedly authored the
Necronomicon. So much so, in fact, that I think we just have a story
within a story. But Ian not being forthcoming with the truth--is such a
thing possible?

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 4:36:03 PM9/25/03
to
And here's another tidbit. This one was in WEIRD TALES last Fall and
I don't want to upset the editor of the anthology that's reprinting it
by posting the whole thing, but here's the opening snippet. I'm sure
Greg will work himself into a fine lather over the fact that the
narrator is in love with another man.

**********************

In The Murrins

by Ian McDowell

Less than 40 kilometers from Derry, the Murrins might as well be Mars
or Mordor, a gobshite peatbog wasteland that's the most desolate place
I've ever seen. I've bobbed around a bit, far as Morocco in one
direction, Minneapolis in another, but nowhere half so strange as
these stark barrens, which couldn't seem any less hospitable if the
moonscape moorland suddenly sprouted signs saying "Fuck off, boyo,
your sort's not wanted here." It's the emptiness more than anything,
the type of vasty nothing-there you expect when looking at the ocean,
or a cloudfree endless-upwards sky, but not man's crowded earth.
Ireland may be small, but it's a lonely place, once you're out of the
towns, and no part lonelier than this.

But then, I've always had a knack for loneliness. Even at the
jostling pub table or on the passion-damp mattress, there's that
gnawing emptiness. Except when I'm with Tommy.

I don't care about nuns or old ruined abbeys or bleakly desolate
hills or ghosts, but right now Tommy does or thinks he does, so here
he was, having found a magazine willing to pay him to write a few
thousand words and snap some photos, and me with him. It's been like
that since University, Tommy and me, the little dark one and the big
red one. We're not quite what we seem, at least not all of it.
Tommy's got that delicate look, or did till he got his nose broken,
and dreamy dreamer's eyes, whereas I'm the one you'd take for a hard
man, sent round by loan sharks to smash kneecaps, my waking Saturdays
all pints, fights and football. Don't let our sizes and faces fool
you. Tommy is harder than I'll ever be, a regular Bruce Lee when some
unlucky lad's so stupid as to make him fight; not so many kicks and
more headbutts, but almost as fucking fast, my Tommy is.

My Tommy. How I wish.

That's the bugger-all, to use an unfortunate word. He's my mate and
straight and I am too, except for him, or at least the wanting of.
I've worn that knowledge, heavy as an old overcoat with stones in the
pockets, these last eight years.

Don't misunderstand. I don't think about it much, not anymore.

So here I was, with my best mate at the arse end of nowhere, the sun
setting over bare broken hills and rolling plains of peat, dotted by
glistening pools haloed with dragonflies and fringed with mud sedge,
the drier heathland extending like a delta into a sea of blanket bog,
the spare Sperrin foothills rising rock-ribbed above the evening mist.
"Your nuns must have wanted to get as far from the world as they
could," I said, "to build a convent here."

azz...@olypen.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 4:38:41 PM9/25/03
to

trotsky wrote:
> Ian McDowell wrote:
>
>> Sorry to have been out of the phosphor loop for a week, but between
>> going to the mountains last weekend, catching the crud , taking care
>> of Lily while she had the crud, and turning in a DVD review column,
>> I've been too busy to toss more bones at Greg.
>
>

> Maybe it's just me, but I didn't even have to make it through the first
> sentence to know the writing's bad.
>

So...what's wrong with it? I'm pretty competent at finding spelling and
grammar errors, and I don't see any. Of course, you ARE the expert...or
so you say.

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 4:39:07 PM9/25/03
to
And because we should keep Christmas in our hearts 365 days a year,
here's a bit of early Yuletide cheer I wrote as as a holiday card for
friends a few years ago, just as I did with "The Turkey."


The Greatest Gift:
A tale for Christmas

by Ian Keith McDowell

Author of The Little Lame Angel,
The Tender Ducklings and other yuletide favorites.


It was Christmas in the little village of Leaking Festers, and snow
was falling from the sky like cold down, to spread across the fields
in soft white blankets and pile up against doors and shutters like
bags of heavy laundry. It was a day for the roaring hearth and the
wassail cup and the smell of goose and pudding and more than anything,
it was a day for children. At least, that's what little Simon and
Emily's mum had said, before taking the broom to them and driving them
outside. "Go play in the snow, then!" she'd snapped softly, "and for
Christ's sake, give me a moment's bloody peace!" Not that she was
likely to get that, with the baby screaming and carrying on so, like a
cat dropped in a bag of hot coals.

"Not so nice of Mum to toss us out like that," said Simon, picking a
particularly fine booger from his frosty nose, inserting it into a
snowball, and throwing it at Emily, who ducked instinctively. "And us
without good boots, even!"

"Ah, she's just wanting some, what'cher call it? . . . privacy, that's
it, so she can drink her gin. You know how Mum is about her gin."

At this point, they met Mrs. Sheepshanks, who lived down the lane.
"Why children, you shouldn't be out in this cold without proper
boots," said Mrs. Sheepshanks.

"We ain't got none, you stupid cow," said Emily in the forthright
manner that made her the darling of the village. "Mum spent all her
money on gin."

"Well then, my little dears," said Mrs. Sheepshanks, "you must come
and warm yourselves before my fire. My husband's gone to buy a goose
for our dinner, and I'll be glad for the company, as the Good Lord has
not seen fit to bless us with darling children of our own."

And with that, she took them back to her house. On the way, Simon
leaned close and whispered to Emily. "A goose indeed; everyone knows
the Sheepshanks haven't any money." "Quiet, you git," responded
Emily, elbowing him sharply. "She's bein' nice to us. Besides, they
might have something worth stealing."

As it turned out, the Sheepshanks did not, but the children still
spent a pleasant hour before the fire, while Mrs. Sheepshanks told
them marvelous stories of all the things she and her husband had seen
during the Indian Mutiny. Simon especially like the part about tying
mutineers to the mouths of cannons, and it made him laugh no end, as
he tried to imagine the expressions on the faces of the Sepoys just
before the stout British soldiers blew them in half. Mrs.
Sheepshanks, for her part, was charmed by the children's manners.
"It's a shame," she said, "that a drunken slut like your mother should
have such fine lambs, while John and myself have remained childless."

"Goose-less too," said big bluff John Sheepshanks as he came tramping
in the door. "Prices have gone up, and what few pennies I've saved
couldn't fetch a scrawny chicken. It's turnips for Christmas, I'm
afraid."

"How unfortunate that we once were wealthy," said Mrs. Sheepshanks,
"and could dine on goose and oysters and suckling pig. But the Lord
moves in mysterious ways. Would you dear children like to take some
turnips back to your mother?"

"No thank you, m'am," said Simon. "We have plenty of those." Casting
one furtive look around the small cottage, the children departed for
home.

When they got there, they found their mother sprawled drunkenly in her
chair, smelling of gin and snoring, while the baby wailed in his
cradle. "Oh, be quiet, Algie," said Simon crossly.

"I think we should do something Christmas-like for the Sheepshanks,"
said Emily thoughtfully. "Give 'em a nice present."

"Like what?" asked Simon. "We've not got much."

"Well, how about Algie here? He ain't good for much, is he, except
bawling and peeing in his diaper. And Mrs. Sheepshanks was all sad
they don't have children."

"Wizard!" said Simon. "We can leave him on their doorstep with a note
pinned to him, like he was from Father Christmas."

Emily got a pencil and laboriously wrote "Fer you, frum Father
Christmaz" on a piece of paper, which she deftly pinned to Algernon.
Unfortunately, she pinned it to his little chest rather than his
diaper, and he began to bawl even more fiercely than before.

"Crikey," said Emily as she handed her squalling bundle to Simon.
"Can't you shut him up? They won't want him if he's all loud and
nasty. We got any of that laudanum stuff?"

"No," said Simon, "but maybe I can stun him a bit." Saying that, he
took Algernon by the heels and swung his little noggin sharply against
the stones of the hearth. Unfortunately, he swung a bit too hard.

"Now you've done it, clumsy," said Emily. "His head's all bashed in.
What will they want with a dead baby?"

Simon, who was good at thinking quickly, looked about the cottage.
"Well, let's see. Mum will be out for a while, and the stove is still
hot. We have turnips and such for dressing, and a little of that
cranberry sauce you nicked from the sexton's house. I bet we could
dress him out like a goose and cook him, and the Sheepshanks would
never know the difference. They're a bit thick, I think."

And that, dear reader, is exactly what they did. Mr. and Mrs.
Sheepshanks opined that it was the best goose they'd ever eaten,
although Mrs. Sheepshanks wondered what the children had done to it to
make it taste so much like suckling pig. Little Simon and Emily just
smiled bashfully, and Mr. Sheepshanks was so moved, he immediately
declared that such clever children should live with him and his wife
forthwith, and not with their drunken slut of a mother. And that is
what happened, and they all were very happy ever after, or at least
until the next winter, when they all died of the Small Pox.

Robert Lee

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 4:43:52 PM9/25/03
to

> So...what's wrong with it? I'm pretty competent at finding spelling and
> grammar errors, and I don't see any.

FWIW, Ian, you know I like your fiction, but I wasn't too crazy about
the portion of the Book of the Dead story you posted. Primarily, I
thought you went way overboard on establishing the "THIS IS THE FUTURE,
MAN" stuff. Nothing sets me on edge about a near-future story than
somebody sitting around thinking or saying, for expository reasons,
exactly what nobody would in the setting. It's the old "Well, future
police, before we set out this morning, I need to explain to you exactly
how your equipment and tactics are different than the police readers are
familiar with, even though you're presumably more than familiar with
them" thing.

--Robert

--
Do not sit next to Dennis

WareWolf

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 4:44:35 PM9/25/03
to
azz...@olypen.com wrote in rec.arts.movies.current-films :

Yes, trotsky's great body of published work speaks for itself.

Dr Walpurgis

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 5:16:39 PM9/25/03
to
WareWolf wrote:

> Yes, trotsky's great body of published work speaks for itself.

Possibly the only time you'll ever see the words "trotsky" and "great
body" in the same sentence.

--
"Yes, well, I mean, you know, look..." - Tony Blair giving evidence to
the Hutton Inquiry, 28 Aug 03

Greg P.

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 5:23:52 PM9/25/03
to
"Ian McDowell" <mcdol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a88873e.03092...@posting.google.com...

| Greg will work himself into a fine lather over the fact that the
| narrator is in love with another man.

Dude puke. I'm married first of all. And second, If I wanted to read gay
romance novels I'd start reading Barker's new stuff.


Sean O'Hara

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 5:44:13 PM9/25/03
to
In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful trotsky declared...

> Ian McDowell wrote:
>
> > Dead Loves
> >
> > by Ian McDowell
> >
> > With her own close-cropped mousy hair and no make-up,
>
> Maybe it's just me, but I didn't even have to make it through the first
> sentence to know the writing's bad.
>
How many of your stories have been published?

--
Sean O'Hara
Gibberish in Neutral: http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com/

Ulrich Schreitmueller

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 6:01:56 PM9/25/03
to
Greg P. wrote:

(waits for Coyote to read this post and bite Greg's head off)

Ulrich Schreitmueller

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 6:05:24 PM9/25/03
to
Ulrich Schreitmueller wrote:


Actually, Greg P., you may or may not know, that by "Greg", Ian meant
trotsky, not you.

bod

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 6:23:46 PM9/25/03
to

"Dr Walpurgis" <drwal...@blueyonder.nul> wrote in message
news:oYWdne1lbpm...@giganews.com...

> WareWolf wrote:
>
> > Yes, trotsky's great body of published work speaks for itself.
>
> Possibly the only time you'll ever see the words "trotsky" and "great
> body" in the same sentence.
>

ive probably drunk too much..but its beyond me that no one has posted
"trotsky" and the words "fat packi" in one line!!??

there...i said it!!


--
regards from BOD!

"dont worry yoko, its only a friggin water pist...."
JOHN LENNON 1980

see bod pissing in the wind at...
www.bodland.co.uk the home of bod!


Greg P.

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 6:27:45 PM9/25/03
to
"Ulrich Schreitmueller" <ulrich.sch...@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
wrote in message news:bkvotm$jkb$3...@newsserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de...

| Actually, Greg P., you may or may not know, that by "Greg", Ian meant
| trotsky, not you.

Ah, I see...*tip toes away from conversation*


Franklin Harris

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 8:32:10 PM9/25/03
to

"Greg P." <d...@null.org.not.real> wrote in message
news:BZJcb.3297$RW4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Just one helpful tip offered in all sincerity: Try that tactic more often.

--
Franklin Harris
Pulp Culture Online, www.pulpculture.net
"The truly psychotic don't need to cop an attitude." -- Poppy Z. Brite,
alt.horror, 2/21/03


Franklin Harris

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 8:33:06 PM9/25/03
to

"Dr Walpurgis" <drwal...@blueyonder.nul> wrote in message
news:oYWdne1lbpm...@giganews.com...
> WareWolf wrote:
>
> > Yes, trotsky's great body of published work speaks for itself.
>
> Possibly the only time you'll ever see the words "trotsky" and "great
> body" in the same sentence.

Hmmm. I give it a 7.8.

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 26, 2003, 12:32:54 AM9/26/03
to
Robert Lee <cranch...@snippitydoodah.earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<cranchingwire-49E...@news.east.earthlink.net>...

That's probably one reason why I'm not as good at real science fiction
as I might be, which would be less bothersome if there were as many
pro markets for horror and fantasy short fiction as there are for SF.
Even those decently paying venues open to both, like THE MAGAZINE OF
FANTASY AND SCIENCE FICTION, tend to be overstocked with the former
and understocked with the latter. Otoh, I probably shouldn't
grumble, since I sold a whopping long novella to Gardner Dozois at
ASIMOV'S SCIENCE FICTION, a market that most fantasy writers (not
surprisingly) never manage to crack. Indeed, Gardner has bought three
of the five stories I've sent him, and only one of them was SF by any
definition (it's since been reprinted in the ASIMOV'S anthology
DINOSAURS 2 -- it's both a satire on Barney and a tribute to FASTER
PUSSY CAT, KILL KILL star Tura Satana).

"Dead Loves" actually has the same basic idea as Michael Swanwick's
"The Dead," which (iirc) got a Nebula nomination after it appeared in
STARLIGHT 1. That's one reason why, unlike Poppy Z. Brite, Caitlin
Kiernan and some of the other disgruntled contributors to what would
have been the third BOOK OF THE DEAD, I've never pulled the story and
tried to sell it elsewhere. God knows, Swanwick handled his
near-future exposition better than me. Otoh, he didn't have a zombie
Dolly Parton in his opening scene.

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 26, 2003, 12:35:10 AM9/26/03
to
"Greg P." <d...@null.org.not.real> wrote:

Dude, wrong Greg! But thanks for your feedback upstream.

Robert Lee

unread,
Sep 26, 2003, 1:04:05 AM9/26/03
to
In article <6a88873e.03092...@posting.google.com>,
mcdol...@hotmail.com (Ian McDowell) wrote:

> Otoh, I probably shouldn't
> grumble, since I sold a whopping long novella to Gardner Dozois at
> ASIMOV'S SCIENCE FICTION, a market that most fantasy writers (not
> surprisingly) never manage to crack.

That's impressive...I didn't know that.

> Indeed, Gardner has bought three
> of the five stories I've sent him, and only one of them was SF by any
> definition (it's since been reprinted in the ASIMOV'S anthology
> DINOSAURS 2 -- it's both a satire on Barney and a tribute to FASTER
> PUSSY CAT, KILL KILL star Tura Satana).

Well, now I have to go dig another story up to read--thanks, Ian.

> "Dead Loves" actually has the same basic idea as Michael Swanwick's
> "The Dead," which (iirc) got a Nebula nomination after it appeared in
> STARLIGHT 1. That's one reason why, unlike Poppy Z. Brite, Caitlin
> Kiernan and some of the other disgruntled contributors to what would
> have been the third BOOK OF THE DEAD, I've never pulled the story and
> tried to sell it elsewhere. God knows, Swanwick handled his
> near-future exposition better than me. Otoh, he didn't have a zombie
> Dolly Parton in his opening scene.

That's who she was supposed to be? I kept wondering, sure that the hints
the body was a famous one were supposed to be leading me to some
realization about it.

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 26, 2003, 1:24:24 AM9/26/03
to
trotsky <gms...@email.com> burbled (about BOOK OF THE DEAD 3, aka
MONDO ZOMBIE):

> Yes, it's a pity that the book was doomed by the mad editor and
> such--kind of reminds me of the mad Arab who purportedly authored the
> Necronomicon. So much so, in fact, that I think we just have a story
> within a story. But Ian not being forthcoming with the truth--is such a
> thing possible?

Greg probably doesn't care, but for the benefit of others who might
here's a bit of the background. MONDO ZOMBIE may not have been
"doomed" -- according to ads like this one, it's still coming out:

http://www.bloodlettingbooks.com/mozoedbyjosk2.html

However, it's probably fair to call it "cursed." The story is fairly
well known in horror circles, where the much-delayed anthology has
been compared to Harlan Ellison's legendary (and, as Christopher
Priest and others have pretty conclusively proved,
never-ever-to-be-published, no matter what Harlan says) THE LAST
DANGEROUS VISIONS.

The two existing BOOK OF THE DEAD anthologies were key texts of the
"splatterpunk" movement of the 80s, just as their editors, John Skipp
and Craig Spector, were two of the key authors. John and Craig were
childhood friends who collaborated on six novels (seven if you count
the novelization of FRIGHT NIGHT) and the screenplay to NIGHTMARE ON
ELM STREET 5. I met them at the first World Horror Convention in
1991, where I also met Poppy Z. Brite, whose early reputation was made
with her BOOK OF THE DEAD 2 story "Calcutta, Lord of Nerves" (imho the
best piece of writing either John or Craig was ever associated with).
One of my fondest memories is of touring Nashville's Elvis museum with
John, Craig, Poppy, the writer Ed Bryant (who bought the last Elvis
pillbox on sale in the giftshop, damn him) and John's wife Marianne,
whom some of you may recall as the 80s porn star Kelly Nichols.

John and Craig bonded with both me and my ex-girlfriend Anne, and
solicited stories from both of us for the upcoming BOOK OF THE DEAD 3.
As the first two BOOKs OF THE DEAD had made a lot of money for Bantam
books and earned their contributors decent royalties (rare with
anthologies, where usually you get an advance and that's it), this
seemed like a good break.

However, John and Craig's longtime friendship and business
relationship ended soon after that. The details remain murky, but
John freely admits to having "gone insane" for a time. They parted
ways with Bantam Books as well as with each other, and somehow the
promised BOOK OF THE DEAD 3 became two separate volumes, one edited
solely by John and one edited soley by Craig.

The latter got a deal with a company called Sepulchre House for his
version of the anthology. My story had already been accepted by John,
but John was completely incommunicado at the time and Craig said it
had never been passed on to him. I sent it to him, he accepted it and
I even got paid a few hundred bucks. But then he and Sepulchre House
got into some kind of silly pissing contest over the order of the
stories. One of them, about zombies eating the Royal Family, was
allegedly by Clive Barker (although his friend Steve Niles apparently
did all the actual writing). The publisher wanted that story to come
first, Barker being the biggest name in the book, but Craig, who felt
the story wasn't the strongest of the bunch, disagreed, and the deal
fell apart.

A couple of years later, both editors had a new deal with White Wolf,
the Atlanta-based publisher and gaming company that was then flush
with the money they'd made from VAMPIRE: THE MASQUERADE. The plan was
what they were going to publish two separate omnibus titles, THE ART
OF GORE 1 and THE ART OF GORE 2, both half-reprint and half-original.
THE ART OF GORE 1 was to contain both the contents of BOOK OF THE DEAD
1 (including Stephen King's story) and the unpublished BOOK OF THE
DEAD 3, and would be Craig's baby. It was to be followed a few months
later by THE ART OF GORE 2, which would be John's, and would include
both BOOK OF THE DEAD 2 and the stories that John had solicited for
BOOK OF THE DEAD 4 after he and Craig went their separate ways.
Confused yet?

I believe that THE ART OF GORE 1 was set in type (I definitely saw
galleys) and may even have been printed. But then there was a
dismaying revelation. Not only were the contributors to the original
editions of BOOK OF THE DEAD 1 and 2 owed substantial back royalties
that they'd never been paid, but nobody had sent them contracts or
gotten their approval for reprinting their work in these new volumes.
This sounds particularly incredible when one realizes that, not only
did the contributors include Stephen King, the most powerful writer in
America, but Douglas Winter, a skilled and successful lawyer. White
Wolf Books was, to put it mildly, embarassed by this turn of events,
which almost saw them publishing stories to which they'd never
acquired the rights.

If THE ART OF GORE 1 was actually printed, it was pulped. John and
Craig blamed first each other for this turn of events, then their
agents, saying they thought the rights situation had been cleared long
ago. Not surprisingly, White Wolf didn't want to have anything to do
with either of them or their project after that. For a time, nobody
heard of either one of them.

Then, a couple of years later, John Skipp resurfaced. He was
apologetic about the whole mess, assumed responsiblity for it, and
said that he'd been in therapy and was in a much better mental place
now. I saw him at the World Fantasy Convention that year and found
him lucid and charming. With persistence, he was able to wrangle a
deal with Matt Johnson of Obsidian Books, a specialty press devoted to
horror, for what had now become MONDO ZOMBIE. I was paid yet again
for my work, and Matt even commissionsed an illustration by me (after
he saw my work in the art show at the World Horror Convention in
Atlanta), depicting the undead country music superstar described at
the beginning of the story. He paid me for that, too.

The book was definitely set in type -- an ex-girlfriend of mine did
some freelance copyediting for Obsidian, and said she'd proofed the
galleys. But then Matt Johnson went through a very expensive divorce
and all his publishing plans were put on hold.

Once again, the project was in limbo. In the very late 90s, rumors
circulated that Richard Chizmar of Cemetery Dance Publications had
picked it up. Richard was undergoing treatment for cancer at this
time (iirc), and a couple of issues of his magazine were delayed, but
I don't know what it did to his book publishing schedule. A third
party has said, in another online forum, that the manuscript was a
mess and needed to be copy-edited and typeset, which suggests that the
work that was done in that regard for Obsidian Books was never turned
over to CD Publications. However, the latter has it on their schedule
for late this year.

So, maybe, just maybe, a book that was supposed to appear in 1993 will
come out in 2003. However, I'm not holding my breath.

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 26, 2003, 9:49:54 AM9/26/03
to
Robert Lee <cranch...@snippitydoodah.earthlink.net> wrote:

> mcdol...@hotmail.com (Ian McDowell) wrote:
>
> > Otoh, I probably shouldn't
> > grumble, since I sold a whopping long novella to Gardner Dozois at
> > ASIMOV'S SCIENCE FICTION, a market that most fantasy writers (not
> > surprisingly) never manage to crack.
>
> That's impressive...I didn't know that.

I've mentioned it in one of the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN threads on
rec.arts.current-films, but not on alt.horror. "Under the Flag of
Night" is about the real-life female pirate Anne Bonny (the kind of
person writers love, who drops completely out of history, leaving one
free to invent her fate), Blackbeard's preserved head, an English
Cunning Man named Tobias Constantine (the novella is based on a
Captain Fear mini-series I once, at Neil Gaiman's recommendation,
pitched to Vertigo comics), 18th Century "Natural and Scientific
Magick" and the Black Cauldron of Celtic legend. Because of its
length, Gardner took a while to schedule it and it's not appearing
until February or March of next year. If he'd ran it a month or two
ago, he could have put an undead pirate on the cover (the preserved
corpse of Captain Kidd is dunked in the Black Cauldron at one point),
which might have sold a few more copies of that issue.

