🚀 go-pugleaf

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?