🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 20, 10:13 pm, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Holly wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 12:24 am, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Holly wrote:
> >> > On Jun 13, 7:42 pm, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Holly wrote:
> >> >> > On Jun 4, 10:22 pm, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Holly wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Jun 1, 9:52 pm, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Holly wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > On May 31, 9:39 pm, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> Holly wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > On May 28, 9:34 pm, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Holly wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On May 26, 10:08 pm, ah <splifing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Holly wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > saulgoode wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Holly wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> When we think of great writers in general, we think of their style.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <xxx>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> achievable by one author remains to be seen ... nevertheless, I think my
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> point is well taken and that is: The art of great writing seems to me
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> to be achieved through losing who the author is.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Holly
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Very nice, very nice, and I'm a fan, 100%, of stylistic-over-
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> descriptive writing, although I love a well-written setting. I'd argue
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the same as you on letting Dear Reader fill in the character, but I'll
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> argue against cardboard settings. Don't ~overdo~ settings, but
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> certainly tell me what's going on around these characters, and let me
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fill in their faces, shoes, hair color, and all that basic crap you
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> get so much of from formula writers.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'd also argue that only ~necessary~ descriptives be made. King, for
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> all his windy setting descriptions, didn't tell you his character in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "It" was black, never -- instead, he had some kids chase him and rant
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> racisms at him. Why did he never tell you? Because it didn't matter.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Anyway.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I dug up a personal note I wrote a few years back in my private
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> journal along the same topic. Style's something any writer should be
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> thinking about, constantly, from usenet to emails to private stories
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to anything you're begging the world to buy, and something the writer
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> should control, same as a bartender throwing out rounds from a wall of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ammunition, no two drinks the same, all poured to please.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Note the change in style between my private and public thoughts... ;)
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ~~~
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Where does style come into the writing? That eloquent lilt to the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> words that floats them off the page and into Reader's ears? Where is
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> my style? Do I like the old-school method, with its rolling sentences,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> tailored and cut for the story, full of color, flavor, sentences that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> flow around and around the paragraph with nary a period in sight, soft
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> rivers of words chortling through the story? Or am I concise? Direct?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Come to think of it, the more I write, the more it feels like talking.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's hard for me to write like I once did-cheesy, long sentences. Now
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I like short. Here's the point, now let's continue-that type of stuff.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm not gonna bore you wrapping words from one margin to the other,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> chock full of two-bit locutions (which remind me of taunting
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> squirrels, jamming nuts in their cheeks-mine are bigger than your-
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> oors, mine are bigger than your-oors). I've got big words. I just
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> don't use them. Webster's ain't all that interestin', knowaddamean?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So that's it, I suppose. My style. Short. Sweet. Here's the fucking
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> point, now let's move on. If you want a description of what color some
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> chick painted the inside of her sock drawer-and why-go read someone
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> else. Or write your own story.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ~~~
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>  - Saul
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Hey Saul,  Answer me this.  If you were washed up on an isolated island
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and you could have only one book .... only one for ten years ..... what
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would it be?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Neverness, by David Zindell.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The review for Neverness is enticing.  Thanks for the recommendation.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Welcome.  The complete quad is an excellent read.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Elsewhere, someone else said Elias Canetti's  Auto de Fe, which also
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > looks very promising.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nice, but he tends to micro-manage the writing.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > Ew
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > For me it is a toss up between two old faithfuls: The Complete Works
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of Shakespeare, or Homer's Ulysses.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> You're gana need a heck of a lot of water to compete with such dryness.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > I do not find them dry ... oh contraire!  But perhaps I am a literary
> >> >> >> >> >> > camel ;)
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > Despite not liking to reread most books or see a film twice, I have
> >> >> >> >> >> > reread these a few times, starting young, and I can imagine never
> >> >> >> >> >> > tiring of either.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > They stimulate my imagination which is very juicy.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Goodness.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> I have a penchant for futurism; the past doesn't interest me at all.
>
> >> >> >> >> > So you value a timeline?
>
> >> >> >> >> Not in this particular case:  I am an unwitting slave in the yearning to
> >> >> >> >> break-free from the constraints of others' time-line dogmatic constraints.
>
> >> >> >> > Hm, a mystery.  This sounds like Charles De Bohne's POV.  Perhaps the
> >> >> >> > two of you have more in common than you had thought.
>
> >> >> >> Communality does not brethren make.
>
> >> >> >> >> > Adventure is adventure, as far as I am
> >> >> >> >> > concerned.
>
> >> >> >> >> No offence, but that's like saying "Red wine is red wine."
>
> >> >> >> > I prefer red to white any time ... but to equate, let's say red to the
> >> >> >> > future and white to the past is illogical.  The potential quality that
> >> >> >> > you point to is possible at any time.  The elements needed to give it
> >> >> >> > that quality we have not mentioned.  My point was whether we are
> >> >> >> > adventuring 30 KBP or 30 K in the future the potential for an
> >> >> >> > excellent *time* is there.
>
> >> >> >> Given enough of a differential, all things are possible :D
>
> >> >> >> >> > And, I don't view time as linear ... well I participate in
> >> >> >> >> > the shared idea for the sake of convention.
>
> >> >> >> >> Likewise, my friend.
>
> >> >> >> > So you acquiese .... ;)
>
> >> >> >> No; but, I bend, on occasion.
>
> >> >> > A virtual Willow /// <*>
>
> >> >> Poplar :D
>
> >> > baggard!
>
> >> >> >> >> A shared time-line makes for a satisfyingly-cooperative set of
> >> >> >> >> interpersonal relationships.
>
> >> >> >> > At least the snap-shots on the coffee table make sense.
>
> >> >> >> Did I post that?
>
> >> >> > A momentary morph.
>
> >> >> What's the date?
>
> >> > When?
>
> >> Little late for that, 'n'nt?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Yup ... I bet you'd wish you had a dictionary.  A Webster could come in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > mighty handy when you're all alone, under the stars, wishing you could
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > remember how to spell "overdue" or feeling you need to find that just
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > right word to describe the flashing lights in the sky ... and you cannot
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > remember what to call them.  Of course you could draw pictures in the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > sand.  In that case, you could wish for a pictionary.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I bet you never thought about that. ;)-
>
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> a 'hyphen' h-
>
> >> >> >> > Sweet.
>
> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> >> > The Fox then  -- The Rose now
>
> >> >> >> You're delimiter is missing a space.
>
> >> >> >> Fixored
>
> >> >> > Complieded
>
> >> >> Cool.-
>
> >> > <inane smilie face>-
>
> >> Isn't that a Catch-22?-
>
> > That would then read "insane smile."
>
> Ah!  Meaning, at last!
>
> Wot?-

It confused me too. ;)>