Not that I can complain, because here's a good example of why the SF
market is less frustrating than the horror one. WEIRD TALES, CEMETERY
DANCE, the now defunct gothic.net and the new H. P. LOVECRAFT'S
MAGAZINE OF HORROR all pay 3-4 cents a word. ASIMOV'S, F&SF and
ANALOG pay 5-8 cents a word and www.scifi.com pays a whopping 22 cents
a word. The horror 'zines come out sporadically, whereas the SF ones
are on monthly schedules. WEIRD TALES and CEMETERY DANCE each took
well over a year to respond to the last stories I sent them (which
they accepted, but still!). ASIMOV'S took less than a month. All of
the markets for short horror fiction pay "on publication", which means
at least 30 days from the date the issue appears on the stands, and in
the case of my last sale to WEIRD TALES, didn't happen until my agent
sent a very stiff note to the editors (Fred Chappell, who was in the
same issue as me, apparently hasn't been paid yet, and it's been a
year). Although ASIMOV'S won't be publishing "Under the Flag of
Night" for some months, I got my check a year ago.

Sigh. If only I were a more SFnal kind of guy.

Sean O'Hara

unread,
Sep 26, 2003, 10:54:49 AM9/26/03
to
In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Ian McDowell declared...

>
> That's probably one reason why I'm not as good at real science fiction
> as I might be, which would be less bothersome if there were as many
> pro markets for horror and fantasy short fiction as there are for SF.
> Even those decently paying venues open to both, like THE MAGAZINE OF
> FANTASY AND SCIENCE FICTION, tend to be overstocked with the former
> and understocked with the latter.
>
And on top of that, many of the smaller-but-supposedly-professionally-
paying markets have really low length requirements -- I just checked
Ralan.com and found six with a limit under 4k words before I even
reached the Es.

azz...@olypen.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2003, 3:51:05 PM9/26/03
to

Ian McDowell wrote:

(snip touching holiday story)

That was very lovely. I was so moved. But why do I keep seeing Terry
Jones and Eric Idle in the children's roles?

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 6:19:14 AM9/27/03
to
Dr Walpurgis wrote:

> WareWolf wrote:
>
> > Yes, trotsky's great body of published work speaks for itself.
>
>
> Possibly the only time you'll ever see the words "trotsky" and "great
> body" in the same sentence.

Spoken like a true anonymouse.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 6:21:54 AM9/27/03
to
Ian McDowell wrote:

> And here's another tidbit. This one was in WEIRD TALES last Fall and
> I don't want to upset the editor of the anthology that's reprinting it
> by posting the whole thing, but here's the opening snippet. I'm sure
> Greg will work himself into a fine lather over the fact that the
> narrator is in love with another man.

I doubt it's possible to get worked up by a piece of your writing at
all. Unless one considers watching paint dry exciting, that is.
Ultimately, what one considers to be good and not good is subjective,
but I doubt those with knowledge of great fiction would really find your
work the least bit interesting. Just a guess, of course.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 6:26:01 AM9/27/03
to
azz...@olypen.com wrote:

Ian's use of the language is fine on a grammatical level, but
stylistically I think he's awful. His rhetoric is boring, stodgy,
staid, and stoic, and I think he knows it, too, but because he's an
intellectually dishonest person he won't admit it. In addition, I'm
sure if I was paid top dollar to read his boring stuff, I could find
numerous conceptual mistakes like I did in the first piece. This part
Ian doesn't seem to realize, which is why he totally copped out when I
tried to get him to discuss it.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 6:27:01 AM9/27/03
to
Ian McDowell wrote:

> And because we should keep Christmas in our hearts 365 days a year,
> here's a bit of early Yuletide cheer I wrote as as a holiday card for
> friends a few years ago, just as I did with "The Turkey."
>
>
> The Greatest Gift:
> A tale for Christmas
>
> by Ian Keith McDowell
>


Suddenly Ian's garnered a middle name. More pretense.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 6:28:36 AM9/27/03
to
WareWolf wrote:

> azz...@olypen.com wrote in rec.arts.movies.current-films :
>
> >
> >trotsky wrote:
> >
> >>Ian McDowell wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Sorry to have been out of the phosphor loop for a week, but between
> >>>going to the mountains last weekend, catching the crud , taking care
> >>>of Lily while she had the crud, and turning in a DVD review column,
> >>>I've been too busy to toss more bones at Greg.
> >>
> >>
> >>Maybe it's just me, but I didn't even have to make it through the first
> >>sentence to know the writing's bad.
> >>
> >
> >So...what's wrong with it? I'm pretty competent at finding spelling and
> >grammar errors, and I don't see any. Of course, you ARE the expert...or
> >so you say.
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes, trotsky's great body of published work speaks for itself.

I think history will bear out that my creative efforts are better
received than Ian's. That's just the facts, dude.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 6:30:03 AM9/27/03
to
Greg P. wrote:

> "Ian McDowell" wrote in message


> news:6a88873e.03092...@posting.google.com...
> | Greg will work himself into a fine lather over the fact that the
> | narrator is in love with another man.
>
> Dude puke. I'm married first of all. And second, If I wanted to read gay
> romance novels I'd start reading Barker's new stuff.

See that, Ian? Your perfect target audience.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 6:31:14 AM9/27/03
to
Ulrich Schreitmueller wrote:

> Greg P. wrote:
>
> > "Ian McDowell" wrote in message


> > news:6a88873e.03092...@posting.google.com...
> > | Greg will work himself into a fine lather over the fact that the
> > | narrator is in love with another man.
> >
> > Dude puke. I'm married first of all. And second, If I wanted to read gay
> > romance novels I'd start reading Barker's new stuff.
> >
>
> (waits for Coyote to read this post and bite Greg's head off)
>


Are you cognizant of how many Gregs are in the mix here?

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 6:31:49 AM9/27/03
to
Ulrich Schreitmueller wrote:

> Ulrich Schreitmueller wrote:
>
> > Greg P. wrote:
> >

> >> "Ian McDowell" wrote in message


> >> news:6a88873e.03092...@posting.google.com...
> >> | Greg will work himself into a fine lather over the fact that the
> >> | narrator is in love with another man.
> >>
> >> Dude puke. I'm married first of all. And second, If I wanted to
> read gay
> >> romance novels I'd start reading Barker's new stuff.
> >>
> >
> > (waits for Coyote to read this post and bite Greg's head off)
>
>
>
> Actually, Greg P., you may or may not know, that by "Greg", Ian meant
> trotsky, not you.
>


Oh, I guess you are.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 6:33:38 AM9/27/03
to
bod wrote:

> "Dr Walpurgis" wrote in message


> news:oYWdne1lbpm...@giganews.com...
>
> >WareWolf wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Yes, trotsky's great body of published work speaks for itself.
> >
> >Possibly the only time you'll ever see the words "trotsky" and "great
> >body" in the same sentence.
> >
>
>
> ive probably drunk too much..but its beyond me that no one has posted
> "trotsky" and the words "fat packi" in one line!!??
>
> there...i said it!!

"bod", you anonymous, drunk piece of dog's mess, how good of you to ring
in. Just for the record, how many times are you going to be "through"
talking about me? "Dusty", you can feel free to answer this question
too, you hypocrite.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 6:38:19 AM9/27/03
to
Ian McDowell wrote:

> trotsky burbled (about BOOK OF THE DEAD 3, aka


> MONDO ZOMBIE):
>
>
> >Yes, it's a pity that the book was doomed by the mad editor and
> >such--kind of reminds me of the mad Arab who purportedly authored the
> >Necronomicon. So much so, in fact, that I think we just have a story
> >within a story. But Ian not being forthcoming with the truth--is such a
> >thing possible?
>
>
> Greg probably doesn't care,

Which Greg? You should know enough to specify this by now.


> but for the benefit of others who might
> here's a bit of the background. MONDO ZOMBIE may not have been
> "doomed" -- according to ads like this one, it's still coming out:


<snip>

Ulrich Schreitmueller

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 9:33:33 AM9/27/03
to
trotsky wrote:


Frankly, either suits me at the moment.

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 11:48:40 AM9/27/03
to
trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote in message news:<VBddb.5106$RW4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

Since this doesn't address the body of the story, I can get by on a
technicality and respond. You're surprised that the byline on a story
called "The Greatest Gift: a Tale for Christmas," not to mention "The
Tender Ducklings, The Little Lame Angel and Other Yuletide Favorites,"
contains a middle name? Would you have gotten the joke if it was
signed "Ian Keith McDowell, Esq."?

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 12:27:40 PM9/27/03
to
More data points for the loquacious large-breasted Gregory M. Singh,
Scourge of Usenet.

My MERLIN'S GIFT begins with the sentence "None of this would have
happened if Guinevere's little sister hadn't grown a penis." In both
that book and its predecessor, MORDRED'S CURSE, Merlin is an immortal
yet preternaturally aged boy and the former catamite of Uther
Pendragon, Arthur's father.

"Geraldine," my novella in Poppy Z. Brite's popular anthology LOVE IN
VEIN, begins with "Chris awoke from a dream about her father's penis
to find Joey fucking her from behind" (one Usenet rumor has claimed my
story, or at least its opening sentence, as the main reason that book
was temporarily removed from K-Mart shelves).

The viewpoint character in "Geraldine" is a woman, and the story is
about a lesbian vampire who induces and feeds on miscarriages. "In
the Murrins," quoted elsewhere, is narrated by a gay man. "Making
Faces," which is upcoming in both the anthology CROSSROADS: STORIES OF
THE SOUTHERN FANTASTIC (Tor, Spring 2004) and the magazine CEMETERY
DANCE, is narrated by a teenage girl. The viewpoint character in
"Under the Flag of Night," the pirate fantasy I have upcoming in
ASIMOV'S SCIENCE FICTION, is a woman and the male lead, Tobias
Constantine, is the former lover of the villain, Captain Edmund Love.
The viewpoint character in "Sunflowers," my novella in Ellen Datlow's
fantasy and sf anthology VANISHING ACTS, is a woman. The viewpoint
character in "On the Dark Road," my short story that was reprinted in
THE YEAR'S BEST HORROR, is a heterosexuall male, but he's weak and
indecisive and dominated by his girlfriend Monica. The Tom Savini
inspired protaganist of "Dead Loves" is hetero, but he ends up cutting
off his own penis and feeding it to his zombie girlfriend. My popular
ASIMOV'S story "Some Old Lover's Ghost" (most recently reprinted in
ASIMOV'S GHOSTS) is a lesbian Christmas ghost story.

I write more often about women than about men, and while castration
isn't the most common theme or motif in my work (that would be the
eating of fetuses or young babies), it seems to be a recurring one
(the penis mentioned in the first sentence of MERLIN'S GIFT is
eventually bitten off).

There, I've given Greg S. more grist for his fun psychoanalytical
rants while sparring him the horror of actually having to read my
prose. Who says I'm not a nice guy?

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 12:43:45 PM9/27/03
to
trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

> Ian's use of the language is fine on a grammatical level, but
> stylistically I think he's awful. His rhetoric is boring, stodgy,

> staid, and stoic . . .

Point of clarification: how is "stoic" equivalent or related to
"boring," "stodgy," or "staid"? How is it a term of opprobrium at
all?

A regular disciple of Zeno, that's me.

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 1:09:07 PM9/27/03
to
trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote in message news:<6Iddb.5113$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

I'm far from the first to point this out, but the sarcastic quotation
marks around Dusty's name are pure hypocrisy from anyone signing
himself "Trotsky."
I doubt Greg's mother or sister calls him "Trotsky" and his former
co-workers sure didn't (we can't speculate on what his friends call
him, since he doesn't have any). But Dusty's friends, relatives and
readers presumably call him Dusty.
It's actually part of his published byline ("Dusty Rhoades") and may
be related to the "D" in the notice "Copyright 2003 by Jerry D.
Rhoades, Jr." that appears at the bottom of his columns. Each of
Dusty's posts has a link to his homepage, where one can find his full
name, his profession, his latest column and his location . The
implication that he's hiding behind some cloak of contemptible
anonymity is indicative of either really careless reading or sheer
mendacity.

And if Dusty does respond, Greg will simply accuse him of joining the
"nigger pile," one of his favorite rejoinders to online opponents.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 2:48:07 PM9/27/03
to
Ian McDowell wrote:

> trotsky wrote in message news:...


>
> >Ian McDowell wrote:
> >
> >
> >>And because we should keep Christmas in our hearts 365 days a year,
> >>here's a bit of early Yuletide cheer I wrote as as a holiday card for
> >>friends a few years ago, just as I did with "The Turkey."
> >>
> >>
> >>The Greatest Gift:
> >>A tale for Christmas
> >>
> >>by Ian Keith McDowell
> >>
> >
> >
> >Suddenly Ian's garnered a middle name. More pretense.
>
>
> Since this doesn't address the body of the story, I can get by on a
> technicality and respond. You're surprised that the byline on a story
> called "The Greatest Gift: a Tale for Christmas," not to mention "The
> Tender Ducklings, The Little Lame Angel and Other Yuletide Favorites,"
> contains a middle name? Would you have gotten the joke if it was
> signed "Ian Keith McDowell, Esq."?

It depends: are you acknowledging that you're the joke?

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 3:02:15 PM9/27/03
to
Ian McDowell wrote:

> More data points for the loquacious large-breasted Gregory M. Singh,
> Scourge of Usenet.
>
> My MERLIN'S GIFT begins with the sentence "None of this would have
> happened if Guinevere's little sister hadn't grown a penis."

So some stories contain "dick" and "hard-on", while others contain
"penis". Hasn't anybody given you any feedback on how to stay on the
same page stylistically? Honestly, Ian, I'm surprised you're not more
embarrassed about your lack of style. One too many pats on the back
from the pocket protector crowd, I guess.


> In both
> that book and its predecessor, MORDRED'S CURSE, Merlin is an immortal
> yet preternaturally aged boy and the former catamite of Uther
> Pendragon, Arthur's father.


Wow, that works about as well as Monty Python's "Summarize Proust"
competition.


>
>
> "Geraldine," my novella in Poppy Z. Brite's popular anthology LOVE IN
> VEIN, begins with "Chris awoke from a dream about her father's penis
> to find Joey fucking her from behind" (one Usenet rumor has claimed my
> story, or at least its opening sentence, as the main reason that book
> was temporarily removed from K-Mart shelves).

At least you can honestly state your writing contributes to lack of sales.


>
>
> The viewpoint character


"Viewpoint character"? There can be only one, like Highlander?
"Rashomon" must have had you all confused.

<snip>

Honestly, Ian, I tried reading to the end of the post right now, but
couldn't. I didn't get much sleep last night, and your posts are very
sleep-inducing. I'm trying to cheer the Cubbies on to the playoffs
(that's baseball, in case you and the pocket protector guys were
wondering) while noodling around on Usenet, and you're not helping
matters at all.

Serious question: do you really think you writing doesn't suffer from
major problems stylistically?

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 3:04:25 PM9/27/03
to
Ian McDowell wrote:

Stoic doesn't necessarily fit, except to add to the alliteration of the
dipthong "st". Do I have my terminology correct? I know you're good at
stuff like that. Meanwhile, I'll continue to load up on style points.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 3:10:50 PM9/27/03
to
Ian McDowell wrote:

> trotsky wrote in message

> news:<6Iddb.5113$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
> >bod wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Dr Walpurgis" wrote in message
> >>news:oYWdne1lbpm...@giganews.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>>WareWolf wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Yes, trotsky's great body of published work speaks for itself.
> >>>
> >>>Possibly the only time you'll ever see the words "trotsky" and "great
> >>>body" in the same sentence.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>ive probably drunk too much..but its beyond me that no one has posted
> >>"trotsky" and the words "fat packi" in one line!!??
> >>
> >>there...i said it!!
> >
> >
> >
> >"bod", you anonymous, drunk piece of dog's mess, how good of you to ring
> >in. Just for the record, how many times are you going to be "through"
> >talking about me? "Dusty", you can feel free to answer this question
> >too, you hypocrite.
>
>
> I'm far from the first to point this out, but the sarcastic quotation
> marks around Dusty's name are pure hypocrisy from anyone signing
> himself "Trotsky."

Ian, you sound desperate. You post all kinds of personal info. about me
and then resort to this? Be consistent, you dumb sack of shit, and post
"Dusty's" home address and phone number and then I'll be force to remove
the quotation marks. You just stuck yourself in quicksand and are too
dumb to realize it, hypocrite.

>
> I doubt Greg's mother or sister calls him "Trotsky" and his former
> co-workers sure didn't (we can't speculate on what his friends call
> him, since he doesn't have any). But Dusty's friends, relatives and
> readers presumably call him Dusty.
> It's actually part of his published byline ("Dusty Rhoades") and may
> be related to the "D" in the notice "Copyright 2003 by Jerry D.
> Rhoades, Jr." that appears at the bottom of his columns. Each of
> Dusty's posts has a link to his homepage, where one can find his full
> name, his profession, his latest column and his location . The
> implication that he's hiding behind some cloak of contemptible
> anonymity is indicative of either really careless reading or sheer
> mendacity.
>
> And if Dusty does respond, Greg will simply accuse him of joining the
> "nigger pile," one of his favorite rejoinders to online opponents.


Actually, one of my favorite rejoinders is "Zzzzz", which is never more
fitting than after one of your points. "Nigger pile" I've used maybe
half a dozen times, and is a good euphemism from the mob mentality you
seem to thrive on. I guess you're being a hypocrite again, playing to
the worst attributes of human nature while out of the other side of your
mouth complaining about my online persona. You strike me as having some
very deep rooted character flaws. How many times have you attempted
suicide?

Sean O'Hara

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 3:30:39 PM9/27/03
to
In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful trotsky declared...

> Ian McDowell wrote:
>
> > by Ian Keith McDowell
> >
> Suddenly Ian's garnered a middle name. More pretense.
>
No, pretense would be writing as I. Keith McDowell.

WareWolf

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 3:26:53 PM9/27/03
to
Ian McDowell wrote in rec.arts.movies.current-films :

> trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote in message news:<6Iddb.5113$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > bod wrote:
> >
> > > "Dr Walpurgis" wrote in message
> > > news:oYWdne1lbpm...@giganews.com...
> > >
> > > >WareWolf wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Yes, trotsky's great body of published work speaks for itself.
> > > >
> > > >Possibly the only time you'll ever see the words "trotsky" and "great
> > > >body" in the same sentence.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ive probably drunk too much..but its beyond me that no one has posted
> > > "trotsky" and the words "fat packi" in one line!!??
> > >
> > > there...i said it!!
> >
> >
> >
> > "bod", you anonymous, drunk piece of dog's mess, how good of you to ring
> > in. Just for the record, how many times are you going to be "through"
> > talking about me? "Dusty", you can feel free to answer this question
> > too, you hypocrite.
>
> I'm far from the first to point this out, but the sarcastic quotation
> marks around Dusty's name are pure hypocrisy from anyone signing
> himself "Trotsky."
> I doubt Greg's mother or sister calls him "Trotsky" and his former
> co-workers sure didn't (we can't speculate on what his friends call
> him, since he doesn't have any). But Dusty's friends, relatives and
> readers presumably call him Dusty.

Some of the readers call me other things, but that's neither here nor
there.

> It's actually part of his published byline ("Dusty Rhoades") and may
> be related to the "D" in the notice "Copyright 2003 by Jerry D.
> Rhoades, Jr." that appears at the bottom of his columns.


Actually, the "D" doesn't stand for Dusty. My middle name is Delano.
(Grandpa really liked Roosevelt.)

> Each of
> Dusty's posts has a link to his homepage, where one can find his full
> name, his profession, his latest column and his location . The
> implication that he's hiding behind some cloak of contemptible
> anonymity is indicative of either really careless reading or sheer
> mendacity.

I'm going with the mendacity thing. I've told him before that it's my
actual name (at least a widely used nickname), but he continues to treat it
like a pseudonym.


>
> And if Dusty does respond, Greg will simply accuse him of joining the
> "nigger pile," one of his favorite rejoinders to online opponents.


Well I'm not responding directly to trots...he's like most large, obscure
and dense objects far out in space, in that I can only detect his presence
by his effects on other nearby objects.

Dusty

--
This Week's column:
http://dusty.booksnbytes.com/columns/2003/2003_0921.html

Sean O'Hara

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 3:59:18 PM9/27/03
to
In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful trotsky declared...
> Ian McDowell wrote:
>
> > More data points for the loquacious large-breasted Gregory M. Singh,
> > Scourge of Usenet.
> >
> > My MERLIN'S GIFT begins with the sentence "None of this would have
> > happened if Guinevere's little sister hadn't grown a penis."
>
> So some stories contain "dick" and "hard-on", while others contain
> "penis". Hasn't anybody given you any feedback on how to stay on the
> same page stylistically?

Yeah, Trots, you tell him! Using a different style for different
stories is such a sign of bad writing! That's why I hate Huckleberry
Finn -- Mark Twain used a completely different style from the rest
of his works. And don't even get me started on James Joyce -- the
hack couldn't even use the same style all the way through Ulysses.

> > "Geraldine," my novella in Poppy Z. Brite's popular anthology LOVE IN
> > VEIN, begins with "Chris awoke from a dream about her father's penis
> > to find Joey fucking her from behind" (one Usenet rumor has claimed my
> > story, or at least its opening sentence, as the main reason that book
> > was temporarily removed from K-Mart shelves).
>
> At least you can honestly state your writing contributes to lack of sales.
>

Yeah, I mean look at how being pulled from Wal-Mart hurt Sheryl
Crow's sales.

> > The viewpoint character
>
> "Viewpoint character"? There can be only one, like Highlander?
> "Rashomon" must have had you all confused.
>

Yeah, only awful writers like Salinger and Fitzgerald keep the
same POV character for an entire book.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 10:49:15 PM9/27/03
to
WareWolf wrote:

> Ian McDowell wrote in rec.arts.movies.current-films :
>

> >trotsky wrote in message


As stated previously, Ian and the facts are mostly just strangers.

>
>

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 10:50:55 PM9/27/03
to
Sean O'Hara wrote:

> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful trotsky declared...
>
> >Ian McDowell wrote:
> >
> >
> >>by Ian Keith McDowell
> >>
> >
> >Suddenly Ian's garnered a middle name. More pretense.
> >
>
> No, pretense would be writing as I. Keith McDowell.
>

Sean, I had no idea we were back on speaking terms. Your "scathing
indictments" need to be a little better than tepid, I guess.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 10:56:34 PM9/27/03
to
Sean O'Hara wrote:

> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful trotsky declared...
>
> >Ian McDowell wrote:
> >
> >
> >>More data points for the loquacious large-breasted Gregory M. Singh,
> >>Scourge of Usenet.
> >>
> >>My MERLIN'S GIFT begins with the sentence "None of this would have
> >>happened if Guinevere's little sister hadn't grown a penis."
> >
> >So some stories contain "dick" and "hard-on", while others contain
> >"penis". Hasn't anybody given you any feedback on how to stay on the
> >same page stylistically?
>
>
> Yeah, Trots, you tell him! Using a different style for different
> stories is such a sign of bad writing!

Can you show me where he's used "different styles", mental midget?


> That's why I hate Huckleberry
> Finn -- Mark Twain used a completely different style from the rest
> of his works. And don't even get me started on James Joyce -- the
> hack couldn't even use the same style all the way through Ulysses.

If you're comparing Ian "Keith" McDowell to either Mark Twain or James
Joyce you're an even bigger asshole than I thought. How do people get
this fucked up?

>
>
>
> >>"Geraldine," my novella in Poppy Z. Brite's popular anthology LOVE IN
> >>VEIN, begins with "Chris awoke from a dream about her father's penis
> >>to find Joey fucking her from behind" (one Usenet rumor has claimed my
> >>story, or at least its opening sentence, as the main reason that book
> >>was temporarily removed from K-Mart shelves).
> >
> >At least you can honestly state your writing contributes to lack of
> sales.
> >
>
> Yeah, I mean look at how being pulled from Wal-Mart hurt Sheryl
> Crow's sales.

Yeah, that's an apt analogy. If your brain's been removed, I mean.


> >>The viewpoint character
> >
> >"Viewpoint character"? There can be only one, like Highlander?
> >"Rashomon" must have had you all confused.
> >
>
> Yeah, only awful writers like Salinger and Fitzgerald keep the
> same POV character for an entire book.

Sorry, Sean, but referring to a character as "the viewpoint character"
is just another bit of bad writing, because it's open to
misinterpretation. Regardless, you're just trolling anyway, and don't
have the mental acuity to be in this discussion, right?

Ian McDowell

unread,
Sep 27, 2003, 11:56:41 PM9/27/03
to
One response before I'm out the door for the night.

Sean O'Hara <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote:

> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful trotsky declared:



> > At least you can honestly state your writing contributes to lack of sales.
> >
> Yeah, I mean look at how being pulled from Wal-Mart hurt Sheryl
> Crow's sales.

If the K-Mart "ban" on Poppy Z. Brite's LOVE IN VEIN actually
happened, it wasn't for very long, and I honestly don't know whether
or not my story was a major reason for it, much as I'd like to believe
it was (my only evidence for this pleasing claim is a post that Poppy
once forwarded me from alt.gothic). But whatever else one says about
that anthology, "lack of sales" doesn't apply. Over a decade later,
it's still going strong. You don't expect to earn royalties on short
fiction; in most cases, you get the advance and that's it. But
"Geraldine" has brought in several thousand dollars and the checks are
still coming.

Of course, the book's popularity is less due to my contribution and
more to Poppy's name, the sexy cover illustration and the "thirteen
tales of vampire erotica" subtitle. However, both Poppy and her
husband Chris have told me that people keep telling them it's their
favorite story in the book, and I'm still getting a couple of fannish
"hey, are you the Ian McDowell who wrote 'Geraldine'?" emails a year.
These are mostly from earnest young gothgirls, but sometimes from
academics (not necessarily a recommendation, I know), and now the damn
thing is turning up on college syllabi. Here's the most recent
example:

http://home.earthlink.net/~junepulliam/2123vampiresyllabus.htm

It's also the only thing I've ever written that got me laid.

> > > The viewpoint character
> >
> > "Viewpoint character"? There can be only one, like Highlander?
> > "Rashomon" must have had you all confused.
> >
> Yeah, only awful writers like Salinger and Fitzgerald keep the
> same POV character for an entire book.

Some of my fiction is written in the first person, some in third
person limited, but for whatever reason I've never strayed from a
single POV, not even in the novels.

Sean O'Hara

unread,
Sep 28, 2003, 12:09:03 AM9/28/03
to
In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful trotsky declared...
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>
> > >So some stories contain "dick" and "hard-on", while others contain
> > >"penis". Hasn't anybody given you any feedback on how to stay on the
> > >same page stylistically?
> >
> > Yeah, Trots, you tell him! Using a different style for different
> > stories is such a sign of bad writing!
>
> Can you show me where he's used "different styles", mental midget?
>
I'm referring to *your* criticism that McDowell can't "stay on the
same page stylistically" because he used different words for
genetalia in different stories.

If you can't follow your own arguments, how do you expect us to?

> > That's why I hate Huckleberry
> > Finn -- Mark Twain used a completely different style from the rest
> > of his works. And don't even get me started on James Joyce -- the
> > hack couldn't even use the same style all the way through Ulysses.
>
> If you're comparing Ian "Keith" McDowell

What the fuck is up with your need to put people's real names in
quotes?

> to either Mark Twain or James
> Joyce you're an even bigger asshole than I thought. How do people get
> this fucked up?
>

I'm not comparing quality, only pointing out that McDowell's not
the only writer to vary his style from work to work.

> > >At least you can honestly state your writing contributes to lack of
> > sales.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, I mean look at how being pulled from Wal-Mart hurt Sheryl
> > Crow's sales.
>
> Yeah, that's an apt analogy. If your brain's been removed, I mean.
>

You made the claim that having a book pulled by a *-Mart diminishes
sales. I pointed out where it doesn't.

> > >>The viewpoint character
> > >
> > >"Viewpoint character"? There can be only one, like Highlander?
> > >"Rashomon" must have had you all confused.
> >
> > Yeah, only awful writers like Salinger and Fitzgerald keep the
> > same POV character for an entire book.
>
> Sorry, Sean, but referring to a character as "the viewpoint character"
> is just another bit of bad writing, because it's open to
> misinterpretation.

It's open to misinterpretation from gits who don't know what they're
talking about. Everyone with a rudimentary knowledge of literary
mechanics knows exactly what a POV character is.

Sean O'Hara

unread,
Sep 28, 2003, 12:10:14 AM9/28/03
to
In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful trotsky declared...
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
> > No, pretense would be writing as I. Keith McDowell.
>
> Sean, I had no idea we were back on speaking terms.

We've never been off speaking terms, Greggy-poo.

> Your "scathing
> indictments" need to be a little better than tepid, I guess.
>

Scathing indictments?

trotsky

unread,
Sep 28, 2003, 6:50:43 AM9/28/03
to
Sean O'Hara wrote:

> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful trotsky declared...
>
> >Sean O'Hara wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>So some stories contain "dick" and "hard-on", while others contain
> >>>"penis". Hasn't anybody given you any feedback on how to stay on the
> >>>same page stylistically?
> >>
> >>Yeah, Trots, you tell him! Using a different style for different
> >>stories is such a sign of bad writing!
> >
> >Can you show me where he's used "different styles", mental midget?
> >
>
> I'm referring to *your* criticism that McDowell can't "stay on the
> same page stylistically" because he used different words for
> genetalia in different stories.
>
> If you can't follow your own arguments, how do you expect us to?

Stupid, by not being able to provide examples of Ian's "different
styles" you just agreed with me. This is no fun if you're going to be
too much of a moron to understand when you're wrong.


>
>
>
> >> That's why I hate Huckleberry
> >>Finn -- Mark Twain used a completely different style from the rest
> >>of his works. And don't even get me started on James Joyce -- the
> >>hack couldn't even use the same style all the way through Ulysses.
> >
> >If you're comparing Ian "Keith" McDowell
>
>
> What the fuck is up with your need to put people's real names in
> quotes?

You have proof that that's his real name? I'm not sure if you know
this, "Sean", but people lie on the internet ALL THE TIME. Then there's
the habit of the age old nom de plume. Do you understand what's being
discussed here?


>
>
>
> >to either Mark Twain or James
> >Joyce you're an even bigger asshole than I thought. How do people get
> >this fucked up?
> >
>
> I'm not comparing quality, only pointing out that McDowell's not
> the only writer to vary his style from work to work.

Oh, so you're saying that he does vary his style, but you can't provide
examples. I claim that you can't provide examples because none exist.
You're creating straw men.


>
>
>
> >>>At least you can honestly state your writing contributes to lack of
> >>
> >>sales.
> >>
> >>Yeah, I mean look at how being pulled from Wal-Mart hurt Sheryl
> >>Crow's sales.
> >
> >Yeah, that's an apt analogy. If your brain's been removed, I mean.
> >
>
> You made the claim that having a book pulled by a *-Mart diminishes
> sales. I pointed out where it doesn't.

No, I agree: if you make an calculus problem out of it, and take the
limit as x approaches zero, what you say is true. However, if you say
that Poppy Z. Brite book is analogous to Sheryl Crow's record sales, I
will again say that you've had your brain removed.


> >>>>The viewpoint character
> >>>
> >>>"Viewpoint character"? There can be only one, like Highlander?
> >>>"Rashomon" must have had you all confused.
> >>
> >>Yeah, only awful writers like Salinger and Fitzgerald keep the
> >>same POV character for an entire book.
> >
> >Sorry, Sean, but referring to a character as "the viewpoint character"
> >is just another bit of bad writing, because it's open to
> >misinterpretation.
>
>
> It's open to misinterpretation from gits who don't know what they're
> talking about. Everyone with a rudimentary knowledge of literary
> mechanics knows exactly what a POV character is.
>


Congrats, Sean, you are now a liar. I know what *a* POV character is, I
do not know what *the* POV character is supposed to mean. I think you
just agreed with me again, and have yet to realize it.

trotsky

unread,
Sep 28, 2003, 6:51:40 AM9/28/03
to
Sean O'Hara wrote:

> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful trotsky declared...
>
> >Sean O'Hara wrote:
> >
> >>No, pretense would be writing as I. Keith McDowell.
> >
> >Sean, I had no idea we were back on speaking terms.
>
>
> We've never been off speaking terms, Greggy-poo.
>
>
> >Your "scathing
> >indictments" need to be a little better than tepid, I guess.
> >
>
> Scathing indictments?

Did somebody knock you out, Sean? Which finger am I holding up?

marika

unread,
Oct 5, 2003, 9:09:02 AM10/5/03
to
trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote in message news:<X8ldb.5393$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

>
>
>
> So some stories contain "dick" and "hard-on", while others contain
> "penis". Hasn't anybody given you any feedback on how to stay on the
> same page stylistically? Honestly, Ian, I'm surprised you're not more
> embarrassed about your lack of style. One too many pats on the back
> from the pocket protector crowd, I guess.

from the poet proterctor crowd here are some more words you could use
that would make the story even better

http://www.mob1le.com/acronyms.html

mk5000

Jay G

unread,
Oct 6, 2003, 12:01:49 PM10/6/03
to
Since trotsky dared me to in message
news:3F80DD6B...@email.com ,
He is my reply to his "critique."

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> Ian McDowell wrote:
>
> Okay, the intro. is already boring as hell.

Although not a criticism of the actual story, it is
passable since the intro counts as "writing" by
Ian. Still, it's a small and petty remark, not to
mention incorrect.

> And you wrote the title wrong. It should read: Ian McDowell: The
> Turkey, a Tale for Thanksgiving.

A personal attack, not a criticism at all.

> > Jeffy crept into the kitchen, his small bare feet cold on the tile
> > floor, and
> > flipped on the light. The huge turkey's dimpled pinkish-white breast
> > was
> > visible above the lip of the sink, where his stepmother had left it to
> > thaw.
>
>
> Are you trying to emulate descriptive prose from the thirties?

A question, not a criticism. I'd say the question was rhetorical,
except you used a question mark.

> > His strongest memory of his real mother, who'd died in a car crash
> > when he was five, was of her working in the kitchen, preparing the
> > Thanksgiving
> > turkey.
>
> Wow, you've equated a Thanksgiving turkey to "Lord of the Rings"--that
> isn't very nice.

A nonsensical remark. Do you mean he's equating a turkey to a book?
Or do you mean Ian's given the turkey mystical powers to rule all of
mankind by this point in the story?


> Again, I would advise therapy, rather than boring people with tales of
> young lads and their vague remembrances of their mothers.

A personal attack again. No real criticism here except repetition that
you find Ian's prose "boring."

> > It tasted like cold, salty chicken soup.
>
> What made a raw turkey salty? Is it one of those kosher ones that has
> been soaked in brine? How long till the kid dies from salmonella?

Take a look at the labeling of the turkeys listed on this site:
http://www.turkeyhelp.com/turkeytasting.htm

If you notice, all of the frozen or refrigerated turkeys are
basted with a solution that includes salt. Ian previously
mentions in the story that the turkey is being left out overnight
to thaw, which means it was frozen.

> > Jeffy had only been seriously masturbating for about two years now,
> > ever since
> > he turned ten,
>
> Jeffy is twelve and has small feet? Is he a dwarf, or does he have a
> birth defect?

The word "small" is a relative term. Most people would
consider a 12 year old to be small still, so by extension
his feet are small. Ian never said Jeffy's feet are small
in relation to the rest of his body.

> I get it, it's like "American Pie", minus the entertainment value.
> Don't even tell me you have "friends" that say they liked this.

More personal attacks, although the comparison to "American
Pie" counts as criticism, albeit a superficial one.

> Also, if you'r going to use prose that is reminiscent of the thirties,
"jacked
> off" and "dick" are inappropriate. How did I know you'd have trouble
> scoring any style points?

Here you've gone from asking Ian if his writing is supposed
to be "reminiscent of the thirties" to just plain assuming that
it is.

> > The wings, featherless, disproportionately small,
> > ending in sharp bone, reminded him of the arms of a praying mantis.
>
> Wow, pretty good analogy for a twelve year old. Might you change it to,
> "...reminding the writer of the arms of a praying mantis"?

You can't seriously believe a 12 year old doesn't know what
a praying mantis is. Here's some informative links:
http://www.ticklebugs.com/pages/tbugs/jazzletters.htm
http://www.ga.k12.pa.us/Academics/LS/2/insects/reports.htm
http://www.genevaschools.org/austinbg/class/gray/0102/prayingmantis/
http://www.westvalleyschool.org/programs/natural_science/3rdGrade/mantis.htm
http://www.rockyview.ab.ca/mccall/nature%20Watch3/praying_mantis.htm
http://wilburnes.wcpss.net/rabb/animals2000/prayingmantis.html
http://www.ttsd.k12.or.us/District/curriculum/elem/author/99legends/kyle.html
http://www.huis.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/~nomura/L/lkamkm04.html

As the links show, some kids learn what a praying mantis is by
grade 1. It is a very popular and well recognized insect that
kids learn about. At the least, a 12 year old has probably
seen "A Bug's Life."

> Ian, that was godawful. I'm not just saying that because you're a dick,
> either.

Here you betray your bias. You think Ian's a dick, so it's hard
for anyone to believe that your criticism of his work is in any
way impartial. Thus all your "points" are suspect because they
probably came more out of a desire to attack Ian than any real
interest in literary criticism.

-Jay


trotsky

unread,
Oct 6, 2003, 12:37:26 PM10/6/03
to

Jay G wrote:
> Since trotsky dared me to in message
> news:3F80DD6B...@email.com ,
> He is my reply to his "critique."
>
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>
>>Ian McDowell wrote:
>>
>>Okay, the intro. is already boring as hell.
>
>
> Although not a criticism of the actual story, it is
> passable since the intro counts as "writing" by
> Ian. Still, it's a small and petty remark, not to
> mention incorrect.
>
>
>>And you wrote the title wrong. It should read: Ian McDowell: The
>>Turkey, a Tale for Thanksgiving.
>
>
> A personal attack, not a criticism at all.


No, that was a clever play on words. Denial isn't an argument,
Jay--didn't you see the Monty Python sketch. Oh, right, one has to
check his sense of humor at the door around these parts. Why is that
aficionados of bad writing always have failing wit?


>>>Jeffy crept into the kitchen, his small bare feet cold on the tile
>>>floor, and
>>>flipped on the light. The huge turkey's dimpled pinkish-white breast
>>>was
>>>visible above the lip of the sink, where his stepmother had left it to
>>>thaw.
>>
>>
>>Are you trying to emulate descriptive prose from the thirties?
>
>
> A question, not a criticism. I'd say the question was rhetorical,
> except you used a question mark.


My style is to write a lot of things in the form of a question instead
of a statement. It's called being interesting. You clearly have a
problem with when things are questions and when they're not.


>>>His strongest memory of his real mother, who'd died in a car crash
>>>when he was five, was of her working in the kitchen, preparing the
>>>Thanksgiving
>>>turkey.
>>
>>Wow, you've equated a Thanksgiving turkey to "Lord of the Rings"--that
>>isn't very nice.
>
>
> A nonsensical remark.


Oh, believe me, Ian knew what it meant. You simply aren't a player,
because you haven't done your homework.


Do you mean he's equating a turkey to a book?
> Or do you mean Ian's given the turkey mystical powers to rule all of
> mankind by this point in the story?


I thought you presumed to speak for Ian--I guarantee you he knew what
that meant.


>>Again, I would advise therapy, rather than boring people with tales of
>>young lads and their vague remembrances of their mothers.
>
>
> A personal attack again. No real criticism here except repetition that
> you find Ian's prose "boring."


Actually, if you've studied any literature at all you'll find that many
writers get bogged down by their personal hangups, this is just a case
in point.


>>> It tasted like cold, salty chicken soup.
>>
>>What made a raw turkey salty? Is it one of those kosher ones that has
>>been soaked in brine? How long till the kid dies from salmonella?
>
>
> Take a look at the labeling of the turkeys listed on this site:
> http://www.turkeyhelp.com/turkeytasting.htm
>
> If you notice, all of the frozen or refrigerated turkeys are
> basted with a solution that includes salt. Ian previously
> mentions in the story that the turkey is being left out overnight
> to thaw, which means it was frozen.


I doubt very seriously that internal basting with a 4 to 8 percent
basting solution would make the turkey's skin taste salty. It's just
bad writing, Jay--I told you you wouldn't have the guts to admit it.


>>>Jeffy had only been seriously masturbating for about two years now,
>>>ever since
>>>he turned ten,
>>
>>Jeffy is twelve and has small feet? Is he a dwarf, or does he have a
>>birth defect?
>
>
> The word "small" is a relative term. Most people would
> consider a 12 year old to be small still, so by extension
> his feet are small. Ian never said Jeffy's feet are small
> in relation to the rest of his body.


Jay, describing somebody as sexually active at the age of ten and having
small feet is a train wreck. You're being stupid. Ian thought he was
being clever, but he really didn't think it through. That's hardly my
fault.


>>I get it, it's like "American Pie", minus the entertainment value.
>>Don't even tell me you have "friends" that say they liked this.
>
>
> More personal attacks, although the comparison to "American
> Pie" counts as criticism, albeit a superficial one.


Jay, you need to be mentally swift enough to separate the jabs from the
actual pieces of critique that I have written here. Or do you live in
some sort of Bizarro World where it's okay for Ian to say nasty stuff to
me and I'm not supposed to retaliate? I mean, thus far everything
you've said just leads me to dismiss you as an asshole who has no clear
understanding of what's being said here.


>>Also, if you'r going to use prose that is reminiscent of the thirties,
>
> "jacked
>
>>off" and "dick" are inappropriate. How did I know you'd have trouble
>>scoring any style points?
>
>
> Here you've gone from asking Ian if his writing is supposed
> to be "reminiscent of the thirties" to just plain assuming that
> it is.


The style is inconsistent. Ian has a problem with his writing being
stiff as a board and interspersing it with words that he read in "Screw"
magazine. So far, Jay, you get a zero here.

>>>The wings, featherless, disproportionately small,
>>>ending in sharp bone, reminded him of the arms of a praying mantis.
>>
>>Wow, pretty good analogy for a twelve year old. Might you change it to,
>>"...reminding the writer of the arms of a praying mantis"?
>
>
> You can't seriously believe a 12 year old doesn't know what
> a praying mantis is.


No, I can't seriously believe a 12 year old is likely to draw an analogy
between a turkey wing and a praying mantis arm. You're spazzing out
here, Jay and not even paying attention to what's been said.


Where are the links for kinds using analogies, similes, and the like?
Take as much time as you need, Jay.


>>Ian, that was godawful. I'm not just saying that because you're a dick,
>>either.
>
>
> Here you betray your bias. You think Ian's a dick, so it's hard
> for anyone to believe that your criticism of his work is in any
> way impartial. Thus all your "points" are suspect because they
> probably came more out of a desire to attack Ian than any real
> interest in literary criticism.


Jay, at least you can't say you're the *biggest* hypocrite in the
history of Usenet, because there are tons of guys that are way ahead of
you in that dept.


Jay G

unread,
Oct 6, 2003, 2:22:13 PM10/6/03
to

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> Jay G wrote:
> > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...

> >
> > A personal attack, not a criticism at all.
>
> No, that was a clever play on words.

Still not a criticism.

> > A question, not a criticism. I'd say the question was rhetorical,
> > except you used a question mark.
>
> My style is to write a lot of things in the form of a question instead
> of a statement. It's called being interesting. You clearly have a
> problem with when things are questions and when they're not.

Writing a statement in the form of a question is called a
rhetorical question.

> >>Wow, you've equated a Thanksgiving turkey to "Lord of the Rings"--that
> >>isn't very nice.
> >
> > A nonsensical remark.
>
> Oh, believe me, Ian knew what it meant. You simply aren't a player,
> because you haven't done your homework.

So it's another jab at Ian instead of criticism of his work. Duly noted.

> >>Again, I would advise therapy, rather than boring people with tales of
> >>young lads and their vague remembrances of their mothers.
> >
> > A personal attack again. No real criticism here except repetition that
> > you find Ian's prose "boring."
>
> Actually, if you've studied any literature at all you'll find that many
> writers get bogged down by their personal hangups, this is just a case
> in point.

How do you know it's a personal hangup? You're presuming
personality traits based on a work of fiction.

> >>What made a raw turkey salty? Is it one of those kosher ones that has
> >>been soaked in brine? How long till the kid dies from salmonella?
> >
> > Take a look at the labeling of the turkeys listed on this site:
> > http://www.turkeyhelp.com/turkeytasting.htm
> >
> > If you notice, all of the frozen or refrigerated turkeys are
> > basted with a solution that includes salt. Ian previously
> > mentions in the story that the turkey is being left out overnight
> > to thaw, which means it was frozen.
>
> I doubt very seriously that internal basting with a 4 to 8 percent
> basting solution would make the turkey's skin taste salty. It's just
> bad writing, Jay--I told you you wouldn't have the guts to admit it.

Who the hell was talking about internal basting?
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/973893213.html
"Basted or Self Basted. Bone-in poultry products (including whole
birds) that are injected or *marinated* with a solution containing
butter or other edible fat, broth, stock, or water, plus spices, flavor
enhancers, and other approved substances must be labeled as "basted"
or "self-basted".


> > The word "small" is a relative term. Most people would
> > consider a 12 year old to be small still, so by extension
> > his feet are small. Ian never said Jeffy's feet are small
> > in relation to the rest of his body.
>
> Jay, describing somebody as sexually active at the age of ten and having
> small feet is a train wreck.

Do you mean you don't think 10 year olds masturbate?
http://www.sexualityandu.ca/eng/news/e-newsletter_0703.cfm
"Males and females of any age can masturbate. "
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/familyhealth/q_a/pages/1341.html
"People of every age masturbate."
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/43/1687_51068.htm
"Quite a few people have distinct memories of masturbating to
orgasm at age 5 and liking it."

Now, a 10 year old masturbating may not be that typical,
but it's not outlandish.

> >>I get it, it's like "American Pie", minus the entertainment value.
> >>Don't even tell me you have "friends" that say they liked this.
> >
> >
> > More personal attacks, although the comparison to "American
> > Pie" counts as criticism, albeit a superficial one.
>
> Jay, you need to be mentally swift enough to separate the jabs from the
> actual pieces of critique that I have written here.

I've been digging, trying to find these "actual pieces" of critique,
but nearly all I find are your jabs. At least you admit that all
of your points aren't actual critique.

> Or do you live in some sort of Bizarro World where it's
> okay for Ian to say nasty stuff to me and I'm not supposed to retaliate?

It's fine if you want to just throw insults back and
forth. However, from the "Another observation
for Ian" thread, it seemed you thought this post
was a shining example of an impartial, serious
critique of a written work. If it was meant to
be as such, you should've reserved the personal
attacks that have no relation to the written
work at hand for a different post.

> > Here you've gone from asking Ian if his writing is supposed
> > to be "reminiscent of the thirties" to just plain assuming that
> > it is.
>
> The style is inconsistent. Ian has a problem with his writing being
> stiff as a board and interspersing it with words that he read in "Screw"
> magazine. So far, Jay, you get a zero here.

Cause "screw" and "jacked off" don't appear in works
other than pornography.

> > You can't seriously believe a 12 year old doesn't know what
> > a praying mantis is.
>
> No, I can't seriously believe a 12 year old is likely to draw an analogy
> between a turkey wing and a praying mantis arm. You're spazzing out
> here, Jay and not even paying attention to what's been said.
>
>

> Where are the links for kinds using analogies, similes, and the like?

http://www.pocanticohills.org/shaul/01/similes.htm
http://www.manatee.k12.fl.us/sites/elementary/palmasola/ps3gleana.htm
http://www.nelson.com/nelson/career/ceg/daily-an.html
http://www.thehomelearnerscatalog.com/Storage/Analogies.htm
http://www.ohiorc.org/ohiorc_resource_display/0,3820,148,00.shtm
http://curriculum.mcpss.com/CRTReading5.htm
http://www.genevaschools.org/standards/la7.doc
http://elementarypgms.brevard.k12.fl.us/sixthGLE's.htm
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~pxa5267/direct.PDF
http://www.kathimitchell.com/similes1.html
http://www.mrsmcgowan.com/projects/similes/index.html
http://www.auburnschools.org/carywoods/bahostetler/second%20grade.htm
http://www.oswego.org/testprep/ela4/n/metaphorsimilel.cfm
http://www.geocities.com/fifth_grade_tpes/Character.html


> > Here you betray your bias. You think Ian's a dick, so it's hard
> > for anyone to believe that your criticism of his work is in any
> > way impartial. Thus all your "points" are suspect because they
> > probably came more out of a desire to attack Ian than any real
> > interest in literary criticism.
>
> Jay, at least you can't say you're the *biggest* hypocrite in the
> history of Usenet, because there are tons of guys that are way ahead of
> you in that dept.

Like yourself. You accuse me of being biased, yet don't admit that
you yourself are biased against Ian.

-Jay


trotsky

unread,
Oct 6, 2003, 3:21:28 PM10/6/03
to

Jay G wrote:
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>
>>Jay G wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>>A personal attack, not a criticism at all.
>>
>>No, that was a clever play on words.
>
>
> Still not a criticism.


Who said it was?


>>>A question, not a criticism. I'd say the question was rhetorical,
>>>except you used a question mark.
>>
>>My style is to write a lot of things in the form of a question instead
>>of a statement. It's called being interesting. You clearly have a
>>problem with when things are questions and when they're not.
>
>
> Writing a statement in the form of a question is called a
> rhetorical question.


You're lost at sea, Jay.

>>>>Wow, you've equated a Thanksgiving turkey to "Lord of the Rings"--that
>>>>isn't very nice.
>>>
>>>A nonsensical remark.
>>
>>Oh, believe me, Ian knew what it meant. You simply aren't a player,
>>because you haven't done your homework.
>
>
> So it's another jab at Ian instead of criticism of his work. Duly noted.


No, it was definitely a criticism. Apparently you can't figure it out.


>>>>Again, I would advise therapy, rather than boring people with tales of
>>>>young lads and their vague remembrances of their mothers.
>>>
>>>A personal attack again. No real criticism here except repetition that
>>>you find Ian's prose "boring."
>>
>>Actually, if you've studied any literature at all you'll find that many
>>writers get bogged down by their personal hangups, this is just a case
>>in point.
>
>
> How do you know it's a personal hangup? You're presuming
> personality traits based on a work of fiction.


Jay, you're asking me to spoon feed you the information. Don't bring a
rubber duckie to a gunfight.


>>>>What made a raw turkey salty? Is it one of those kosher ones that has
>>>>been soaked in brine? How long till the kid dies from salmonella?
>>>
>>>Take a look at the labeling of the turkeys listed on this site:
>>>http://www.turkeyhelp.com/turkeytasting.htm
>>>
>>>If you notice, all of the frozen or refrigerated turkeys are
>>>basted with a solution that includes salt. Ian previously
>>>mentions in the story that the turkey is being left out overnight
>>>to thaw, which means it was frozen.
>>
>>I doubt very seriously that internal basting with a 4 to 8 percent
>>basting solution would make the turkey's skin taste salty. It's just
>>bad writing, Jay--I told you you wouldn't have the guts to admit it.
>
>
> Who the hell was talking about internal basting?
> http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/973893213.html
> "Basted or Self Basted. Bone-in poultry products (including whole
> birds) that are injected or *marinated* with a solution containing
> butter or other edible fat, broth, stock, or water, plus spices, flavor
> enhancers, and other approved substances must be labeled as "basted"
> or "self-basted".


I challenge you to find a commercially available turkey that is
marinated. "Salty turkey skin" is a bit of artistic license that can't
be justified.


>>>The word "small" is a relative term. Most people would
>>>consider a 12 year old to be small still, so by extension
>>>his feet are small. Ian never said Jeffy's feet are small
>>>in relation to the rest of his body.
>>
>>Jay, describing somebody as sexually active at the age of ten and having
>>small feet is a train wreck.
>
>
> Do you mean you don't think 10 year olds masturbate?


Jay, you're being stupid again: "sexually active" and "small feet" can
easily be considered mutually exclusive, making it bad writing. In
fact, just describing a twelve year old is bad writing. Toddlers have
small feet.


> http://www.sexualityandu.ca/eng/news/e-newsletter_0703.cfm
> "Males and females of any age can masturbate. "
> http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/familyhealth/q_a/pages/1341.html
> "People of every age masturbate."
> http://my.webmd.com/content/article/43/1687_51068.htm
> "Quite a few people have distinct memories of masturbating to
> orgasm at age 5 and liking it."
>
> Now, a 10 year old masturbating may not be that typical,
> but it's not outlandish.


Somehow I don't think you're fixation on 10 year olds masturbating is by
accident.


>>>>I get it, it's like "American Pie", minus the entertainment value.
>>>>Don't even tell me you have "friends" that say they liked this.
>>>
>>>
>>>More personal attacks, although the comparison to "American
>>>Pie" counts as criticism, albeit a superficial one.
>>
>>Jay, you need to be mentally swift enough to separate the jabs from the
>>actual pieces of critique that I have written here.
>
>
> I've been digging, trying to find these "actual pieces" of critique,
> but nearly all I find are your jabs. At least you admit that all
> of your points aren't actual critique.


Yeah, you've been digging alright: with the head of pin. That's a pun,
by the way, but I doubt you'll be able to figure it out.

>>Or do you live in some sort of Bizarro World where it's
>>okay for Ian to say nasty stuff to me and I'm not supposed to retaliate?
>
>
> It's fine if you want to just throw insults back and
> forth. However, from the "Another observation
> for Ian" thread, it seemed you thought this post
> was a shining example of an impartial, serious
> critique of a written work. If it was meant to
> be as such, you should've reserved the personal
> attacks that have no relation to the written
> work at hand for a different post.


Your rules of engagement are lame, Jay. I'll pass.


>>>Here you've gone from asking Ian if his writing is supposed
>>>to be "reminiscent of the thirties" to just plain assuming that
>>>it is.
>>
>>The style is inconsistent. Ian has a problem with his writing being
>>stiff as a board and interspersing it with words that he read in "Screw"
>>magazine. So far, Jay, you get a zero here.
>
>
> Cause "screw" and "jacked off" don't appear in works
> other than pornography.


????


>>>You can't seriously believe a 12 year old doesn't know what
>>>a praying mantis is.
>>
>>No, I can't seriously believe a 12 year old is likely to draw an analogy
>>between a turkey wing and a praying mantis arm. You're spazzing out
>>here, Jay and not even paying attention to what's been said.
>>
>>
>>Where are the links for kinds using analogies, similes, and the like?


That should of been "kids", but if you understand German you were
probably in good shape.


Jay, those are impressive links, but unfortunately you're presenting a
straw man argument. I studied Calculus in school, for example, and
never used it real life. The bottom line is my criticism was exactly
correct: it is more a case of the writer trying use the analogy than it
is a credible case of a 12 year old boy using it.


>>>Here you betray your bias. You think Ian's a dick, so it's hard
>>>for anyone to believe that your criticism of his work is in any
>>>way impartial. Thus all your "points" are suspect because they
>>>probably came more out of a desire to attack Ian than any real
>>>interest in literary criticism.
>>
>>Jay, at least you can't say you're the *biggest* hypocrite in the
>>history of Usenet, because there are tons of guys that are way ahead of
>>you in that dept.
>
>
> Like yourself. You accuse me of being biased, yet don't admit that
> you yourself are biased against Ian.


Now you're just lying. I admitted that he was a dick, but even if he
wasn't the writing is still bad. You just refuse to accept the truth.


Jay G

unread,
Oct 6, 2003, 11:03:47 PM10/6/03
to
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:3F81C0B5...@email.com...

> Jay G wrote:
> > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> >>Jay G wrote:
> >>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> >>My style is to write a lot of things in the form of a question instead
> >>of a statement. It's called being interesting. You clearly have a
> >>problem with when things are questions and when they're not.
> >
> > Writing a statement in the form of a question is called a
> > rhetorical question.
>
> You're lost at sea, Jay.

rhetorical question n :
a statement that is formulated as a question but that is not
supposed to be answered; "he liked to make his points with
rhetorical questions"
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rhetorical%20question
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsARhetoricalQuestion.htm
http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/RhetRhetQuestion.html
http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/R/rhetorical%20questions.htm

> >>>>Wow, you've equated a Thanksgiving turkey to "Lord of the Rings"--that
> >>>>isn't very nice.
> >>>
> >>>A nonsensical remark.
> >>
> >>Oh, believe me, Ian knew what it meant. You simply aren't a player,
> >>because you haven't done your homework.
> >
> > So it's another jab at Ian instead of criticism of his work. Duly
noted.
>
> No, it was definitely a criticism. Apparently you can't figure it out.

Apparently I can't. Please link me to the available sources that would
make your statement rational. All I could find that involved you, Ian,
and LOTR was this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D914FC4.B36707D6%40email.com&oe=utf-8

> >>>>Again, I would advise therapy, rather than boring people with tales of
> >>>>young lads and their vague remembrances of their mothers.
> >>>
> >>>A personal attack again. No real criticism here except repetition that
> >>>you find Ian's prose "boring."
> >>
> >>Actually, if you've studied any literature at all you'll find that many
> >>writers get bogged down by their personal hangups, this is just a case
> >>in point.
> >
> > How do you know it's a personal hangup? You're presuming
> > personality traits based on a work of fiction.
>
> Jay, you're asking me to spoon feed you the information. Don't bring a
> rubber duckie to a gunfight.

You have no knowledge it's a personal hangup. You just saw his
writing about a character reminiscing as an opening to lobby a
personal attack.

> > Who the hell was talking about internal basting?
> > http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/973893213.html
> > "Basted or Self Basted. Bone-in poultry products (including whole
> > birds) that are injected or *marinated* with a solution containing
> > butter or other edible fat, broth, stock, or water, plus spices,
flavor
> > enhancers, and other approved substances must be labeled as
"basted"
> > or "self-basted".
>
> I challenge you to find a commercially available turkey that is
> marinated. "Salty turkey skin" is a bit of artistic license that can't
> be justified.

So you've tasted thawed turkey skin and can verify what it
tastes like? Turkey vendors apparently don't have to
say which type of basting they use, but I found more
links verifying that "basted" could mean either injected
or marinated:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/farmfreeze.htm
http://www.taunton.com/finecooking/pages/c00074a.asp
http://www.ohiopoultry.org/foodsafety_t_prep.htm
http://www.minnesotaturkeys.com/public_pages/pubdocs.php?doc=knowing
http://www.jeannepasero.com/turkeytips.html


> >>Jay, describing somebody as sexually active at the age of ten and having
> >>small feet is a train wreck.
> >
> > Do you mean you don't think 10 year olds masturbate?
>
> Jay, you're being stupid again: "sexually active" and "small feet" can
> easily be considered mutually exclusive, making it bad writing.
> In fact, just describing a twelve year old is bad writing. Toddlers have
> small feet.

Toddlers can masterbate. Or did you miss the part about "any age"
in the quotes I provided?

His description of "small feet" was in the first sentence in the story.
We don't find out Jeffy is 12 until the 4th paragraph. It served as
a guideline to Jeffy's size until his age was revealed. And again,
"small" is a relative word, it doesn't provide an exact shoe size.


> > It's fine if you want to just throw insults back and
> > forth. However, from the "Another observation
> > for Ian" thread, it seemed you thought this post
> > was a shining example of an impartial, serious
> > critique of a written work. If it was meant to
> > be as such, you should've reserved the personal
> > attacks that have no relation to the written
> > work at hand for a different post.
>
> Your rules of engagement are lame, Jay. I'll pass.

Right, who would stick to just literary criticism in
a critique? You should stick to your normal choice
of prose, since it's won you so many friends.

> >>The style is inconsistent. Ian has a problem with his writing being
> >>stiff as a board and interspersing it with words that he read in "Screw"
> >>magazine. So far, Jay, you get a zero here.
> >
> > Cause "screw" and "jacked off" don't appear in works
> > other than pornography.
>
> ????

It's called sarcasm. "Jacked off" and "dick" do appear in
works other than pornography. I erroneously replaced
"dick" with "screw" when I made the sarcastic remark though.


> >>Where are the links for kinds using analogies, similes, and the like?
> >

<long list of links>

> Jay, those are impressive links, but unfortunately you're presenting a
> straw man argument. I studied Calculus in school, for example, and
> never used it real life.

Are you saying the use of analogies is as complex a thought
proccess as Calculus? People use analogies all the time,
including children. You're stretching it pretty thin when you
claim a 12 year old couldn't make a comparison between
two familiar images.

> > You accuse me of being biased, yet don't admit that
> > you yourself are biased against Ian.
>
>
> Now you're just lying. I admitted that he was a dick, but even if he
> wasn't the writing is still bad. You just refuse to accept the truth.

The truth is that the only one who can know for sure if your
biased or not is you. Anyone else just has to go on whether
or not they believe you. Since your "critique" was littered more
with personal attacks on Ian than on actual criticism of the writing
itself, your claims of impartial review seem doubtful.

-Jay


trotsky

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 8:34:23 AM10/7/03
to

Jay G wrote:
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:3F81C0B5...@email.com...
>
>>Jay G wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>>>Jay G wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>>>>
>>>>My style is to write a lot of things in the form of a question instead
>>>>of a statement. It's called being interesting. You clearly have a
>>>>problem with when things are questions and when they're not.
>>>
>>>Writing a statement in the form of a question is called a
>>>rhetorical question.
>>
>>You're lost at sea, Jay.
>
>
> rhetorical question n :
> a statement that is formulated as a question but that is not
> supposed to be answered; "he liked to make his points with
> rhetorical questions"
> Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rhetorical%20question
> http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsARhetoricalQuestion.htm
> http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/RhetRhetQuestion.html
> http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/R/rhetorical%20questions.htm


You're still lost at sea, Jay. Wasn't I writing questions that were
intended to be answered, buddy? Now I'm laughing, as the rust in your
brain causes the gears to seize, as you try and decide whether or not to
answer that last question.


>>>>>>Wow, you've equated a Thanksgiving turkey to "Lord of the Rings"--that
>>>>>>isn't very nice.
>>>>>
>>>>>A nonsensical remark.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, believe me, Ian knew what it meant. You simply aren't a player,
>>>>because you haven't done your homework.
>>>
>>>So it's another jab at Ian instead of criticism of his work. Duly
>>
> noted.
>
>>No, it was definitely a criticism. Apparently you can't figure it out.
>
>
> Apparently I can't. Please link me to the available sources that would
> make your statement rational. All I could find that involved you, Ian,
> and LOTR was this:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D914FC4.B36707D6%40email.com&oe=utf-8


No, that isn't it. I suppose I could tell you, but then you wouldn't
have to pretend anymore that you're speaking from a position from
authority. That would take all of the fun out of it.


>>>How do you know it's a personal hangup? You're presuming
>>>personality traits based on a work of fiction.
>>
>>Jay, you're asking me to spoon feed you the information. Don't bring a
>>rubber duckie to a gunfight.
>
>
> You have no knowledge it's a personal hangup. You just saw his
> writing about a character reminiscing as an opening to lobby a
> personal attack.


No, it's definitely a psychological problem he has. I thought you were
his mouthpiece. You haven't discussed this topic intimately with him?
Look, you seem to be trying real hard, Jay (yeah, I know that's
grammatically incorrect, it's just another one of those style things to
sound conversational), so here's the pertinent link:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=lord+of+the+rings+group:rec.arts.movies.current-films+author:trotsky&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=3F63D9B2.809%40email.com&rnum=8


>>>Who the hell was talking about internal basting?
>>>http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/973893213.html
>>> "Basted or Self Basted. Bone-in poultry products (including whole
>>> birds) that are injected or *marinated* with a solution containing
>>> butter or other edible fat, broth, stock, or water, plus spices,
>>
> flavor
>
>>> enhancers, and other approved substances must be labeled as
>>
> "basted"
>
>>> or "self-basted".
>>
>>I challenge you to find a commercially available turkey that is
>>marinated. "Salty turkey skin" is a bit of artistic license that can't
>>be justified.
>
>
> So you've tasted thawed turkey skin and can verify what it
> tastes like? Turkey vendors apparently don't have to
> say which type of basting they use, but I found more
> links verifying that "basted" could mean either injected
> or marinated:
>
> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/farmfreeze.htm
> http://www.taunton.com/finecooking/pages/c00074a.asp
> http://www.ohiopoultry.org/foodsafety_t_prep.htm
> http://www.minnesotaturkeys.com/public_pages/pubdocs.php?doc=knowing
> http://www.jeannepasero.com/turkeytips.html


No, I haven't tasted it, and I doubt Ian did either. Being a
vegetarian, though, I plan on never tasting turkey for the rest of my
life. But you can buy a Butterball and bet me a hundred bucks or so
that the raw turkey skin tastes salty--I could use the beer money. It's
just bad writing, Jay.


>>>>Jay, describing somebody as sexually active at the age of ten and having
>>>>small feet is a train wreck.
>>>
>>>Do you mean you don't think 10 year olds masturbate?
>>
>>Jay, you're being stupid again: "sexually active" and "small feet" can
>>easily be considered mutually exclusive, making it bad writing.
>> In fact, just describing a twelve year old is bad writing. Toddlers have
>>small feet.
>
>
> Toddlers can masterbate.


No such word.


Or did you miss the part about "any age"
> in the quotes I provided?


Jay, we're not talking about masturbating any more, although I have to
admit it's particularly sick for either you or he to think he is writing
from a position of authority about the sexual activity of young boys.


> His description of "small feet" was in the first sentence in the story.
> We don't find out Jeffy is 12 until the 4th paragraph. It served as
> a guideline to Jeffy's size until his age was revealed. And again,
> "small" is a relative word, it doesn't provide an exact shoe size.


No, you're right--his feet could've grown in those three paragraphs. To
repeat, toddlers have small feet, not twelve year olds. Bad writing.


>>>It's fine if you want to just throw insults back and
>>>forth. However, from the "Another observation
>>>for Ian" thread, it seemed you thought this post
>>>was a shining example of an impartial, serious
>>>critique of a written work. If it was meant to
>>>be as such, you should've reserved the personal
>>>attacks that have no relation to the written
>>>work at hand for a different post.
>>
>>Your rules of engagement are lame, Jay. I'll pass.
>
>
> Right, who would stick to just literary criticism in
> a critique? You should stick to your normal choice
> of prose, since it's won you so many friends.


This is Usenet, Jay. This is recreation. If you PAY me to write
something of publication quality I will. You're being a dolt.


>>>>The style is inconsistent. Ian has a problem with his writing being
>>>>stiff as a board and interspersing it with words that he read in "Screw"
>>>>magazine. So far, Jay, you get a zero here.
>>>
>>>Cause "screw" and "jacked off" don't appear in works
>>>other than pornography.
>>
>>????
>
>
> It's called sarcasm. "Jacked off" and "dick" do appear in
> works other than pornography. I erroneously replaced
> "dick" with "screw" when I made the sarcastic remark though.


Well, you've already proven yourself very confused when writing for
style points is concerned. This is no different. Words like "hard-on"
and "dick" don't fit with Ian's ultra-conservative, John Ashcroft like
prose. He's the literary equivalent of some guy standing around in a
leisure suit trying to act cool. It's bad writing, Jay. Apparently you
don't know enough about writing to recognize it.


>>>>Where are the links for kinds using analogies, similes, and the like?
>>>
>
> <long list of links>
>
>>Jay, those are impressive links, but unfortunately you're presenting a
>>straw man argument. I studied Calculus in school, for example, and
>>never used it real life.
>
>
> Are you saying the use of analogies is as complex a thought
> proccess as Calculus? People use analogies all the time,
> including children. You're stretching it pretty thin when you
> claim a 12 year old couldn't make a comparison between
> two familiar images.


I'm saying I find it very implausible that a 12 year old would draw an
analogy between turkey wings and praying mantis legs. Not impossible,
implausible. It's the kind of thing that gives one pause to stop and
think, "Would he really say that?" As a writer, you don't want this to
happen.


>>>You accuse me of being biased, yet don't admit that
>>>you yourself are biased against Ian.
>>
>>
>>Now you're just lying. I admitted that he was a dick, but even if he
>>wasn't the writing is still bad. You just refuse to accept the truth.
>
>
> The truth is that the only one who can know for sure if your
> biased or not is you. Anyone else just has to go on whether
> or not they believe you. Since your "critique" was littered more
> with personal attacks on Ian than on actual criticism of the writing
> itself, your claims of impartial review seem doubtful.


Jay, what is it about guys like you that cling to untenable postitions
as if they were life rafts in the ocean? The guy's writing is something
other than excellent--I would use the word "bad"--and you've said so
yourself. You're being intellectually dishonest by not being able to
say what the bad parts are. If you want to discuss the topic where
you're not being a weiner let me know.

Jay G

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 9:56:42 PM10/7/03
to

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> Jay G wrote:
> > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> >>Jay G wrote:
> >>>etc., etc........

> >>>>My style is to write a lot of things in the form of a question instead
> >>>>of a statement. It's called being interesting. You clearly have a
> >>>>problem with when things are questions and when they're not.
> >>>
> >>>Writing a statement in the form of a question is called a
> >>>rhetorical question.
>
> You're still lost at sea, Jay. Wasn't I writing questions that were
> intended to be answered, buddy?

I don't know, were you? The specific sentence in question here
is this one:


> Are you trying to emulate descriptive prose from the thirties?

Considering that you didn't wait for a reply from Ian before
deciding the answer was "yes," I'd say you considered
the question rhetorical.

> >>>>>>Wow, you've equated a Thanksgiving turkey to "Lord of the
Rings"--that
> >>>>>>isn't very nice.

> it's definitely a psychological problem he has. I thought you were
> his mouthpiece. You haven't discussed this topic intimately with him?
> Look, you seem to be trying real hard, Jay (yeah, I know that's
> grammatically incorrect, it's just another one of those style things to
> sound conversational), so here's the pertinent link:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=lord+of+the+rings+group:rec.arts.movies.current-films+author:trotsky&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=3F63D9B2.809%40email.com&rnum=8

Thank you. That link was helpful, although it wasn't really the
pertinent link:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=iankmcd-0507011056180001%40pool-63.52.21.28.atln.grid.net

Pertinent quotes:
"My mother, who died of leukemia when I was eight, was a
librarian who read The Lord of the Rings aloud to me over the
last two years of her life (1964-66), a chapter or so a night,
and it was engraved on my memory even before I actually read it."

"It is, simply put, one of the most important books of my life, and
has an enormous influence on me as a writer, just as it has had on
practically every English-language fantasy novelist of the past thirty
years."

So by "equating a Thanksgiving turkey to "Lord of the Rings," you're
talking about how Ian has used his own rememberances of
his mother to help shape his character's remembrances.
If his character's remembrances hadn't fit well into the context
of the story, I could see where you might've had a point.
However, I, having no knowledge of Ian's real life experiences,
didn't think this section is badly written or sticks out in any way.
Perhaps your close familarity with Ian's personal life clouded
your judgement of this passage.

> >>> "Bone-in poultry products (including whole birds) that
> >>> are injected or *marinated* with a solution containing
> >>> butter or other edible fat, broth, stock, or water, plus
> >>> spices, flavor enhancers, and other approved
> >>> substances must be labeled as "basted" or "self-basted".
> >

> > So you've tasted thawed turkey skin and can verify what it
> > tastes like?
> >

> > http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/farmfreeze.htm


>
> No, I haven't tasted it, and I doubt Ian did either. Being a
> vegetarian, though, I plan on never tasting turkey for the rest of my
> life. But you can buy a Butterball and bet me a hundred bucks or so
> that the raw turkey skin tastes salty--I could use the beer money. It's
> just bad writing, Jay.

"I don't have any proof that a turkey skin can't taste salty,
but my delusion that it doesn't is correct."

The USDA says that a frozen turkey could've been marinated
in a salty solution. That's enough for suspension of disbelief
from me.

> > His description of "small feet" was in the first sentence in the story.
> > We don't find out Jeffy is 12 until the 4th paragraph. It served as
> > a guideline to Jeffy's size until his age was revealed. And again,
> > "small" is a relative word, it doesn't provide an exact shoe size.
>
> No, you're right--his feet could've grown in those three paragraphs. To
> repeat, toddlers have small feet, not twelve year olds. Bad writing.

To repeat: "small" is a relative word, it doesn't provide an exact shoe
size.
By itself it's a relatively meaningless word, it needs context


> > Right, who would stick to just literary criticism in
> > a critique? You should stick to your normal choice
> > of prose, since it's won you so many friends.
>
>
> This is Usenet, Jay. This is recreation. If you PAY me to write
> something of publication quality I will. You're being a dolt.

Your "critque" wasn't even worthy of Usenet. If you want to
litter your critism with personal attacks, that's fine. Just don't
expect anyone to think your critism of his writing is anything
other than a biased attack aimed at someone you don't like.

> > It's called sarcasm. "Jacked off" and "dick" do appear in
> > works other than pornography. I erroneously replaced
> > "dick" with "screw" when I made the sarcastic remark though.
>
> Well, you've already proven yourself very confused when writing for
> style points is concerned. This is no different. Words like "hard-on"
> and "dick" don't fit with Ian's ultra-conservative, John Ashcroft like
> prose. He's the literary equivalent of some guy standing around in a
> leisure suit trying to act cool. It's bad writing, Jay. Apparently you
> don't know enough about writing to recognize it.

What's politically ultra-conservative about the rest of the prose?

> I'm saying I find it very implausible that a 12 year old would draw an
> analogy between turkey wings and praying mantis legs. Not impossible,
> implausible. It's the kind of thing that gives one pause to stop and
> think, "Would he really say that?" As a writer, you don't want this to
> happen.

It's not implausible. As I have shown in previous posts through
links, 12 year olds know about analogies and know how to
make them, and they are familiar with the praying mantis. I
challenge you to find anyone else who thought the analogy
pulled them out of the story.


> Jay, what is it about guys like you that cling to untenable postitions
> as if they were life rafts in the ocean? The guy's writing is something
> other than excellent--I would use the word "bad"--and you've said so
> yourself. You're being intellectually dishonest by not being able to
> say what the bad parts are.

You're being intellectually dishonest when you write that my saying
his writing was less than the best is the same as my saying it was
bad.

-Jay


lisa g

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 7:44:08 AM10/8/03
to

"Jay G" <J...@tmbg.org> wrote in message
news:vo7s5jp...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> > Jay G wrote:
> > > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> > >>Jay G wrote:
> > >>>etc., etc........


Why dont you guys just fuck and get it over with.


trotsky

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 8:21:27 AM10/8/03
to


Everytime you show up on this thread you're propositioning guys for sex.


trotsky

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 8:35:44 AM10/8/03
to

Jay G wrote:
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>
>>Jay G wrote:
>>

>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...

>> it's definitely a psychological problem he has. I thought you were
>>his mouthpiece. You haven't discussed this topic intimately with him?
>>Look, you seem to be trying real hard, Jay (yeah, I know that's
>>grammatically incorrect, it's just another one of those style things to
>>sound conversational), so here's the pertinent link:
>>
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=lord+of+the+rings+group:rec.arts.movies.current-films+author:trotsky&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=3F63D9B2.809%40email.com&rnum=8
>
> Thank you. That link was helpful, although it wasn't really the
> pertinent link:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=iankmcd-0507011056180001%40pool-63.52.21.28.atln.grid.net
>
> Pertinent quotes:
> "My mother, who died of leukemia when I was eight, was a
> librarian who read The Lord of the Rings aloud to me over the
> last two years of her life (1964-66), a chapter or so a night,
> and it was engraved on my memory even before I actually read it."
>
> "It is, simply put, one of the most important books of my life, and
> has an enormous influence on me as a writer, just as it has had on
> practically every English-language fantasy novelist of the past thirty
> years."


Wow, that's pure class, Jay. I was hesitant to actually reproduce such
a quote, because it really, really, really makes Ian sound like a
pathetic individual. I'll just have to give you credit for the assist.


> So by "equating a Thanksgiving turkey to "Lord of the Rings," you're
> talking about how Ian has used his own rememberances of
> his mother to help shape his character's remembrances.
> If his character's remembrances hadn't fit well into the context
> of the story, I could see where you might've had a point.
> However, I, having no knowledge of Ian's real life experiences,


You just posted one, you moron. How do people get this fucked up?


> didn't think this section is badly written or sticks out in any way.
> Perhaps your close familarity with Ian's personal life clouded
> your judgement of this passage.


Again, that's not argument, it's denial. You've already shot your
credibility in the foot by refusing to provide examples of Ian's being a
mediocre writer. You couldn't possibly be more biased.


>>>So you've tasted thawed turkey skin and can verify what it
>>>tastes like?
>>>
>>>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/farmfreeze.htm
>>
>>No, I haven't tasted it, and I doubt Ian did either. Being a
>>vegetarian, though, I plan on never tasting turkey for the rest of my
>>life. But you can buy a Butterball and bet me a hundred bucks or so
>>that the raw turkey skin tastes salty--I could use the beer money. It's
>>just bad writing, Jay.
>
>
> "I don't have any proof that a turkey skin can't taste salty,
> but my delusion that it doesn't is correct."
>
> The USDA says that a frozen turkey could've been marinated
> in a salty solution. That's enough for suspension of disbelief
> from me.


Yeah, that sounds valid. Bad writers imagine all kinds of things that
really don't have a bearing in reality, but present them as if they do
anyway. That's what's happening here. If you don't want to listen to
common sense I can't say that I'm surprised.


>>>His description of "small feet" was in the first sentence in the story.
>>>We don't find out Jeffy is 12 until the 4th paragraph. It served as
>>>a guideline to Jeffy's size until his age was revealed. And again,
>>>"small" is a relative word, it doesn't provide an exact shoe size.
>>
>>No, you're right--his feet could've grown in those three paragraphs. To
>>repeat, toddlers have small feet, not twelve year olds. Bad writing.
>
>
> To repeat: "small" is a relative word, it doesn't provide an exact shoe
> size.
> By itself it's a relatively meaningless word, it needs context


Was that the end of your sentence, or did you fade out and start foaming
at the mouth again?


>>>Right, who would stick to just literary criticism in
>>>a critique? You should stick to your normal choice
>>>of prose, since it's won you so many friends.
>>
>>
>>This is Usenet, Jay. This is recreation. If you PAY me to write
>>something of publication quality I will. You're being a dolt.
>
>
> Your "critque" wasn't even worthy of Usenet.


Okay, that made me laugh.


If you want to
> litter your critism with personal attacks, that's fine. Just don't
> expect anyone to think your critism of his writing is anything
> other than a biased attack aimed at someone you don't like.


The guy's an asshole, you said so yourself. What do you do with
assholes, sleep with them? I'm still waiting for you to say something
that shows an iota of credibility.

>>>It's called sarcasm. "Jacked off" and "dick" do appear in
>>>works other than pornography. I erroneously replaced
>>>"dick" with "screw" when I made the sarcastic remark though.
>>
>>Well, you've already proven yourself very confused when writing for
>>style points is concerned. This is no different. Words like "hard-on"
>>and "dick" don't fit with Ian's ultra-conservative, John Ashcroft like
>>prose. He's the literary equivalent of some guy standing around in a
>>leisure suit trying to act cool. It's bad writing, Jay. Apparently you
>>don't know enough about writing to recognize it.
>
>
> What's politically ultra-conservative about the rest of the prose?


Jay, if you can't recognize prose that is as stiff as a board you don't
belong in this discussion.


>>I'm saying I find it very implausible that a 12 year old would draw an
>>analogy between turkey wings and praying mantis legs. Not impossible,
>>implausible. It's the kind of thing that gives one pause to stop and
>>think, "Would he really say that?" As a writer, you don't want this to
>>happen.
>
>
> It's not implausible. As I have shown in previous posts through
> links, 12 year olds know about analogies and know how to
> make them, and they are familiar with the praying mantis. I
> challenge you to find anyone else who thought the analogy
> pulled them out of the story.


That's great, except that my interpretation was exactly correct: it was
an analogy that the writer wanted to make, and passed it off as the
twelve year old boy's. All he had to do was have the narrative voice of
the story make the analogy. It's very simple.


>>Jay, what is it about guys like you that cling to untenable postitions
>>as if they were life rafts in the ocean? The guy's writing is something
>>other than excellent--I would use the word "bad"--and you've said so
>>yourself. You're being intellectually dishonest by not being able to
>>say what the bad parts are.
>
>
> You're being intellectually dishonest when you write that my saying
> his writing was less than the best is the same as my saying it was
> bad.


Again, you said he writing was something other than excellent. Were you
lying then, or are you being intellectually dishonest now?


Jay G

unread,
Oct 9, 2003, 10:05:10 PM10/9/03
to

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> Jay G wrote:
...

> >
> > Pertinent quotes:
> > "My mother, who died of leukemia when I was eight, was a
> > librarian who read The Lord of the Rings aloud to me over the
> > last two years of her life (1964-66), a chapter or so a night,
> > and it was engraved on my memory even before I actually read it."
> >
> > "It is, simply put, one of the most important books of my life, and
> > has an enormous influence on me as a writer, just as it has had on
> > practically every English-language fantasy novelist of the past
thirty
> > years."
>
> Wow, that's pure class, Jay. I was hesitant to actually reproduce such
> a quote, because it really, really, really makes Ian sound like a
> pathetic individual. I'll just have to give you credit for the assist.

Only you would think that having one's dying mother read to
them at night when they were young makes someone look like
a pathetic individual.

> > So by "equating a Thanksgiving turkey to "Lord of the Rings," you're
> > talking about how Ian has used his own rememberances of
> > his mother to help shape his character's remembrances.
> > If his character's remembrances hadn't fit well into the context
> > of the story, I could see where you might've had a point.
> > However, I, having no knowledge of Ian's real life experiences,
>
>
> You just posted one, you moron. How do people get this fucked up?

I apologize, it should have read:

> > "However, I, having had no knowledge of Ian's real life experiences,


> > didn't think this section is badly written or sticks out in any way.
> > Perhaps your close familarity with Ian's personal life clouded
> > your judgement of this passage.
>
>
> Again, that's not argument, it's denial. You've already shot your
> credibility in the foot by refusing to provide examples of Ian's being a
> mediocre writer. You couldn't possibly be more biased.

So you've upgraded your opinion of his writing from awful to mediocre?

Saying my criticism of your criticism of Ian's work isn't credible
because I haven't criticised Ian's work myself is akin to saying
that you can't criticise a film unless you have made one yourself.
Or that you can't criticise a song unless you have written/performed
one yourself. Or that you can't criticise a work a fiction unless you
have written and provided a work of fiction up for critique yourself.
If I have to write criticism of Ian's work before my remarks on your
own criticism can be considered credible, then you have to write a
work a fiction before your criticism can be considered valid.

> >>> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/farmfreeze.htm


> >
> > The USDA says that a frozen turkey could've been marinated
> > in a salty solution. That's enough for suspension of disbelief
> > from me.
>
> Yeah, that sounds valid. Bad writers imagine all kinds of things that
> really don't have a bearing in reality, but present them as if they do
> anyway. That's what's happening here. If you don't want to listen to
> common sense I can't say that I'm surprised.

You have yet to provide any proof that a frozen turkey cannot
taste salty. On the other hand, the USDA says that a salty tasting
frozen turkey is a distinct possibilty. Whom should one believe,
the UDSA or the uninformed opinion of a vegetarian?

> If you want to
> > litter your critism with personal attacks, that's fine. Just don't
> > expect anyone to think your critism of his writing is anything
> > other than a biased attack aimed at someone you don't like.
>
> The guy's an asshole, you said so yourself.

Ian's said so himself as well.

> What do you do with
> assholes, sleep with them? I'm still waiting for you to say something
> that shows an iota of credibility.

You've pointed out, numerous times, your opinion of Ian's
character. You've also lobbied insults at him in countless
posts. One would think that you could manage to refrain
from personal attacks in *one* post in the hopes of
appearing unbiased, but you can't even manage that.


> >>Words like "hard-on" and "dick" don't fit with Ian's
> >>ultra-conservative, John Ashcroft like prose.
> >

> > What's politically ultra-conservative about the rest of the prose?
>
> Jay, if you can't recognize prose that is as stiff as a board you don't
> belong in this discussion.

So writing that is stiff is politically ultra-conservative? Or did you
get your definitions of the word "conservative" confused when you
compared Ian's writing to John Ashcroft?

> > It's not implausible. As I have shown in previous posts through
> > links, 12 year olds know about analogies and know how to
> > make them, and they are familiar with the praying mantis. I
> > challenge you to find anyone else who thought the analogy
> > pulled them out of the story.
>
> That's great, except that my interpretation was exactly correct: it was
> an analogy that the writer wanted to make, and passed it off as the
> twelve year old boy's. All he had to do was have the narrative voice of
> the story make the analogy. It's very simple.

"My interpretation was exactly correct," or in other words, "my opinion
is the only possible correct one." While your paragraph here actually
counts as a real criticism of Ian's writing, good job, it doesn't mean it's
100% correct. I see you failed to find anyone else that agreed with
your assesment of the analogy.

> >>The guy's writing is something
> >>other than excellent--I would use the word "bad"--and you've said so
> >>yourself. You're being intellectually dishonest by not being able to
> >>say what the bad parts are.
> >
> >
> > You're being intellectually dishonest when you write that my saying
> > his writing was less than the best is the same as my saying it was
> > bad.
>
> Again, you said he writing was something other than excellent. Were you
> lying then, or are you being intellectually dishonest now?

You're funny. Does this technique actually ever work on anyone?

totsky: "I can't believe you think Ian's writing is one of the best in the
field."
Me: "It's not one of the best."
trotsky: "Well, now that we agree that it's awful..."
Me: "I never said it was awful."
trotsky: "You at least said it was bad."
Me: "No I didn't."
trotsky: "Well, at the least you thought it was mediocre."
Me: "Never said that either."
trotsky: "Stop lying!"

In case you actually don't understand why what I wrote doesn't mean I
think Ian's writing is bad, here's a helpful little scale:

The worst < awful < very bad < bad < mediocre < good < very good < excellent
< the best

There are more adjectives that can be used to describe the
quality of a work of writing, but this is sufficient enough to
get my point across. My point is that I've never said that
Ian's work is anything other than less than the best or
better than bad.

-Jay


Robert Lee

unread,
Oct 10, 2003, 12:03:04 AM10/10/03
to
"Jay G" <J...@tmbg.org> wrote in news:voc5l8o...@corp.supernews.com:

>> Wow, that's pure class, Jay. I was hesitant to actually reproduce such
>> a quote, because it really, really, really makes Ian sound like a
>> pathetic individual. I'll just have to give you credit for the assist.
>
> Only you would think that having one's dying mother read to
> them at night when they were young makes someone look like
> a pathetic individual.

Good god, Twatsky.

--
--Robert

Do not sit next to Dennis

trotsky

unread,
Oct 10, 2003, 7:29:01 AM10/10/03
to

Jay G wrote:
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>
>>Jay G wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>Pertinent quotes:
>>> "My mother, who died of leukemia when I was eight, was a
>>> librarian who read The Lord of the Rings aloud to me over the
>>> last two years of her life (1964-66), a chapter or so a night,
>>> and it was engraved on my memory even before I actually read it."
>>>
>>> "It is, simply put, one of the most important books of my life, and
>>> has an enormous influence on me as a writer, just as it has had on
>>> practically every English-language fantasy novelist of the past
>>
> thirty
>
>>> years."
>>
>>Wow, that's pure class, Jay. I was hesitant to actually reproduce such
>>a quote, because it really, really, really makes Ian sound like a
>>pathetic individual. I'll just have to give you credit for the assist.
>
>
> Only you would think that having one's dying mother read to
> them at night when they were young makes someone look like
> a pathetic individual.


Jay, something must be wrong with your brain: broadcasting that fact to
strangers on the internet multiple times makes you look like a pathetic
individual. If you can't grasp the facts it takes all the fun out of it.


>>>So by "equating a Thanksgiving turkey to "Lord of the Rings," you're
>>>talking about how Ian has used his own rememberances of
>>>his mother to help shape his character's remembrances.
>>>If his character's remembrances hadn't fit well into the context
>>>of the story, I could see where you might've had a point.
>>>However, I, having no knowledge of Ian's real life experiences,
>>
>>
>>You just posted one, you moron. How do people get this fucked up?
>
>
> I apologize, it should have read:
>
>
>>>"However, I, having had no knowledge of Ian's real life experiences,
>>>didn't think this section is badly written or sticks out in any way.
>>>Perhaps your close familarity with Ian's personal life clouded
>>>your judgement of this passage.
>>
>>
>>Again, that's not argument, it's denial. You've already shot your
>>credibility in the foot by refusing to provide examples of Ian's being a
>>mediocre writer. You couldn't possibly be more biased.
>
>
> So you've upgraded your opinion of his writing from awful to mediocre?


No, Jay, I was restating YOUR opinion. You're not putting in a very
good showing here.


> Saying my criticism of your criticism of Ian's work isn't credible
> because I haven't criticised Ian's work myself is akin to saying
> that you can't criticise a film unless you have made one yourself.


What illicit substance was that sentence created under the influence of?


> Or that you can't criticise a song unless you have written/performed
> one yourself. Or that you can't criticise a work a fiction unless you
> have written and provided a work of fiction up for critique yourself.
> If I have to write criticism of Ian's work before my remarks on your
> own criticism can be considered credible, then you have to write a
> work a fiction before your criticism can be considered valid.


Again, you seem to have no grasp of the facts. Here's a summary:

trotsky: Ian's writing blows, here are the ways.

"JayG": No, Ian's writing is mediocre, but I'm too afraid to point out
the mediocre parts.


>>>>>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/farmfreeze.htm
>>>>
>>>The USDA says that a frozen turkey could've been marinated
>>>in a salty solution. That's enough for suspension of disbelief
>>>from me.
>>
>>Yeah, that sounds valid. Bad writers imagine all kinds of things that
>>really don't have a bearing in reality, but present them as if they do
>>anyway. That's what's happening here. If you don't want to listen to
>>common sense I can't say that I'm surprised.
>
>
> You have yet to provide any proof that a frozen turkey cannot
> taste salty.


You aren't getting it, Jay. It's not about proof, it's about a shadow
of a doubt creeping into the mind of any reader that isn't afraid to
realize how bad the writing is. Regardless, on this point I'm right and
your wrong.


On the other hand, the USDA says that a salty tasting
> frozen turkey is a distinct possibilty. Whom should one believe,
> the UDSA or the uninformed opinion of a vegetarian?


Now you're just lying. The USDA said no such thing.


>> If you want to
>>
>>>litter your critism with personal attacks, that's fine. Just don't
>>>expect anyone to think your critism of his writing is anything
>>>other than a biased attack aimed at someone you don't like.
>>
>>The guy's an asshole, you said so yourself.
>
>
> Ian's said so himself as well.


Kewl, then we're all in agreement. Strange how you didn't chime in when
twenty or thirty people were taking turns calling *me* the troll. It's
almost as if you have no respect for the truth.


>>What do you do with
>>assholes, sleep with them? I'm still waiting for you to say something
>>that shows an iota of credibility.
>
>
> You've pointed out, numerous times, your opinion of Ian's
> character.


See above.


You've also lobbied insults at him in countless
> posts.


I think you mean "lobbed", but who knows, I may just be part of one of
Washington's special interest groups.


One would think that you could manage to refrain
> from personal attacks in *one* post in the hopes of
> appearing unbiased, but you can't even manage that.


Apparently you're too dumb to figure out what is going on here. This is
about getting his damaged psyche to crawl back into the woodwork where
it belongs, nothing more.


>>>>Words like "hard-on" and "dick" don't fit with Ian's
>>>>ultra-conservative, John Ashcroft like prose.
>>>
>>>What's politically ultra-conservative about the rest of the prose?
>>
>>Jay, if you can't recognize prose that is as stiff as a board you don't
>>belong in this discussion.
>
>
> So writing that is stiff is politically ultra-conservative? Or did you
> get your definitions of the word "conservative" confused when you
> compared Ian's writing to John Ashcroft?


No, I meant his "skin tasted salty". I was just peppering the
discussion with somebody that's as stiff as a board, much like Ian's
prose. This topic has never been about political leanings, so you're in
error to even bring that up.


>>>It's not implausible. As I have shown in previous posts through
>>>links, 12 year olds know about analogies and know how to
>>>make them, and they are familiar with the praying mantis. I
>>>challenge you to find anyone else who thought the analogy
>>>pulled them out of the story.
>>
>>That's great, except that my interpretation was exactly correct: it was
>>an analogy that the writer wanted to make, and passed it off as the
>>twelve year old boy's. All he had to do was have the narrative voice of
>>the story make the analogy. It's very simple.
>
>
> "My interpretation was exactly correct," or in other words, "my opinion
> is the only possible correct one." While your paragraph here actually
> counts as a real criticism of Ian's writing, good job, it doesn't mean it's
> 100% correct. I see you failed to find anyone else that agreed with
> your assesment of the analogy.


Right, perhaps you can collect the large pool of people that actually
had the guts to discuss this. You're basically dealing with others'
Usenet cowardice here.


>>>>The guy's writing is something
>>>>other than excellent--I would use the word "bad"--and you've said so
>>>>yourself. You're being intellectually dishonest by not being able to
>>>>say what the bad parts are.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're being intellectually dishonest when you write that my saying
>>>his writing was less than the best is the same as my saying it was
>>>bad.
>>
>>Again, you said he writing was something other than excellent. Were you
>>lying then, or are you being intellectually dishonest now?
>
>
> You're funny. Does this technique actually ever work on anyone?


It's a valid question, can you answer it?

> totsky: "I can't believe you think Ian's writing is one of the best in the
> field."
> Me: "It's not one of the best."
> trotsky: "Well, now that we agree that it's awful..."
> Me: "I never said it was awful."
> trotsky: "You at least said it was bad."
> Me: "No I didn't."
> trotsky: "Well, at the least you thought it was mediocre."
> Me: "Never said that either."
> trotsky: "Stop lying!"


That's weak, Jay. I gave a list of genre writers that I thought were
good, and you agreed Ian wasn't as good as any of those. I gave you
ample opportunities to give examples of either his strengths or
weaknesses, and you couldn't provide either. To repeat, you're not
putting in a very good showing here.


> In case you actually don't understand why what I wrote doesn't mean I
> think Ian's writing is bad, here's a helpful little scale:
>
> The worst < awful < very bad < bad < mediocre < good < very good < excellent
> < the best


I'm sorry, do you have a rating on that scale that you're using to
describe his writing, or is this more of your mental masturbation?


> There are more adjectives that can be used to describe the
> quality of a work of writing, but this is sufficient enough to
> get my point across. My point is that I've never said that
> Ian's work is anything other than less than the best or
> better than bad.


Of course. What's an example of it being less the best? What's an
example of it being better than the worst? Why are you afraid to answer
these questions, Jay?

Jay G

unread,
Oct 11, 2003, 1:32:29 PM10/11/03
to

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:3F8697FC...@email.com...

> Jay G wrote:
> > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> >>Jay G wrote:
> > Only you would think that having one's dying mother read to
> > them at night when they were young makes someone look like
> > a pathetic individual.
>
> Jay, something must be wrong with your brain: broadcasting that fact to
> strangers on the internet multiple times makes you look like a pathetic
> individual. If you can't grasp the facts it takes all the fun out of it.

So posting something multiple times makes one pathetic?

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pefdb.5140$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=GCtab.8064$UN4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HkBab.8437$UN4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net

What's interesting to note is that Ian posted about his mother reading to
him twice in this newsgroup. Both times they were relevant to the thread
at hand, and the last time was almost *two years* ago. What did you do
trostsky, write it down on some "ammo against Ian" list?

> > Saying my criticism of your criticism of Ian's work isn't credible
> > because I haven't criticised Ian's work myself is akin to saying
> > that you can't criticise a film unless you have made one yourself.
>
>
> What illicit substance was that sentence created under the influence of?

Did you not understand it?

> > Or that you can't criticise a song unless you have written/performed
> > one yourself. Or that you can't criticise a work a fiction unless you
> > have written and provided a work of fiction up for critique yourself.
> > If I have to write criticism of Ian's work before my remarks on your
> > own criticism can be considered credible, then you have to write a
> > work a fiction before your criticism can be considered valid.
>
>
> Again, you seem to have no grasp of the facts. Here's a summary:
>
> trotsky: Ian's writing blows, here are the ways.
> "JayG": No, Ian's writing is mediocre, but I'm too afraid to point out
> the mediocre parts.

Find the quote where I said his writing was mediocre.

> You aren't getting it, Jay. It's not about proof, it's about a shadow
> of a doubt creeping into the mind of any reader that isn't afraid to
> realize how bad the writing is. Regardless, on this point I'm right and
> your wrong.

Usually when a reader is presented with something he or she has
no knowledge about, that reader will give the author the benefit
of the doubt. Of course, you have no knowledge about this
subject either, but insist that Ian's description must be wrong.
That's because you weren't reading for any other purpose than
to find "errors" to attack Ian with.

> On the other hand, the USDA says that a salty tasting
> > frozen turkey is a distinct possibilty. Whom should one believe,
> > the UDSA or the uninformed opinion of a vegetarian?
>
>
> Now you're just lying. The USDA said no such thing.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/farmfreeze.htm
"BASTED or SELF-BASTED - Bone-in poultry products
(such as whole birds) that are injected or *marinated* with a


solution containing butter or other edible fat, broth, stock,
or water, plus spices, flavor enhancers, and other approved
substances must be labeled as "basted" or "self-basted".

I provided another link before that showed labels of self-basted
turkeys, and the solution they are basted with contains salt:
http://www.turkeyhelp.com/turkeytasting.htm

> >>The guy's an asshole, you said so yourself.
> >
> > Ian's said so himself as well.
>
> Kewl, then we're all in agreement. Strange how you didn't chime in when
> twenty or thirty people were taking turns calling *me* the troll. It's
> almost as if you have no respect for the truth.

That's because your behaviour is little better than Ian's. In fact, your
online persona is much more annoying than Ian's.

> One would think that you could manage to refrain
> > from personal attacks in *one* post in the hopes of
> > appearing unbiased, but you can't even manage that.
>
> Apparently you're too dumb to figure out what is going on here. This is
> about getting his damaged psyche to crawl back into the woodwork where
> it belongs, nothing more.

You're right, I thought this was about a serious criticism of Ian's
writing, but I guess you're saying that's wrong.

> >>>>Words like "hard-on" and "dick" don't fit with Ian's
> >>>>ultra-conservative, John Ashcroft like prose.
> >>>

> > So writing that is stiff is politically ultra-conservative? Or did you
> > get your definitions of the word "conservative" confused when you
> > compared Ian's writing to John Ashcroft?
>
> No, I meant his "skin tasted salty". I was just peppering the
> discussion with somebody that's as stiff as a board, much like Ian's
> prose. This topic has never been about political leanings, so you're in
> error to even bring that up.

If you're trying to make an analogy about (in your view) Ian's conservative,
(as in stiff) writing style, don't compare it to someone who is better
recognized for his political ultra-conservatism than for his written prose.
That's like saying something "tastes as orange as a pumpkin," because,
you know, pumpkins are orange colored.

> > totsky: "I can't believe you think Ian's writing is one of the best in
the
> > field."
> > Me: "It's not one of the best."
> > trotsky: "Well, now that we agree that it's awful..."
> > Me: "I never said it was awful."
> > trotsky: "You at least said it was bad."
> > Me: "No I didn't."
> > trotsky: "Well, at the least you thought it was mediocre."
> > Me: "Never said that either."
> > trotsky: "Stop lying!"
>
>
> That's weak, Jay. I gave a list of genre writers that I thought were
> good, and you agreed Ian wasn't as good as any of those.

"writers that I thought were good"?

Here's your list:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vntjbgm...@corp.supernews.com
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> > Here's where I'm coming from: here are four
> > writers of genre fiction that I used to read and enjoy in my youth:
> > Asimov, Bradbury, Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard. Ian claims to be a
> > professional writer, and yet will *never* be in the same league with any
> > of these guys.

So you're saying that Asimov, Bradbury, Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard
are merely "good" writers?

Here was my reply, and the only time I offered an opinion on
Ian's writing:
"Jay G" <J...@tmbg.org> wrote...
> There is a difference between someone's writing being as good
> as the writing of those considered the masters of their genres
> and someone's writing being "shit." Namely, there's a wide
> range of quality between "best" and "worst," and somewhere
> in that range fits Ian's work. I'd say it lies on the "good" side
> of that scale, but opinions may differ.

Note that I asserted that the writers you listed are "masters of their
genres," which you didn't disagree with at the time. Saying Ian
doesn't compare to those masters isn't the same as calling it
"awful," "bad," or "mediocre," all words you claimed I had
said.

> I gave you ample opportunities to give examples of either
> his strengths or weaknesses, and you couldn't provide either.
> To repeat, you're not putting in a very good showing here.

My point was never whether or not Ian's writing is good or
bad, but that your "criticism" of his post, which you repeatedly
boasted about, was terrible.

-Jay


trotsky

unread,
Oct 11, 2003, 11:12:29 PM10/11/03
to

Jay G wrote:
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:3F8697FC...@email.com...
>
>>Jay G wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>>>Jay G wrote:
>>>
>>>Only you would think that having one's dying mother read to
>>>them at night when they were young makes someone look like
>>>a pathetic individual.
>>
>>Jay, something must be wrong with your brain: broadcasting that fact to
>>strangers on the internet multiple times makes you look like a pathetic
>>individual. If you can't grasp the facts it takes all the fun out of it.
>
>
> So posting something multiple times makes one pathetic?


Wow, Jay, why not turn it into a glittering generality while you're at
it? Respond to the specific allegation, or admit that you have nothing
to say.


How would you know? You didn't even know what I was talking about until
I spoon fed it to you.


Both times they were relevant to the thread
> at hand, and the last time was almost *two years* ago. What did you do
> trostsky, write it down on some "ammo against Ian" list?


"Relevant to the thread at hand"--now there's a crock of shit for you.
What aspect of that life experience was relevant to a newsgroup about films?


>>>Saying my criticism of your criticism of Ian's work isn't credible
>>>because I haven't criticised Ian's work myself is akin to saying
>>>that you can't criticise a film unless you have made one yourself.
>>
>>
>>What illicit substance was that sentence created under the influence of?
>
>
> Did you not understand it?


The use of illicit substances? No, I never did see the attraction. Oh,
your sentence above made no sense either.

>>>Or that you can't criticise a song unless you have written/performed
>>>one yourself. Or that you can't criticise a work a fiction unless you
>>>have written and provided a work of fiction up for critique yourself.
>>>If I have to write criticism of Ian's work before my remarks on your
>>>own criticism can be considered credible, then you have to write a
>>>work a fiction before your criticism can be considered valid.
>>
>>
>>Again, you seem to have no grasp of the facts. Here's a summary:
>>
>>trotsky: Ian's writing blows, here are the ways.
>>"JayG": No, Ian's writing is mediocre, but I'm too afraid to point out
>>the mediocre parts.
>
>
> Find the quote where I said his writing was mediocre.


How about if we stop beating around the bush and just admit you lack the
necessary genitalia to say anything of consequence on this subject? If
you don't think he's the best writer walking the earth, you must have
reasons, right? Just admit that you're afraid to answer these questions
and we can move on.


>>You aren't getting it, Jay. It's not about proof, it's about a shadow
>>of a doubt creeping into the mind of any reader that isn't afraid to
>>realize how bad the writing is. Regardless, on this point I'm right and
>>your wrong.
>
>
> Usually when a reader is presented with something he or she has
> no knowledge about, that reader will give the author the benefit
> of the doubt. Of course, you have no knowledge about this
> subject either, but insist that Ian's description must be wrong.
> That's because you weren't reading for any other purpose than
> to find "errors" to attack Ian with.


I've cooked plenty of turkeys before I become a vegetarian, Jay, and I
can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you don't baste the
turkey with something salty while cooking it the skin does not taste
salty. You, of course, have no anecdotal evidence or even opinions to
relate, so you're denial falls under the heading of mental masturbation.


>> On the other hand, the USDA says that a salty tasting
>>
>>>frozen turkey is a distinct possibilty. Whom should one believe,
>>>the UDSA or the uninformed opinion of a vegetarian?
>>
>>
>>Now you're just lying. The USDA said no such thing.
>
>
> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/farmfreeze.htm
> "BASTED or SELF-BASTED - Bone-in poultry products
> (such as whole birds) that are injected or *marinated* with a
> solution containing butter or other edible fat, broth, stock,
> or water, plus spices, flavor enhancers, and other approved
> substances must be labeled as "basted" or "self-basted".
>
> I provided another link before that showed labels of self-basted
> turkeys, and the solution they are basted with contains salt:
> http://www.turkeyhelp.com/turkeytasting.htm


Jay, where are the words that say "a salty tasting frozen turkey is a
distinct possibility"? Do you see them? I certainly don't.


>>>>The guy's an asshole, you said so yourself.
>>>
>>>Ian's said so himself as well.
>>
>>Kewl, then we're all in agreement. Strange how you didn't chime in when
>>twenty or thirty people were taking turns calling *me* the troll. It's
>>almost as if you have no respect for the truth.
>
>
> That's because your behaviour is little better than Ian's. In fact, your
> online persona is much more annoying than Ian's.


Does not compute. If his behavior (note American spelling) is so
heinous, how it takes me verbally beating you about the head and
shoulders to admit it? And why are you still afraid to admit what the
flaws in his writing are?


>> One would think that you could manage to refrain
>>
>>>from personal attacks in *one* post in the hopes of
>>>appearing unbiased, but you can't even manage that.
>>
>>Apparently you're too dumb to figure out what is going on here. This is
>>about getting his damaged psyche to crawl back into the woodwork where
>>it belongs, nothing more.
>
>
> You're right, I thought this was about a serious criticism of Ian's
> writing, but I guess you're saying that's wrong.


Serious criticism of his writing? That guy isn't worth the time of day.
I don't read garbage genre fiction like that, do you?


>>>>>>Words like "hard-on" and "dick" don't fit with Ian's
>>>>>>ultra-conservative, John Ashcroft like prose.
>>>>>
>>>So writing that is stiff is politically ultra-conservative? Or did you
>>>get your definitions of the word "conservative" confused when you
>>>compared Ian's writing to John Ashcroft?
>>
>>No, I meant his "skin tasted salty". I was just peppering the
>>discussion with somebody that's as stiff as a board, much like Ian's
>>prose. This topic has never been about political leanings, so you're in
>>error to even bring that up.
>
>
> If you're trying to make an analogy about (in your view) Ian's conservative,
> (as in stiff) writing style, don't compare it to someone who is better
> recognized for his political ultra-conservatism than for his written prose.
> That's like saying something "tastes as orange as a pumpkin," because,
> you know, pumpkins are orange colored.


No, I think the analogy was clear enough. Your analogies need some
help, though.


>>>totsky: "I can't believe you think Ian's writing is one of the best in
>>
> the
>
>>>field."
>>>Me: "It's not one of the best."
>>>trotsky: "Well, now that we agree that it's awful..."
>>>Me: "I never said it was awful."
>>>trotsky: "You at least said it was bad."
>>>Me: "No I didn't."
>>>trotsky: "Well, at the least you thought it was mediocre."
>>>Me: "Never said that either."
>>>trotsky: "Stop lying!"
>>
>>
>>That's weak, Jay. I gave a list of genre writers that I thought were
>>good, and you agreed Ian wasn't as good as any of those.
>
>
> "writers that I thought were good"?
>
> Here's your list:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vntjbgm...@corp.supernews.com
>
>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>>
>>>Here's where I'm coming from: here are four
>>>writers of genre fiction that I used to read and enjoy in my youth:
>>>Asimov, Bradbury, Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard. Ian claims to be a
>>>professional writer, and yet will *never* be in the same league with any
>>>of these guys.
>>
>
> So you're saying that Asimov, Bradbury, Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard
> are merely "good" writers?


Good, great, excellent--what adjective do you want to use? Dostoevsky,
Orwell, James Joyce--those are great writers. Writers of genre fiction
merely get a "good" rating at best, the way I score it. Regardless, I'm
the only one generating any information here, Jay, while you cower in
fear of me asking you to qualify the opinion you managed to leak out.


> Here was my reply, and the only time I offered an opinion on
> Ian's writing:
> "Jay G" <J...@tmbg.org> wrote...
>
>>There is a difference between someone's writing being as good
>>as the writing of those considered the masters of their genres
>>and someone's writing being "shit." Namely, there's a wide
>>range of quality between "best" and "worst," and somewhere
>>in that range fits Ian's work. I'd say it lies on the "good" side
>>of that scale, but opinions may differ.


And yet, six posts later, when I ask you to be more specific, all I can
hear is your knees knocking together.


> Note that I asserted that the writers you listed are "masters of their
> genres," which you didn't disagree with at the time. Saying Ian
> doesn't compare to those masters isn't the same as calling it
> "awful," "bad," or "mediocre," all words you claimed I had
> said.


My bad, I should've just admitted you lacked the balls to say anything
of consequence from the get-go. Do you think "chickenshit" is an
adequate description of your behavior here?


>>I gave you ample opportunities to give examples of either
>>his strengths or weaknesses, and you couldn't provide either.
>>To repeat, you're not putting in a very good showing here.
>
>
> My point was never whether or not Ian's writing is good or
> bad, but that your "criticism" of his post, which you repeatedly
> boasted about, was terrible.


But why are you afraid to say anything of consequence yourself, Jay?
Why act like a chickenshit bastard over and over and over again? It
doesn't make sense to me. You're like some guy in a gay pride parade:
"I'm here. I'm queer. I can't say anything of consequence about Ian's
writing." Are you *trying* to be the butt of jokes?


Jay G

unread,
Oct 12, 2003, 2:09:29 AM10/12/03
to

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote com...
> Jay G wrote:
> > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote...

> >>Jay G wrote:
> >>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> > What's interesting to note is that Ian posted about his mother reading
to
> > him twice in this newsgroup.
>
> How would you know? You didn't even know what I was talking about until
> I spoon fed it to you.

It's called Google. I went back and looked. I didn't immediately know
what you were talking about because you made a badly written, oblique
reference to something that occured *two years ago* in this newsgroup.
If you were posting for the general newsgroup audience, you should've
made your point clearer. If you were posting the critique solely for the
benefit of Ian, you should've emailed it to him instead.

> Both times they were relevant to the thread
> > at hand, and the last time was almost *two years* ago. What did you do
> > trostsky, write it down on some "ammo against Ian" list?
>
> "Relevant to the thread at hand"--now there's a crock of shit for you.
> What aspect of that life experience was relevant to a newsgroup about
films?

The first reference Ian made was in a post considering Tolkien and his
importance to the fantasy genre. While the entire thread was probably not
relevant to a newsgroup about films, the post he made was relevant to the
thread itself.

The second post in which a reference to Ian's mother was made was
regarding age appropriateness of LOTR. In this regard, his mentioning
of the first time he was exposed to the book was relevant.

Again, trotsky, why do you even remember something Ian said nearly
*two years ago*?

> >>>Saying my criticism of your criticism of Ian's work isn't credible
> >>>because I haven't criticised Ian's work myself is akin to saying
> >>>that you can't criticise a film unless you have made one yourself.
>

> Oh, your sentence above made no sense either.

Let me make it clearer. I do not have to provide any criticism of
Ian's work before I can credibly criticise your "criticism" of Ian's
work.

> >>trotsky: Ian's writing blows, here are the ways.
> >>"JayG": No, Ian's writing is mediocre, but I'm too afraid to point out
> >>the mediocre parts.
> >
> > Find the quote where I said his writing was mediocre.
>
> How about if we stop beating around the bush and just admit you lack the
> necessary genitalia to say anything of consequence on this subject?

So you admit that I never said his work was mediocre? Or bad?
Or awful? Do you admit you were lying when you claimed I had?

> > Usually when a reader is presented with something he or she has
> > no knowledge about, that reader will give the author the benefit
> > of the doubt. Of course, you have no knowledge about this
> > subject either, but insist that Ian's description must be wrong.
> > That's because you weren't reading for any other purpose than
> > to find "errors" to attack Ian with.
>
> I've cooked plenty of turkeys before I become a vegetarian, Jay, and I
> can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you don't baste the
> turkey with something salty while cooking it the skin does not taste
> salty.

And of course a raw and a cooked turkey taste exactly the same.
Didn't I mention that frozen turkeys are "basted" with something
salty?


> > http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/farmfreeze.htm
> > "BASTED or SELF-BASTED - Bone-in poultry products
> > (such as whole birds) that are injected or *marinated* with a
> > solution containing butter or other edible fat, broth, stock,
> > or water, plus spices, flavor enhancers, and other approved
> > substances must be labeled as "basted" or "self-basted".
> >
> > I provided another link before that showed labels of self-basted
> > turkeys, and the solution they are basted with contains salt:
> > http://www.turkeyhelp.com/turkeytasting.htm
>
> Jay, where are the words that say "a salty tasting frozen turkey is a
> distinct possibility"? Do you see them? I certainly don't.

OK, you got me, the USDA does not say those exact words.
I was paraphrasing, which is why I didn't put it in quotes.
It does say that a "basted" frozen turkey can be "marinated"
in a solution though, and the ingredients of that solution must
be on the label. The turkeyhelp site shows the labels of
several frozen turkeys, which include "salt" as one of the
ingredients in their solutions.

> Does not compute. If his behavior (note American spelling) is so
> heinous, how it takes me verbally beating you about the head and
> shoulders to admit it? And why are you still afraid to admit what the
> flaws in his writing are?

Because his personal behavior is irrelevent to his writing.
You claimed your "critique" had valid points on Ian's writing,
when in reality they were mostly thinly veiled personal attacks
at him. Also, I was unaware of some of Ian's past transgressions.
Perhaps that's because Ian acting like a dick is so much less
noticable on this newgroup than you acting like a dick.

> > You're right, I thought this was about a serious criticism of Ian's
> > writing, but I guess you're saying that's wrong.
>
> Serious criticism of his writing? That guy isn't worth the time of day.
> I don't read garbage genre fiction like that, do you?

So you admit your original response to his story doesn't count as
criticism?

> > So you're saying that Asimov, Bradbury, Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard
> > are merely "good" writers?
>
> Good, great, excellent--what adjective do you want to use? Dostoevsky,
> Orwell, James Joyce--those are great writers. Writers of genre fiction
> merely get a "good" rating at best, the way I score it.

That's a bit snobbish, isn't it? How come Orwell made your list?
After all, he wrote sci-fi and fantasy.

> >>I gave you ample opportunities to give examples of either
> >>his strengths or weaknesses, and you couldn't provide either.
> >>To repeat, you're not putting in a very good showing here.
> >
> >
> > My point was never whether or not Ian's writing is good or
> > bad, but that your "criticism" of his post, which you repeatedly
> > boasted about, was terrible.
>
>
> But why are you afraid to say anything of consequence yourself, Jay?

Because I don't *care* about Ian's writing. Before you needlessly
started a new thread I hadn't even read this one. What I did care
about was you fluffing your feathers and strutting around like you
were the biggest cock of the hen-house, all because nobody bothered
to respond to one of your posts. For some reason, your stroking of
your ego and pompous behavior sat wrong with me, so I set out
to correct your incredibly skewed view of reality.

To set the record straight, from what I've read of it, I would
classify Ian's writing as good. His Christmas story in particular
I would rate as very good. That may seem like faint praise,
but considering my opinion is based only on his Usenet postings
and two short stories never intended for publication, I'd say
Ian rates rather well.

As for you trotsky, your "critique" is still shit. Most of the
"points" you made were just personal attacks at Ian, and
the rest were either petty nit-picks of single words, or
obviously biased descriptions of his writing being "boring"
and "awful."

-Jay


trotsky

unread,
Oct 12, 2003, 9:19:38 AM10/12/03
to

trotsky

unread,
Oct 12, 2003, 9:42:15 AM10/12/03
to

Jay G wrote:
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote com...
>
>>Jay G wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote...
>>>
>>>>Jay G wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>>>>
>>>What's interesting to note is that Ian posted about his mother reading
>>
> to
>
>>>him twice in this newsgroup.
>>
>>How would you know? You didn't even know what I was talking about until
>>I spoon fed it to you.
>
>
> It's called Google. I went back and looked. I didn't immediately know
> what you were talking about because you made a badly written, oblique
> reference to something that occured *two years ago* in this newsgroup.
> If you were posting for the general newsgroup audience, you should've
> made your point clearer. If you were posting the critique solely for the
> benefit of Ian, you should've emailed it to him instead.


Two years? It makes Ian sound like a dork for still carrying a grudge,
don't you think? Or maybe his Asian wannabeism makes him think he's
living in some sort of exploitative revenge flick--what's your theory?

>> Both times they were relevant to the thread
>>
>>>at hand, and the last time was almost *two years* ago. What did you do
>>>trostsky, write it down on some "ammo against Ian" list?
>>
>>"Relevant to the thread at hand"--now there's a crock of shit for you.
>>What aspect of that life experience was relevant to a newsgroup about
>
> films?
>
> The first reference Ian made was in a post considering Tolkien and his
> importance to the fantasy genre. While the entire thread was probably not
> relevant to a newsgroup about films, the post he made was relevant to the
> thread itself.


I see. And the bit about his mother was just thrown in to make the post
more "cinematic"? Do you not realize that you're talking trash here?


> The second post in which a reference to Ian's mother was made was
> regarding age appropriateness of LOTR. In this regard, his mentioning
> of the first time he was exposed to the book was relevant.


If he said his mother used to read it to him as a youth, that's one
thing, but when he says that she used to read it to him before she died
you have to wonder why he felt he need to supply us with that
information. Why don't you bullshit us some more and properly try and
rationalize this, Jay? Are you trolling here?


> Again, trotsky, why do you even remember something Ian said nearly
> *two years ago*?


I remember a lot of stuff, Jay. I don't have your luxury of going
through life in a perpetual daze.


>>>>>Saying my criticism of your criticism of Ian's work isn't credible
>>>>>because I haven't criticised Ian's work myself is akin to saying
>>>>>that you can't criticise a film unless you have made one yourself.
>>>>
>>Oh, your sentence above made no sense either.
>
>
> Let me make it clearer. I do not have to provide any criticism of
> Ian's work before I can credibly criticise your "criticism" of Ian's
> work.


Cool, that's a crock of shit, too. You are AFRAID, Jay. You are afraid
to admit I'm right and you're wrong.

>>>>trotsky: Ian's writing blows, here are the ways.
>>>>"JayG": No, Ian's writing is mediocre, but I'm too afraid to point out
>>>>the mediocre parts.
>>>
>>>Find the quote where I said his writing was mediocre.
>>
>>How about if we stop beating around the bush and just admit you lack the
>>necessary genitalia to say anything of consequence on this subject?
>
>
> So you admit that I never said his work was mediocre? Or bad?
> Or awful? Do you admit you were lying when you claimed I had?


I admit that you lack the balls to say anything of consequence on this
subject, hoping that I'll get bored and let you get the last word in.
You should've researched the subject more.


>>>Usually when a reader is presented with something he or she has
>>>no knowledge about, that reader will give the author the benefit
>>>of the doubt. Of course, you have no knowledge about this
>>>subject either, but insist that Ian's description must be wrong.
>>>That's because you weren't reading for any other purpose than
>>>to find "errors" to attack Ian with.
>>
>>I've cooked plenty of turkeys before I become a vegetarian, Jay, and I
>>can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you don't baste the
>>turkey with something salty while cooking it the skin does not taste
>>salty.
>
>
> And of course a raw and a cooked turkey taste exactly the same.
> Didn't I mention that frozen turkeys are "basted" with something
> salty?


It's bad writing, Jay. Hey, here's an exercise: go tell your family and
friends that you read a cool story on the 'net about a perverse young
boy with small feet that licks a turkey before having sex with it, and
that the skin tasted salty. Tell 'em one guy said that this was stupid
on all levels and see what they say. You're not afraid, right?


>>>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/farmfreeze.htm
>>> "BASTED or SELF-BASTED - Bone-in poultry products
>>> (such as whole birds) that are injected or *marinated* with a
>>> solution containing butter or other edible fat, broth, stock,
>>> or water, plus spices, flavor enhancers, and other approved
>>> substances must be labeled as "basted" or "self-basted".
>>>
>>>I provided another link before that showed labels of self-basted
>>>turkeys, and the solution they are basted with contains salt:
>>>http://www.turkeyhelp.com/turkeytasting.htm
>>
>>Jay, where are the words that say "a salty tasting frozen turkey is a
>>distinct possibility"? Do you see them? I certainly don't.
>
>
> OK, you got me, the USDA does not say those exact words.
> I was paraphrasing, which is why I didn't put it in quotes.
> It does say that a "basted" frozen turkey can be "marinated"
> in a solution though, and the ingredients of that solution must
> be on the label. The turkeyhelp site shows the labels of
> several frozen turkeys, which include "salt" as one of the
> ingredients in their solutions.


The turkeys are "injected" with the solution (it sounds disgusting just
to talk about it), I've *never* seen one that claimed to be "marinated",
have you? This is a straw man argument.


>>Does not compute. If his behavior (note American spelling) is so

>>heinous, how does it take me verbally beating you about the head and


>>shoulders to admit it? And why are you still afraid to admit what the
>>flaws in his writing are?
>
>
> Because his personal behavior is irrelevent to his writing.
> You claimed your "critique" had valid points on Ian's writing,
> when in reality they were mostly thinly veiled personal attacks
> at him. Also, I was unaware of some of Ian's past transgressions.
> Perhaps that's because Ian acting like a dick is so much less
> noticable on this newgroup than you acting like a dick.


I see. So you're not afraid to talk about me, you're simply AFRAID to
talk about Ian's writing. Why, Jay? Don't you have anything to say
about your behavior here? Or is this all a ruse--*your* way of acting
like a dick. Is that it?


>>>You're right, I thought this was about a serious criticism of Ian's
>>>writing, but I guess you're saying that's wrong.
>>
>>Serious criticism of his writing? That guy isn't worth the time of day.
>> I don't read garbage genre fiction like that, do you?
>
>
> So you admit your original response to his story doesn't count as
> criticism?


Absolutely not. I raised several key points as to why it was bad
writing. You countered by being too AFRAID to admit what you felt were
examples of the same. How many times do we need to go over this, Jay?
Each time we do, it's going to come down to your being too AFRAID to say
anything of consequence.


>>>So you're saying that Asimov, Bradbury, Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard
>>>are merely "good" writers?
>>
>>Good, great, excellent--what adjective do you want to use? Dostoevsky,
>>Orwell, James Joyce--those are great writers. Writers of genre fiction
>>merely get a "good" rating at best, the way I score it.
>
>
> That's a bit snobbish, isn't it? How come Orwell made your list?
> After all, he wrote sci-fi and fantasy.


Another crock of shit! You're on a roll, buddy.


>>>>I gave you ample opportunities to give examples of either
>>>>his strengths or weaknesses, and you couldn't provide either.
>>>>To repeat, you're not putting in a very good showing here.
>>>
>>>
>>>My point was never whether or not Ian's writing is good or
>>>bad, but that your "criticism" of his post, which you repeatedly
>>>boasted about, was terrible.
>>
>>
>>But why are you afraid to say anything of consequence yourself, Jay?
>
>
> Because I don't *care* about Ian's writing.


Wow, that's harsh, especially after his multiple ploys for sympathy.


Before you needlessly
> started a new thread I hadn't even read this one. What I did care
> about was you fluffing your feathers and strutting around like you
> were the biggest cock of the hen-house, all because nobody bothered
> to respond to one of your posts. For some reason, your stroking of
> your ego and pompous behavior sat wrong with me, so I set out
> to correct your incredibly skewed view of reality.


And proved yourself AFRAID instead.


> To set the record straight, from what I've read of it, I would
> classify Ian's writing as good. His Christmas story in particular
> I would rate as very good. That may seem like faint praise,
> but considering my opinion is based only on his Usenet postings
> and two short stories never intended for publication, I'd say
> Ian rates rather well.


Why did it take ten posts for me to beat this out of you? Naturally, I
don't agree with your opinion in the slightest, but you're still
entitled to it. Unfortunately, though, you haven't quite come clean,
because even if you really do like his writing, there still must be ways
you feel it can be improved upon, right? How many more posts will it
take me to beat this information out of you, you chickenshit son of a bitch?


> As for you trotsky, your "critique" is still shit. Most of the
> "points" you made were just personal attacks at Ian, and
> the rest were either petty nit-picks of single words, or
> obviously biased descriptions of his writing being "boring"
> and "awful."


Everybody always wants to talk about me. If Usenet is any indication, I
must be the most interesting person on the planet.


Jay G

unread,
Oct 12, 2003, 10:39:57 AM10/12/03
to

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:3F895A35...@email.com...

>
>
> Jay G wrote:
> > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote com...
> >
> >>Jay G wrote:
> >>
> >>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote...
> >>>
> >>>>Jay G wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>
> Two years? It makes Ian sound like a dork for still carrying a grudge,
> don't you think? Or maybe his Asian wannabeism makes him think he's
> living in some sort of exploitative revenge flick--what's your theory?

Isn't two years a bit long for you to carry a grudge as well? My
theory is that for those two years you never stopped acting like a dick

> Are you trolling here?

Do you even understand what trolling is? It's not one person
carrying on an argument with one other person.

> > Again, trotsky, why do you even remember something Ian said nearly
> > *two years ago*?
>
> I remember a lot of stuff, Jay. I don't have your luxury of going
> through life in a perpetual daze.

More likely you saved it as "ammo." As you said in the post to
Dawn you linked to, it was something you thought you could
"hang him on."

> > Let me make it clearer. I do not have to provide any criticism of
> > Ian's work before I can credibly criticise your "criticism" of Ian's
> > work.
>
> Cool, that's a crock of shit, too. You are AFRAID, Jay. You are afraid
> to admit I'm right and you're wrong.

Alright, I'll admit it: I'm right and you're wrong.
I don't have to write criticisms before I can critique yours for
the same reason that:
A film critic doesn't have to make a film before critiquing movies.
A book critic doesn't have to write a book before critiquing them.
A food critic doesn't have to cook before critiquing food.
A music critic doesn't have to make a song before critiguing music.

> > And of course a raw and a cooked turkey taste exactly the same.
> > Didn't I mention that frozen turkeys are "basted" with something
> > salty?
>
> It's bad writing, Jay. Hey, here's an exercise: go tell your family and
> friends that you read a cool story on the 'net about a perverse young
> boy with small feet that licks a turkey before having sex with it, and
> that the skin tasted salty. Tell 'em one guy said that this was stupid
> on all levels and see what they say. You're not afraid, right?

My wife said it's stupid we're arguing about such petty
details, especially since niether of us wrote the story.

> >>>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/farmfreeze.htm


>
> > OK, you got me, the USDA does not say those exact words.
> > I was paraphrasing, which is why I didn't put it in quotes.
> > It does say that a "basted" frozen turkey can be "marinated"
> > in a solution though, and the ingredients of that solution must
> > be on the label. The turkeyhelp site shows the labels of
> > several frozen turkeys, which include "salt" as one of the
> > ingredients in their solutions.
>
> The turkeys are "injected" with the solution (it sounds disgusting just
> to talk about it), I've *never* seen one that claimed to be "marinated",
> have you? This is a straw man argument.

The turkey labels don't say they're injected. They say they are "basted."
As per the USDA site, "basted" could mean either injected or
marinated. Since the turkey labels don't specify which method
was used, marinating is a possibility.

> > Because his personal behavior is irrelevent to his writing.
> > You claimed your "critique" had valid points on Ian's writing,
> > when in reality they were mostly thinly veiled personal attacks
> > at him. Also, I was unaware of some of Ian's past transgressions.
> > Perhaps that's because Ian acting like a dick is so much less
> > noticable on this newgroup than you acting like a dick.
>
>
> I see. So you're not afraid to talk about me, you're simply AFRAID to
> talk about Ian's writing.

I'm not afraid to talk about Ian's writing, I've been talking about
the specific points you brought up about it, haven't I?

> >>Serious criticism of his writing? That guy isn't worth the time of day.
> >> I don't read garbage genre fiction like that, do you?
> >
> > So you admit your original response to his story doesn't count as
> > criticism?
>
> Absolutely not.

Well, you said it wasn't serious criticism. Was it half-hearted
criticism?

> >>Good, great, excellent--what adjective do you want to use? Dostoevsky,
> >>Orwell, James Joyce--those are great writers. Writers of genre fiction
> >>merely get a "good" rating at best, the way I score it.
> >
> > That's a bit snobbish, isn't it? How come Orwell made your list?
> > After all, he wrote sci-fi and fantasy.
>
> Another crock of shit! You're on a roll, buddy.

1984 is a tale about a futuristic society. Animal Farm is a tale about
animals that can walk and talk, are as smart as humans, and in one
case are gradually turning into humans. How do these tales not
fit into the fantasy and sci-fi genres?

> > To set the record straight, from what I've read of it, I would
> > classify Ian's writing as good. His Christmas story in particular
> > I would rate as very good. That may seem like faint praise,
> > but considering my opinion is based only on his Usenet postings
> > and two short stories never intended for publication, I'd say
> > Ian rates rather well.
>
> Why did it take ten posts for me to beat this out of you? Naturally, I
> don't agree with your opinion in the slightest, but you're still
> entitled to it. Unfortunately, though, you haven't quite come clean,
> because even if you really do like his writing, there still must be ways
> you feel it can be improved upon, right?

Because, as I said before, it's irrelevent to whether or not your
criticism is worth any salt.

> > As for you trotsky, your "critique" is still shit. Most of the
> > "points" you made were just personal attacks at Ian, and
> > the rest were either petty nit-picks of single words, or
> > obviously biased descriptions of his writing being "boring"
> > and "awful."
>
> Everybody always wants to talk about me. If Usenet is any indication, I
> must be the most interesting person on the planet.

I guess it's nice to feel that your screams for attention work.

-Jay


trotsky

unread,
Oct 12, 2003, 10:43:58 PM10/12/03
to

Jay G wrote:
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:3F895A35...@email.com...
>
>>
>>Jay G wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jay G wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jay G wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>>>>>>
>>Two years? It makes Ian sound like a dork for still carrying a grudge,
>>don't you think? Or maybe his Asian wannabeism makes him think he's
>>living in some sort of exploitative revenge flick--what's your theory?
>
>
> Isn't two years a bit long for you to carry a grudge as well? My
> theory is that for those two years you never stopped acting like a dick


You're vacillating, Jay. Sometimes you can admit Ian's an asshole, and
then others it's all about me. Just make up your mind.


>>Are you trolling here?
>
>
> Do you even understand what trolling is? It's not one person
> carrying on an argument with one other person.


I'm sorry, I didn't know you had such a strict definition.


>>>Again, trotsky, why do you even remember something Ian said nearly
>>>*two years ago*?
>>
>>I remember a lot of stuff, Jay. I don't have your luxury of going
>>through life in a perpetual daze.
>
>
> More likely you saved it as "ammo." As you said in the post to
> Dawn you linked to, it was something you thought you could
> "hang him on."


I figured it would just come down to lying. Let's see you reproduce
that alleged post.


>>>Let me make it clearer. I do not have to provide any criticism of
>>>Ian's work before I can credibly criticise your "criticism" of Ian's
>>>work.
>>
>>Cool, that's a crock of shit, too. You are AFRAID, Jay. You are afraid
>>to admit I'm right and you're wrong.
>
>
> Alright, I'll admit it: I'm right and you're wrong.
> I don't have to write criticisms before I can critique yours for
> the same reason that:
> A film critic doesn't have to make a film before critiquing movies.
> A book critic doesn't have to write a book before critiquing them.
> A food critic doesn't have to cook before critiquing food.
> A music critic doesn't have to make a song before critiguing music.


None of those are analogous situations, Jay. If you're admitting that
you're out to troll me, then that's one thing. But if you are another
one of those people without a brain in his head claiming that you are
being fair and balanced with all posters on the group, then that's quite
another.


>>>And of course a raw and a cooked turkey taste exactly the same.
>>>Didn't I mention that frozen turkeys are "basted" with something
>>>salty?
>>
>>It's bad writing, Jay. Hey, here's an exercise: go tell your family and
>>friends that you read a cool story on the 'net about a perverse young
>>boy with small feet that licks a turkey before having sex with it, and
>>that the skin tasted salty. Tell 'em one guy said that this was stupid
>>on all levels and see what they say. You're not afraid, right?
>
>
> My wife said it's stupid we're arguing about such petty
> details, especially since niether of us wrote the story.


Bless her heart. She probably spends two hours looking at eyeliners, too.


>>>>>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/farmfreeze.htm
>>>>
>>>OK, you got me, the USDA does not say those exact words.
>>>I was paraphrasing, which is why I didn't put it in quotes.
>>>It does say that a "basted" frozen turkey can be "marinated"
>>>in a solution though, and the ingredients of that solution must
>>>be on the label. The turkeyhelp site shows the labels of
>>>several frozen turkeys, which include "salt" as one of the
>>>ingredients in their solutions.
>>
>>The turkeys are "injected" with the solution (it sounds disgusting just
>>to talk about it), I've *never* seen one that claimed to be "marinated",
>>have you? This is a straw man argument.
>
>
> The turkey labels don't say they're injected. They say they are "basted."
> As per the USDA site, "basted" could mean either injected or
> marinated. Since the turkey labels don't specify which method
> was used, marinating is a possibility.


I doubt either one of us is going to lick a turkey's skin, so we'll call
this one a draw. Obviously, I think you're claim that if you spin the
wheel you can come up with a turkey that's been marinated is bullshit,
but we'll leave it at that.


>>>Because his personal behavior is irrelevent to his writing.
>>>You claimed your "critique" had valid points on Ian's writing,
>>>when in reality they were mostly thinly veiled personal attacks
>>>at him. Also, I was unaware of some of Ian's past transgressions.
>>>Perhaps that's because Ian acting like a dick is so much less
>>>noticable on this newgroup than you acting like a dick.
>>
>>
>>I see. So you're not afraid to talk about me, you're simply AFRAID to
>>talk about Ian's writing.
>
>
> I'm not afraid to talk about Ian's writing, I've been talking about
> the specific points you brought up about it, haven't I?


Are you unable to bring up your own points? Why?


>>>>Serious criticism of his writing? That guy isn't worth the time of day.
>>>> I don't read garbage genre fiction like that, do you?
>>>
>>>So you admit your original response to his story doesn't count as
>>>criticism?
>>
>>Absolutely not.
>
>
> Well, you said it wasn't serious criticism. Was it half-hearted
> criticism?


You've removed the context, Jay, because you're being a weasel. You're
original claim was that my critique wasn't "pure" enough because it was
interspersed with attacks. That was a bullshit thing to say then, and
it's still bullshit now.


>>>>Good, great, excellent--what adjective do you want to use? Dostoevsky,
>>>>Orwell, James Joyce--those are great writers. Writers of genre fiction
>>>>merely get a "good" rating at best, the way I score it.
>>>
>>>That's a bit snobbish, isn't it? How come Orwell made your list?
>>>After all, he wrote sci-fi and fantasy.
>>
>>Another crock of shit! You're on a roll, buddy.
>
>
> 1984 is a tale about a futuristic society. Animal Farm is a tale about
> animals that can walk and talk, are as smart as humans, and in one
> case are gradually turning into humans. How do these tales not
> fit into the fantasy and sci-fi genres?


"1984" is sociological in nature, with the future as a backdrop; "Animal
Farm is an allegory, and also sociological in nature. Orwell largely
wrote about the disgusting and malevolent way people behaved in
societies. I can certainly see where he got the inspiration.


>>>To set the record straight, from what I've read of it, I would
>>>classify Ian's writing as good. His Christmas story in particular
>>>I would rate as very good. That may seem like faint praise,
>>>but considering my opinion is based only on his Usenet postings
>>>and two short stories never intended for publication, I'd say
>>>Ian rates rather well.
>>
>>Why did it take ten posts for me to beat this out of you? Naturally, I
>>don't agree with your opinion in the slightest, but you're still
>>entitled to it. Unfortunately, though, you haven't quite come clean,
>>because even if you really do like his writing, there still must be ways
>>you feel it can be improved upon, right?
>
>
> Because, as I said before, it's irrelevent to whether or not your
> criticism is worth any salt.


Not good enough, Jay. Why can you only discuss me? Am I that
fascinating? Isn't it normal in a discussion for one person to query
the other as I'm doing here? Why are you afraid to respond to this query?


>>>As for you trotsky, your "critique" is still shit. Most of the
>>>"points" you made were just personal attacks at Ian, and
>>>the rest were either petty nit-picks of single words, or
>>>obviously biased descriptions of his writing being "boring"
>>>and "awful."
>>
>>Everybody always wants to talk about me. If Usenet is any indication, I
>>must be the most interesting person on the planet.
>
>
> I guess it's nice to feel that your screams for attention work.


This all stemmed from my being trolled by Ian, idiot. I'm just mopping
up now.

Jay G

unread,
Oct 13, 2003, 9:35:50 PM10/13/03
to

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...

> Jay G wrote:
> > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> >>Jay G wrote:
> >>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote com...
> >>>
> >
> > Isn't two years a bit long for you to carry a grudge as well? My
> > theory is that for those two years you never stopped acting like a dick
>
> You're vacillating, Jay. Sometimes you can admit Ian's an asshole, and
> then others it's all about me. Just make up your mind.

Just because Ian's a self-proclaimed asshole doesn't give you cart
blanc to act like a dick. If your


> > Do you even understand what trolling is? It's not one person
> > carrying on an argument with one other person.
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't know you had such a strict definition.

It's not *simply* one person arguing with another. A troll
is a post may by someone

> > As you said in the post to
> > Dawn you linked to, it was something you thought you could
> > "hang him on."
>
>
> I figured it would just come down to lying. Let's see you reproduce
> that alleged post.

From
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F63D9B2.809%40email.com
"Poor Ian. His mother, who died of cancer, used to read "Lord of the
Rings" to him as a bedtime story...... But do I pay attention? No.
For
some reason, I found something else to hang him on, and that was that. "


> > I don't have to write criticisms before I can critique yours for
> > the same reason that:
> > A film critic doesn't have to make a film before critiquing movies.
> > A book critic doesn't have to write a book before critiquing them.
> > A food critic doesn't have to cook before critiquing food.
> > A music critic doesn't have to make a song before critiguing music.
>
>
> None of those are analogous situations, Jay.

How are they not analogous?

> I doubt either one of us is going to lick a turkey's skin, so we'll call
> this one a draw.

Fine, it's a draw.

> >>>Because his personal behavior is irrelevent to his writing.
> >>>You claimed your "critique" had valid points on Ian's writing,
> >>>when in reality they were mostly thinly veiled personal attacks
> >>>at him. Also, I was unaware of some of Ian's past transgressions.
> >>>Perhaps that's because Ian acting like a dick is so much less
> >>>noticable on this newgroup than you acting like a dick.
> >>
> >>I see. So you're not afraid to talk about me, you're simply AFRAID to
> >>talk about Ian's writing.
> >
> > I'm not afraid to talk about Ian's writing, I've been talking about
> > the specific points you brought up about it, haven't I?
>
> Are you unable to bring up your own points? Why?

Because I don't want to get sidetracked from my main point:
Your critique was shit.

> > Well, you said it wasn't serious criticism. Was it half-hearted
> > criticism?
>
> You've removed the context, Jay, because you're being a weasel. You're
> original claim was that my critique wasn't "pure" enough because it was
> interspersed with attacks. That was a bullshit thing to say then, and
> it's still bullshit now.

I also said your opinion is biased. So it's hard to believe your
opinions are valid, even when they, rarely, were actaully about
the writing itself.

> > 1984 is a tale about a futuristic society. Animal Farm is a tale about
> > animals that can walk and talk, are as smart as humans, and in one
> > case are gradually turning into humans. How do these tales not
> > fit into the fantasy and sci-fi genres?
>
>
> "1984" is sociological in nature, with the future as a backdrop;

Which makes it sci-fi.

> "Animal Farm is an allegory, and also sociological in nature. Orwell
largely
> wrote about the disgusting and malevolent way people behaved in
> societies.

And he used a fantastic setting to do so. Orwell wrote sci-fi
and fantasy, why does that chagrin you so?

> > Because, as I said before, it's irrelevent to whether or not your
> > criticism is worth any salt.
>
>
> Not good enough, Jay. Why can you only discuss me? Am I that
> fascinating? Isn't it normal in a discussion for one person to query
> the other as I'm doing here? Why are you afraid to respond to this query?

Because you're trying to distract me, and run off on a tangent.
The point isn't whether or not I have anything relevent to say
about Ian's writing, the point is whether or not you *ever* had
anything relevent to say about it.

Why are you afraid to just defend your points? Why do you keep
resorting to the childish "oh yeah? Let's see you do any better,"
rejoinder?

> > I guess it's nice to feel that your screams for attention work.
>
> This all stemmed from my being trolled by Ian, idiot. I'm just mopping
> up now.

Yet you couldn't manage to defend yourself well enough against
this troll. You had to resort to taunting Ian for a sample of his
writing (which is odd seeing as his writing is freely available
in various publications), and then, surprise! You attacked it.
Now, I understand your desire to insult anyone and everyone
whom you think has slighted you, but don't go thinking that
a thinly-veiled attack is actually worth it's salt as a valid
critique.

-Jay


trotsky

unread,
Oct 13, 2003, 10:57:26 PM10/13/03
to

Jay G wrote:
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>
>>Jay G wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>>>Jay G wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote com...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>Isn't two years a bit long for you to carry a grudge as well? My
>>>theory is that for those two years you never stopped acting like a dick
>>
>>You're vacillating, Jay. Sometimes you can admit Ian's an asshole, and
>>then others it's all about me. Just make up your mind.
>
>
> Just because Ian's a self-proclaimed asshole doesn't give you cart
> blanc to act like a dick. If your


You're cheesin' out here, Jay.


>>>Do you even understand what trolling is? It's not one person
>>>carrying on an argument with one other person.
>>
>>I'm sorry, I didn't know you had such a strict definition.
>
>
> It's not *simply* one person arguing with another. A troll
> is a post may by someone


And again.


>>>As you said in the post to
>>>Dawn you linked to, it was something you thought you could
>>>"hang him on."
>>
>>
>>I figured it would just come down to lying. Let's see you reproduce
>>that alleged post.
>
>
> From
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F63D9B2.809%40email.com
> "Poor Ian. His mother, who died of cancer, used to read "Lord of the
> Rings" to him as a bedtime story...... But do I pay attention? No.
> For
> some reason, I found something else to hang him on, and that was that. "


What part of the words "something else" were confusing to you, Jay?


>>>I don't have to write criticisms before I can critique yours for
>>>the same reason that:
>>>A film critic doesn't have to make a film before critiquing movies.
>>>A book critic doesn't have to write a book before critiquing them.
>>>A food critic doesn't have to cook before critiquing food.
>>>A music critic doesn't have to make a song before critiguing music.
>>
>>
>>None of those are analogous situations, Jay.
>
>
> How are they not analogous?


Uh, because you're not making the least bit of sense? I'm not asking
you to write a story to critique Ian's writing, I'm merely asking you to
grow some testicles. There not analogous.


>>I doubt either one of us is going to lick a turkey's skin, so we'll call
>>this one a draw.
>
>
> Fine, it's a draw.
>
>
>>>>>Because his personal behavior is irrelevent to his writing.
>>>>>You claimed your "critique" had valid points on Ian's writing,
>>>>>when in reality they were mostly thinly veiled personal attacks
>>>>>at him. Also, I was unaware of some of Ian's past transgressions.
>>>>>Perhaps that's because Ian acting like a dick is so much less
>>>>>noticable on this newgroup than you acting like a dick.
>>>>
>>>>I see. So you're not afraid to talk about me, you're simply AFRAID to
>>>>talk about Ian's writing.
>>>
>>>I'm not afraid to talk about Ian's writing, I've been talking about
>>>the specific points you brought up about it, haven't I?
>>
>>Are you unable to bring up your own points? Why?
>
>
> Because I don't want to get sidetracked from my main point:
> Your critique was shit.


Straw man, Jay. Just like your "Kill Bill" bullshit. I posted my list,
you post yours. You don't get the right to say *anything* about what
I've said if you don't have the balls to say anything yourself. Just
admit you're a simpering, effete loser and have done with it. Unless,
of course, you're only goal here is to troll me--is that it?


>>>Well, you said it wasn't serious criticism. Was it half-hearted
>>>criticism?
>>
>>You've removed the context, Jay, because you're being a weasel. You're
>>original claim was that my critique wasn't "pure" enough because it was
>>interspersed with attacks. That was a bullshit thing to say then, and
>>it's still bullshit now.
>
>
> I also said your opinion is biased. So it's hard to believe your
> opinions are valid, even when they, rarely, were actaully about
> the writing itself.


Oh sure, and my opinion was biased about "Kill Bill" too. In fact, I go
through life expecting to be biased about everything all the time, and
am very confused when I'm not. Objectivity is so far beyond my ken it's
hard to describe.


>>>1984 is a tale about a futuristic society. Animal Farm is a tale about
>>>animals that can walk and talk, are as smart as humans, and in one
>>>case are gradually turning into humans. How do these tales not
>>>fit into the fantasy and sci-fi genres?
>>
>>
>>"1984" is sociological in nature, with the future as a backdrop;
>
>
> Which makes it sci-fi.


False.


>>"Animal Farm is an allegory, and also sociological in nature. Orwell
>
> largely
>
>>wrote about the disgusting and malevolent way people behaved in
>>societies.
>
>
> And he used a fantastic setting to do so. Orwell wrote sci-fi
> and fantasy, why does that chagrin you so?


I see. Were "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" and "Coming up for Air" and
"Burmese Days" sci-fi and fantasy too? No? Why not?


>>>Because, as I said before, it's irrelevent to whether or not your
>>>criticism is worth any salt.
>>
>>
>>Not good enough, Jay. Why can you only discuss me? Am I that
>>fascinating? Isn't it normal in a discussion for one person to query
>>the other as I'm doing here? Why are you afraid to respond to this query?
>
>
> Because you're trying to distract me, and run off on a tangent.


Let's see, I'm trying to "distract you" by making you discuss the same
subject I was discussing? "Help, I'm being repressed!"


> The point isn't whether or not I have anything relevent to say
> about Ian's writing, the point is whether or not you *ever* had
> anything relevent to say about it.


But we have to determine if you're even credible and unbiased discussing
this, which heretofore you've been unable to prove.


> Why are you afraid to just defend your points? Why do you keep
> resorting to the childish "oh yeah? Let's see you do any better,"
> rejoinder?


Jay, you need to grow some balls. Ian's writing is highly flawed. Even
if you think it's mildly flawed, you have to have reasons. You are
afraid to supply reasons because it makes your argument even weaker.


>>>I guess it's nice to feel that your screams for attention work.
>>
>>This all stemmed from my being trolled by Ian, idiot. I'm just mopping
>>up now.
>
>
> Yet you couldn't manage to defend yourself well enough against
> this troll. You had to resort to taunting Ian for a sample of his
> writing (which is odd seeing as his writing is freely available
> in various publications), and then, surprise! You attacked it.
> Now, I understand your desire to insult anyone and everyone
> whom you think has slighted you, but don't go thinking that
> a thinly-veiled attack is actually worth it's salt as a valid
> critique.


Let me get this straight: he's free to be an asshole and a troll, but if
I launch a counterattack by critiqueing his writing either fairly or
unfairly there's something wrong with me? That's a bunch of bullshit,
Jay. You've been spewing a line of bullshit on every single point, just
like your point of view is bullshit on the "Kill Bill" threads. You've
just demonstrated that it's YOU that can't be unbiased.


Jay G

unread,
Oct 15, 2003, 1:05:11 AM10/15/03
to

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in

> Jay G wrote:
> > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> >>Jay G wrote:
> >>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> >>>>Jay G wrote:
> >>>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >
> > Just because Ian's a self-proclaimed asshole doesn't give you cart
> > blanc to act like a dick. If your
>
>
> You're cheesin' out here, Jay.

> > It's not *simply* one person arguing with another. A troll


> > is a post may by someone
>
> And again.

You're correct, I posted before finishing. First:

Just because Ian's a self-proclaimed asshole doesn't give you
cart blanc to act like a dick.

Secondly:
A troll is a post made by someone with the sole purpose
of attracting attention to it, and has no real relevence.
Someone posting the same thing ad nauseam, such as
LIBERATOR's posts, count. So would repeatedly
creating new and unneccessary threads, such as
LIBERATOR. For my part, I do not consider
continuing an argument within a thread counts as
trolling, at least in and of itself.

> >>>As you said in the post to
> >>>Dawn you linked to, it was something you thought you could
> >>>"hang him on."
> >>
> >>I figured it would just come down to lying. Let's see you reproduce
> >>that alleged post.
> >
> > From
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F63D9B2.809%40email.com
> > "Poor Ian. His mother, who died of cancer, used to read "Lord of
the
> > Rings" to him as a bedtime story...... But do I pay attention? No.
> > For some reason, I found something else to hang him on, and
> > that was that. "
>
> What part of the words "something else" were confusing to you, Jay?

The part where you brought the subject back up 2 years later as
an attack against his character. You said you found "something
else to hang him on," which means you consider his story as
something to "hang him on" as well.

> >>>I don't have to write criticisms before I can critique yours for
> >>>the same reason that:
> >>>A film critic doesn't have to make a film before critiquing movies.
> >>>A book critic doesn't have to write a book before critiquing them.
> >>>A food critic doesn't have to cook before critiquing food.
> >>>A music critic doesn't have to make a song before critiguing music.
> >>
> >>
> >>None of those are analogous situations, Jay.
> >
> >
> > How are they not analogous?
>
>
> Uh, because you're not making the least bit of sense? I'm not asking
> you to write a story to critique Ian's writing, I'm merely asking you to
> grow some testicles. There not analogous.

You're not following the logic here. You're asking me to write a
critique of Ian's work before I can critique your critique of Ian's
work. You're asking me to produce a similar piece of work before
I'm "allowed" to criticise your work. In other words, you're
saying, "yeah? well, let's see you write a critique then," instead
of defending your critique. It's a dodge, a childish dodge, and it's
not going to work.

> Straw man, Jay. Just like your "Kill Bill" bullshit. I posted my list,
> you post yours. You don't get the right to say *anything* about what
> I've said if you don't have the balls to say anything yourself.

See what I mean?

> > I also said your opinion is biased. So it's hard to believe your
> > opinions are valid, even when they, rarely, were actaully about
> > the writing itself.
>
>
> Oh sure, and my opinion was biased about "Kill Bill" too. In fact, I go
> through life expecting to be biased about everything all the time, and
> am very confused when I'm not. Objectivity is so far beyond my ken it's
> hard to describe.

I don't know if you're biased about "Kill Bill," you've never personally
attacked QT in this newsgroup. You have attacked and insulted Ian
numerous times though, including in your "critique" of his work.
It's possible for someone with a personal grudge to write an
impartial critique of someone's work, but in your case, it seems
doubtful.


> >>"1984" is sociological in nature, with the future as a backdrop;
> >
> > Which makes it sci-fi.
>
> False.

So stories that take place the future are not sci-fi? There goes
half the genre.

> >>"Animal Farm is an allegory, and also sociological in nature.
> >>Orwell largely wrote about the disgusting and malevolent way
> >>people behaved in societies.
> >
> >
> > And he used a fantastic setting to do so. Orwell wrote sci-fi
> > and fantasy, why does that chagrin you so?
>
> I see. Were "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" and "Coming up for Air" and
> "Burmese Days" sci-fi and fantasy too? No? Why not?

Those other books are irrelevent, quit trying to dodge the point:
which is that Orwell, whom you consider a "great" wrote sci-fi
and fantasy. He didn't write *only* sci-fi and fantasy, but those
two books count.

> >>Not good enough, Jay. Why can you only discuss me? Am I that
> >>fascinating? Isn't it normal in a discussion for one person to query
> >>the other as I'm doing here? Why are you afraid to respond to this
query?
> >
> >
> > Because you're trying to distract me, and run off on a tangent.
>
>
> Let's see, I'm trying to "distract you" by making you discuss the same
> subject I was discussing? "Help, I'm being repressed!"

I am discussing the same subject you are: your criticism of Ian's
writing. That is the subject at hand. Yet you can't seem to
defend your writing well enough to keep from attempting to
divert attention from it.

> > The point isn't whether or not I have anything relevent to say
> > about Ian's writing, the point is whether or not you *ever* had
> > anything relevent to say about it.
>
> But we have to determine if you're even credible and unbiased discussing
> this, which heretofore you've been unable to prove.

Wouldn't the same stand for your original criticism? You have
yet to prove your opinion was unbiased, and have also failed
to submit your own written short story to prove that you're
"credible" enough to critique on short fiction.

> > Why are you afraid to just defend your points? Why do you keep
> > resorting to the childish "oh yeah? Let's see you do any better,"
> > rejoinder?
>
> Jay, you need to grow some balls. Ian's writing is highly flawed. Even
> if you think it's mildly flawed, you have to have reasons. You are
> afraid to supply reasons because it makes your argument even weaker.

None of the "flaws" you presented were credible to me.

> Let me get this straight: he's free to be an asshole and a troll, but if
> I launch a counterattack by critiqueing his writing either fairly or
> unfairly there's something wrong with me?

Yes. Unfairly criticizing someone's work just because of their
personal behavior doesn't count as valid critcism. You have
to seperate the work from the person who created it, and judge
it on its own merits, which you have refused to do.

Like I said, if you want to use Ian's writing as an opportunity
to attack him, that's fine. Just don't delude yourself later on
that it counts as valid criticism just because nobody bothered
to reply to it.

-Jay


trotsky

unread,
Oct 15, 2003, 7:37:14 AM10/15/03
to

Jay G wrote:
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in
>
>>Jay G wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>>>Jay G wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jay G wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>Just because Ian's a self-proclaimed asshole doesn't give you cart
>>>blanc to act like a dick. If your
>>
>>
>>You're cheesin' out here, Jay.
>
>
>>>It's not *simply* one person arguing with another. A troll
>>>is a post may by someone
>>
>>And again.
>
>
> You're correct, I posted before finishing. First:
>
> Just because Ian's a self-proclaimed asshole doesn't give you
> cart blanc to act like a dick.


"Cart blanc"--got it. I told somebody I had a white cart once and got a
really weird look.


No, what it means is that I found something else in one of his posts to
criticize him about, and he went ape shit. I've merely been responding
to his ape shit behavior since that time.


>>>>>I don't have to write criticisms before I can critique yours for
>>>>>the same reason that:
>>>>>A film critic doesn't have to make a film before critiquing movies.
>>>>>A book critic doesn't have to write a book before critiquing them.
>>>>>A food critic doesn't have to cook before critiquing food.
>>>>>A music critic doesn't have to make a song before critiguing music.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>None of those are analogous situations, Jay.
>>>
>>>
>>>How are they not analogous?
>>
>>
>>Uh, because you're not making the least bit of sense? I'm not asking
>>you to write a story to critique Ian's writing, I'm merely asking you to
>>grow some testicles. There not analogous.
>
>
> You're not following the logic here. You're asking me to write a
> critique of Ian's work before I can critique your critique of Ian's
> work.


No, Jay. There's no chronology there. I'm just trying to get you to
show that you're unbiased, which you can't do.


You're asking me to produce a similar piece of work before
> I'm "allowed" to criticise your work. In other words, you're
> saying, "yeah? well, let's see you write a critique then," instead
> of defending your critique. It's a dodge, a childish dodge, and it's
> not going to work.


Especially since you made it up, to rationalize your lack of guts. Just
tell us why you think his writing is so grand, or, alternately, be
really honest and tell us what his flaws as a writer are. You can't do
it, because that would require enough guts to say something of consequence.


>>Straw man, Jay. Just like your "Kill Bill" bullshit. I posted my list,
>>you post yours. You don't get the right to say *anything* about what
>>I've said if you don't have the balls to say anything yourself.
>
>
> See what I mean?


Right, show you have the balls to say something of consequence. You
can't do it.


> > > I also said your opinion is biased. So it's hard to believe your
>
>>>opinions are valid, even when they, rarely, were actaully about
>>>the writing itself.
>>
>>
>>Oh sure, and my opinion was biased about "Kill Bill" too. In fact, I go
>>through life expecting to be biased about everything all the time, and
>>am very confused when I'm not. Objectivity is so far beyond my ken it's
>>hard to describe.
>
>
> I don't know if you're biased about "Kill Bill," you've never personally
> attacked QT in this newsgroup. You have attacked and insulted Ian
> numerous times though, including in your "critique" of his work.
> It's possible for someone with a personal grudge to write an
> impartial critique of someone's work, but in your case, it seems
> doubtful.


We're not talking about me anymore, Jay, we're talking about you and
your inability to say anything of consequence. Just admit that you're
out to troll me and we can move on.


>>>>"1984" is sociological in nature, with the future as a backdrop;
>>>
>>>Which makes it sci-fi.
>>
>>False.
>
>
> So stories that take place the future are not sci-fi? There goes
> half the genre.


I think there is a more strict definition than that, Jay. I don't pay
much attention to genre fiction like that anymore, so I don't recall
what it is. "All stories set in the future are sci-fi" sounds pretty weak.


>>>>"Animal Farm is an allegory, and also sociological in nature.
>>>>Orwell largely wrote about the disgusting and malevolent way
>>>>people behaved in societies.
>>>
>>>
>>>And he used a fantastic setting to do so. Orwell wrote sci-fi
>>>and fantasy, why does that chagrin you so?
>>
>>I see. Were "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" and "Coming up for Air" and
>>"Burmese Days" sci-fi and fantasy too? No? Why not?
>
>
> Those other books are irrelevent, quit trying to dodge the point:
> which is that Orwell, whom you consider a "great" wrote sci-fi
> and fantasy. He didn't write *only* sci-fi and fantasy, but those
> two books count.


Of course. I should just give you "cart blanc" on that one. I'm
assuming you're not very well read.


>>>>Not good enough, Jay. Why can you only discuss me? Am I that
>>>>fascinating? Isn't it normal in a discussion for one person to query
>>>>the other as I'm doing here? Why are you afraid to respond to this
>>>
> query?
>
>>>
>>>Because you're trying to distract me, and run off on a tangent.
>>
>>
>>Let's see, I'm trying to "distract you" by making you discuss the same
>>subject I was discussing? "Help, I'm being repressed!"
>
>
> I am discussing the same subject you are: your criticism of Ian's
> writing. That is the subject at hand. Yet you can't seem to
> defend your writing well enough to keep from attempting to
> divert attention from it.


This is getting very repetitive now. Again, you will never say anything
of consequence on any other subject than me so I have to conclude that
you're simply trolling.


>>>The point isn't whether or not I have anything relevent to say
>>>about Ian's writing, the point is whether or not you *ever* had
>>>anything relevent to say about it.
>>
>>But we have to determine if you're even credible and unbiased discussing
>>this, which heretofore you've been unable to prove.
>
>
> Wouldn't the same stand for your original criticism? You have
> yet to prove your opinion was unbiased, and have also failed
> to submit your own written short story to prove that you're
> "credible" enough to critique on short fiction.


You're like a broken record here, Jay. You can have you opinion, and ny
opinion will remain that you are AFRAID to say anything of consequence
on any subject other than me, and hence are a TROLL. Are you on record
as saying you felt "Kill Bill" was a flawless movie, for example? If
you can't say this, can you admit to the group that you lack the balls
to say what its flaws were?


>>>Why are you afraid to just defend your points? Why do you keep
>>>resorting to the childish "oh yeah? Let's see you do any better,"
>>>rejoinder?
>>
>>Jay, you need to grow some balls. Ian's writing is highly flawed. Even
>>if you think it's mildly flawed, you have to have reasons. You are
>>afraid to supply reasons because it makes your argument even weaker.
>
>
> None of the "flaws" you presented were credible to me.


And you're AFRAID to present any flaws at all, and hence have even less
credibility. Sorry.


>>Let me get this straight: he's free to be an asshole and a troll, but if
>>I launch a counterattack by critiqueing his writing either fairly or
>>unfairly there's something wrong with me?
>
>
> Yes. Unfairly criticizing someone's work just because of their
> personal behavior doesn't count as valid critcism. You have
> to seperate the work from the person who created it, and judge
> it on its own merits, which you have refused to do.


Oh sure, just like Ian did when he trolled me about my website? Fuck
you. If you want to suck the guy's cock online like this, don't do it
on my time.


> Like I said, if you want to use Ian's writing as an opportunity
> to attack him, that's fine. Just don't delude yourself later on
> that it counts as valid criticism just because nobody bothered
> to reply to it.


Shut the fuck up, troll.


Jay G

unread,
Oct 15, 2003, 7:20:21 PM10/15/03
to
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote

> Apparently you're too dumb to figure out what is going on here. This is
> about getting his damaged psyche to crawl back into the woodwork where
> it belongs, nothing more.

I just thought I should point this quote out, as
you're saying that your critique was nothing
more than an attack against Ian in an attempt
to hurt him.

Thank you for admitting so.

-Jay


Jay G

unread,
Oct 15, 2003, 7:43:54 PM10/15/03
to

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> Jay G wrote:
> > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in

> >
> >
> > Just because Ian's a self-proclaimed asshole doesn't give you
> > cart blanc to act like a dick.
>
> "Cart blanc"--got it. I told somebody I had a white cart once and got a
> really weird look.

Forgive me, carte blanche.

> > You said you found "something
> > else to hang him on," which means you consider his story as
> > something to "hang him on" as well.
>
> No, what it means is that I found something else in one of his posts to
> criticize him about, and he went ape shit. I've merely been responding
> to his ape shit behavior since that time.

How is something "to criticize him about" different from the things you
use to, in your own words, "hang him on"?

> You're asking me to produce a similar piece of work before
> > I'm "allowed" to criticise your work. In other words, you're
> > saying, "yeah? well, let's see you write a critique then," instead
> > of defending your critique. It's a dodge, a childish dodge, and it's
> > not going to work.
>
>
> Especially since you made it up, to rationalize your lack of guts. Just
> tell us why you think his writing is so grand, or, alternately, be
> really honest and tell us what his flaws as a writer are. You can't do
> it, because that would require enough guts to say something of
consequence.

I notice you pull this routine out everytime you can't defend your
own points based on their own merits. In fact, it's surprisingly
effective, since you've dodged my criticisms so many times with
this ploy that we've stopped talking about them.

> > I don't know if you're biased about "Kill Bill," you've never personally
> > attacked QT in this newsgroup. You have attacked and insulted Ian
> > numerous times though, including in your "critique" of his work.
> > It's possible for someone with a personal grudge to write an
> > impartial critique of someone's work, but in your case, it seems
> > doubtful.
>
>
> We're not talking about me anymore, Jay,

Yes we are. No matter how hard you try and dodge the
criticsm, I'm always going to stick to talking about your
critique.

> >>>>"1984" is sociological in nature, with the future as a backdrop;
> >>>>Which makes it sci-fi.
> >>
> >>False.
> >
> > So stories that take place the future are not sci-fi? There goes
> > half the genre.
>
> I think there is a more strict definition than that, Jay. I don't pay
> much attention to genre fiction like that anymore, so I don't recall
> what it is. "All stories set in the future are sci-fi" sounds pretty
weak.

I would say all stories set in the future are sci-fi, although not
all sci-fi stories are set in the future. Here's some definitions:

science fiction n.
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on
speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental
changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the
plot or background.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition

science fiction n :
literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

> >>>>"Animal Farm is an allegory, and also sociological in nature.


> >>>>Orwell largely wrote about the disgusting and malevolent way
> >>>>people behaved in societies.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And he used a fantastic setting to do so. Orwell wrote sci-fi
> >>>and fantasy, why does that chagrin you so?

> > I am discussing the same subject you are: your criticism of Ian's


> > writing. That is the subject at hand. Yet you can't seem to
> > defend your writing well enough to keep from attempting to
> > divert attention from it.
>
>
> This is getting very repetitive now. Again, you will never say anything
> of consequence on any other subject than me so I have to conclude that
> you're simply trolling.

In case you haven't noticed, I just said quite a bit about Orwell.
And we've commented on style vs. grammar. In this this thread
we've discussed a wide variety of subjects. They all are in
some way connected to your original criticism of course,
because, surprise, that's what this thread is about.

> > You have
> > yet to prove your opinion was unbiased, and have also failed
> > to submit your own written short story to prove that you're
> > "credible" enough to critique on short fiction.
>
>
> You're like a broken record here, Jay. You can have you opinion, and ny

> Are you on record
> as saying you felt "Kill Bill" was a flawless movie, for example?

Wrong thread.

> >>Jay, you need to grow some balls. Ian's writing is highly flawed. Even
> >>if you think it's mildly flawed, you have to have reasons. You are
> >>afraid to supply reasons because it makes your argument even weaker.
> >
> >
> > None of the "flaws" you presented were credible to me.
>
> And you're AFRAID to present any flaws at all, and hence have even less
> credibility. Sorry.

> > Unfairly criticizing someone's work just because of their


> > personal behavior doesn't count as valid critcism. You have
> > to seperate the work from the person who created it, and judge
> > it on its own merits, which you have refused to do.
>
> Oh sure, just like Ian did when he trolled me about my website? Fuck
> you. If you want to suck the guy's cock online like this, don't do it
> on my time.

Where is this "I get to be an ass because Ian hurt my feelings"
attitude coming from, 3rd grade?

> > Like I said, if you want to use Ian's writing as an opportunity
> > to attack him, that's fine. Just don't delude yourself later on
> > that it counts as valid criticism just because nobody bothered
> > to reply to it.
>
> Shut the fuck up, troll.

That's the best response you could come up with? You sound like
LIBERATOR now.

-Jay


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages