You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Note On
Don't get it
Sorry... not being argumentative; I just really don't understand.
If you revise a short story, that makes it a different short story, but if you revise a novel, it's still the same novel?
Sorry... not being argumentative; I just really don't understand.
If you revise a short story, that makes it a different short story, but if you revise a novel, it's still the same novel?
James D Macdonald
jpwriter
Re: Don't get it
James and all,
James wrote:
"All that you can do with a failed short story is write a new short story. The new story will be a completely new one, for all that it may resemble the other (both are made of limes and eggs and sugar).
With a failed crate, you can still take it apart and reassemble it into a new crate, and most of the lumber will be the same physical lumber (though the new crate may not resemble the old crate at all, except in its crateness)."
Okay. And the novel isn't a new novel in much the same way the short story rewritten would be.
Sounds like an argument of semantics. Since these types of arguments are never won - one side only yields because they get worn down - nothing gets resolved.
I YIELD! UNCLE! :blackeye
Jerry
James and all,
James wrote:
"All that you can do with a failed short story is write a new short story. The new story will be a completely new one, for all that it may resemble the other (both are made of limes and eggs and sugar).
With a failed crate, you can still take it apart and reassemble it into a new crate, and most of the lumber will be the same physical lumber (though the new crate may not resemble the old crate at all, except in its crateness)."
Okay. And the novel isn't a new novel in much the same way the short story rewritten would be.
Sounds like an argument of semantics. Since these types of arguments are never won - one side only yields because they get worn down - nothing gets resolved.
I YIELD! UNCLE! :blackeye
Jerry
johnbaern
Re: Don't get it
The issue here is how much actual physical prose will carry over from one version to the next. In a novel, huge chunks can be reused. With a short story, you must begin again from scratch.
John
The issue here is how much actual physical prose will carry over from one version to the next. In a novel, huge chunks can be reused. With a short story, you must begin again from scratch.
John
qatz
Re: Don't get it
James may see it differently, but I don't think he can possibly explain the thing any clearer than he has (with, ahem, an assist from moi). Why not roll the key lime taste around in your mouth a while and let the analogies sink in? All will come clear in the great by-and-by. :hat
James may see it differently, but I don't think he can possibly explain the thing any clearer than he has (with, ahem, an assist from moi). Why not roll the key lime taste around in your mouth a while and let the analogies sink in? All will come clear in the great by-and-by. :hat
Salve Ghostwalker
Re: Don't get it
>>> The issue here is how much actual physical prose will carry over from one version to the next. In a novel, huge chunks can be reused. With a short story, you must begin again from scratch. <<<
The pie comparison is silly; attempts to explain the analogy border on ludicrous. A story, unlike a pie, isn't 'completely ruined' by one bad or missing ingredient. I recently read a manuscript which was excellent, except for one flaw. The writer started the story about 500-600 words too soon. Very little will be needed in the way of rewriting to fix that story. Heck, it would probably sell if the writer simply threw away the first page. Likewise, I've seen cases where the writer dropped the ball on the last page, or even in the final paragraph. Again, not much needed to fix those stories.
This whole pie thing seems to be a crude way of saying, "Write novels. Don't bother with stories." I think Mr. MacDonald's opinion is just that, an opinion, and in this case one I don't agree with. A novel, more than a story, needs a strong foundation and solid framework. A story can squeak by on a good idea or a strong character. If, somewhere around page 300, the novelist discovers he's been barking up the wrong tree the whole time, he can't slap on a Bandaid adhesive bandage and fix it.
If you believe that a story can only be 'fixed' by completely rewriting it, you're basically saying that every story problem has to have catastrophic results. You are saying that it's impossible to write a good half of a story but screw up the second half. Sometimes it's easier to rewrite a story than it is to cannabalize its good parts, but that doesn't mean that every 'failed' story needs to be competely rewritten.
In fact, that sounds like a recipe for failure. Editor #1 rejects my story. I rewrite. Editor #2 rejects my story. I rewrite. Sooner or later, anything that was good in my story is completely gone.
In a workshop, if you receive 20 crits on a story, half of them will say it just needs tweaking and half will say it needs rewriting. Several people will say it's the best manuscript they've ever read, and several will say it's the worst. Three people will point out a particular line and say they wished they'd written it. Two people will point to that same line and tell you it was clever but didn't fit the story. As writers, we have only what we have written. My advice is, be ready to cut or change anything, but don't throw out a single word carelessly, and only revise what feels wrong to you.
>>> The issue here is how much actual physical prose will carry over from one version to the next. In a novel, huge chunks can be reused. With a short story, you must begin again from scratch. <<<
The pie comparison is silly; attempts to explain the analogy border on ludicrous. A story, unlike a pie, isn't 'completely ruined' by one bad or missing ingredient. I recently read a manuscript which was excellent, except for one flaw. The writer started the story about 500-600 words too soon. Very little will be needed in the way of rewriting to fix that story. Heck, it would probably sell if the writer simply threw away the first page. Likewise, I've seen cases where the writer dropped the ball on the last page, or even in the final paragraph. Again, not much needed to fix those stories.
This whole pie thing seems to be a crude way of saying, "Write novels. Don't bother with stories." I think Mr. MacDonald's opinion is just that, an opinion, and in this case one I don't agree with. A novel, more than a story, needs a strong foundation and solid framework. A story can squeak by on a good idea or a strong character. If, somewhere around page 300, the novelist discovers he's been barking up the wrong tree the whole time, he can't slap on a Bandaid adhesive bandage and fix it.
If you believe that a story can only be 'fixed' by completely rewriting it, you're basically saying that every story problem has to have catastrophic results. You are saying that it's impossible to write a good half of a story but screw up the second half. Sometimes it's easier to rewrite a story than it is to cannabalize its good parts, but that doesn't mean that every 'failed' story needs to be competely rewritten.
In fact, that sounds like a recipe for failure. Editor #1 rejects my story. I rewrite. Editor #2 rejects my story. I rewrite. Sooner or later, anything that was good in my story is completely gone.
In a workshop, if you receive 20 crits on a story, half of them will say it just needs tweaking and half will say it needs rewriting. Several people will say it's the best manuscript they've ever read, and several will say it's the worst. Three people will point out a particular line and say they wished they'd written it. Two people will point to that same line and tell you it was clever but didn't fit the story. As writers, we have only what we have written. My advice is, be ready to cut or change anything, but don't throw out a single word carelessly, and only revise what feels wrong to you.
reph
Well...
looks like we need two threads.
1. Learn Writing with Uncle Jim
2. Learn Writing with Everybody Else
looks like we need two threads.
1. Learn Writing with Uncle Jim
2. Learn Writing with Everybody Else
James D Macdonald
Re: Don't get it
Gracious. Of course <a href="http://www.sff.net/people/doylemacdonald/stories.htm" target="_new">my opinion is my opinion</a>. What else could it be?
No one said to rewrite after an editor rejects a story. The only time you rewrite after you've decided that it's finished and it's time to start sending it around is when an editor opens his checkbook and says "I'll buy this if you make the following changes..." Otherwise once a story's done, it's done.
A story that only needed to have 500-600 words removed from its beginning (and that's closer to two or three pages than one) is one that worked pretty well. Starting a story too early is a common fault. One that lacks a conclusion, that's tougher to fix. Finding the proper conclusion is part of the art here; a perfect conclusion is one that is at once surprising and inevitable. (See notes above on what a "surprise" is.)
Yes, stories that don't work are catastrophes. Either the entire thing works or it doesn't.
"...be ready to cut or change anything, but don't throw out a single word carelessly, and only revise what feels wrong to you," is basically sound advice. Once you've done that ... if the story doesn't work put it in your desk drawer and write a different story.
(Here's some practical advice for the Stir Until Thickened part of the process: Don't use the cut-and-paste function of your wordprocessor at all. Retype the entire thing from hardcopy, making changes as you go. You'll find yourself dropping paragraphs that aren't worth the trouble of retyping, and you'll find yourself adding dialog and description that was missing. Better, smoother ways of phrasing things will occur to you.)
Gracious. Of course <a href="http://www.sff.net/people/doylemacdonald/stories.htm" target="_new">my opinion is my opinion</a>. What else could it be?
No one said to rewrite after an editor rejects a story. The only time you rewrite after you've decided that it's finished and it's time to start sending it around is when an editor opens his checkbook and says "I'll buy this if you make the following changes..." Otherwise once a story's done, it's done.
A story that only needed to have 500-600 words removed from its beginning (and that's closer to two or three pages than one) is one that worked pretty well. Starting a story too early is a common fault. One that lacks a conclusion, that's tougher to fix. Finding the proper conclusion is part of the art here; a perfect conclusion is one that is at once surprising and inevitable. (See notes above on what a "surprise" is.)
Yes, stories that don't work are catastrophes. Either the entire thing works or it doesn't.
"...be ready to cut or change anything, but don't throw out a single word carelessly, and only revise what feels wrong to you," is basically sound advice. Once you've done that ... if the story doesn't work put it in your desk drawer and write a different story.
(Here's some practical advice for the Stir Until Thickened part of the process: Don't use the cut-and-paste function of your wordprocessor at all. Retype the entire thing from hardcopy, making changes as you go. You'll find yourself dropping paragraphs that aren't worth the trouble of retyping, and you'll find yourself adding dialog and description that was missing. Better, smoother ways of phrasing things will occur to you.)
Note On
Re: Don't get it
Hmm...
I think I write novels the way you suggest writing short stories.
As for re-keying from hard copy, I agree.
Hmm...
I think I write novels the way you suggest writing short stories.
As for re-keying from hard copy, I agree.
SRHowen
Re: Don't get it
rewriting--what do you think of? It could be a messy topic. I can see that some people think rewriting means the whole story--the entire MS.
Not so--rewrites can be as simple as removing the first chapter, and vaaahhhhvoooom the rest of the story is perfection. That is a rewrite. You now have draft two of the novel. It can be a simple as going through and having your copy editor friend find all the typos, added or missed words. BANG draft three.
Or it can be the head on desk (after leaving many dents in said head by desk):ack rekey and scrap big chunks and rewrite almost every word from the words Chapter One.
Anything you do after you type "The End" the first time is a rewrite.
And I can attest to the rekey method--it works very very well. Each writer has their own way of dealing with rewrites. James is offering his.
In the workshops I've run, I offer my own as well. But if mine didn't work I'd try Jame's way.
I am also sure that James has a process he goes through when rewriting. A step one sort of thing. Which IMHO should always involve printing a triple spaced version of the MS and reading on paper, then re-keying. ESP if this is your first novel--things will pop out at you on paper that you do not see on the screen, ideas will come and when you rekey, as James said, you will start to type some long bit of info dump or some such and groan out loud and realize you need to scrap it.
I know this will get me blasted--I have armor skin I've been writing a long time--but this thread is about learning and trying Jame's way of doing things. Arguments that seem to pop up on BB all over the place really don't have a place here. Post another thread--My thought on Key Lime Pie--blah blah--those reading this thread wish to learn writing with James.
Come on people. How much would you pay to go to the workshop James runs? The last one I ran was in Germany, I was not the only author or editor there doing a workshop--but there were many writers from the USA that were there---how much did they spend? I can tell you, and I don't know about James, but no one ever stood up and wasted their few moments to argue instead of ask a question.
Please, let's get back on track class.
Shawn
rewriting--what do you think of? It could be a messy topic. I can see that some people think rewriting means the whole story--the entire MS.
Not so--rewrites can be as simple as removing the first chapter, and vaaahhhhvoooom the rest of the story is perfection. That is a rewrite. You now have draft two of the novel. It can be a simple as going through and having your copy editor friend find all the typos, added or missed words. BANG draft three.
Or it can be the head on desk (after leaving many dents in said head by desk):ack rekey and scrap big chunks and rewrite almost every word from the words Chapter One.
Anything you do after you type "The End" the first time is a rewrite.
And I can attest to the rekey method--it works very very well. Each writer has their own way of dealing with rewrites. James is offering his.
In the workshops I've run, I offer my own as well. But if mine didn't work I'd try Jame's way.
I am also sure that James has a process he goes through when rewriting. A step one sort of thing. Which IMHO should always involve printing a triple spaced version of the MS and reading on paper, then re-keying. ESP if this is your first novel--things will pop out at you on paper that you do not see on the screen, ideas will come and when you rekey, as James said, you will start to type some long bit of info dump or some such and groan out loud and realize you need to scrap it.
I know this will get me blasted--I have armor skin I've been writing a long time--but this thread is about learning and trying Jame's way of doing things. Arguments that seem to pop up on BB all over the place really don't have a place here. Post another thread--My thought on Key Lime Pie--blah blah--those reading this thread wish to learn writing with James.
Come on people. How much would you pay to go to the workshop James runs? The last one I ran was in Germany, I was not the only author or editor there doing a workshop--but there were many writers from the USA that were there---how much did they spend? I can tell you, and I don't know about James, but no one ever stood up and wasted their few moments to argue instead of ask a question.
Please, let's get back on track class.
Shawn
Note On
Rewrites
I'm increasingly uncomfortable offering anything at all here, because this is the only happening forum in the Writing Novels area, but it seems to be more of a class and less of an open forum than I initially realized.
Is there a FAQ or a set of guidelines somewhere?
Thanks.
I'm increasingly uncomfortable offering anything at all here, because this is the only happening forum in the Writing Novels area, but it seems to be more of a class and less of an open forum than I initially realized.
Is there a FAQ or a set of guidelines somewhere?
Thanks.
rtilryarms
Is there a FAQ or a set of guidelines somewhere
This is just my opinion, of course.
This thread was started for the purpose of instruction. As with everything in life, there are many ways of doing things.
But this was much more helpful and informative before the semantic arguments and minutiae.
This is an open forum and any input is welcome but I would vote to open separate discussion threads to engage in heavy argument and leave this for those who want to teach and those who want to learn.
After all, JM is spending a lot of time voluntarily and he is asking nothing in return. Have you seen the volume of information?
So please do not endeavor to scare the Instructor away. Start a discussion thread.
This is just my opinion, of course.
This thread was started for the purpose of instruction. As with everything in life, there are many ways of doing things.
But this was much more helpful and informative before the semantic arguments and minutiae.
This is an open forum and any input is welcome but I would vote to open separate discussion threads to engage in heavy argument and leave this for those who want to teach and those who want to learn.
After all, JM is spending a lot of time voluntarily and he is asking nothing in return. Have you seen the volume of information?
So please do not endeavor to scare the Instructor away. Start a discussion thread.
qatz
Re: Is there a FAQ or a set of guidelines somewhere
I agree completely with Mike and Shawn. The set of guidelines is respect for others, and James being central to this thread it's respect for him and his method that is central. The meaning of this thread, and why it has been so successful heretofore, is not bloviating over whatever nonsense comes to your attention for the sake of creating conflict, but participating in the developing sense of the seminar with the common aim of a shared goal, that set out by Jim at the first. I recommend reading the entire thread to get a sense of that, and just to learn things too. This is not a class but a discussion, yet it must stay on task to keep its sense of purpose, and its leader is MacD. Beyond cavil there are those out there who would argue with having a sense of purpose on ideological grounds, but guess what, I don't want to hear it. :hat
I agree completely with Mike and Shawn. The set of guidelines is respect for others, and James being central to this thread it's respect for him and his method that is central. The meaning of this thread, and why it has been so successful heretofore, is not bloviating over whatever nonsense comes to your attention for the sake of creating conflict, but participating in the developing sense of the seminar with the common aim of a shared goal, that set out by Jim at the first. I recommend reading the entire thread to get a sense of that, and just to learn things too. This is not a class but a discussion, yet it must stay on task to keep its sense of purpose, and its leader is MacD. Beyond cavil there are those out there who would argue with having a sense of purpose on ideological grounds, but guess what, I don't want to hear it. :hat
Note On
Conflict
I'm sort of baffled by the perception that I've done anything to create conflict, or to chase off an instructor--but as that does seem to be the perception, I'll doff my hat and look for a less structured forum.
I'm sort of baffled by the perception that I've done anything to create conflict, or to chase off an instructor--but as that does seem to be the perception, I'll doff my hat and look for a less structured forum.
rtilryarms
Note On
Dear Friend,
No one is saying your input is not welcome. We were just deviating from the original intent of the thread.
This makes it hard to navigate and stay on course. I only suggest opening a discussion thread to challenge or debate philosophy and/or semantics.
And i do not speak for Uncle Jim. My opinion only.
Stick around, you have very valuable input.
Mike
Dear Friend,
No one is saying your input is not welcome. We were just deviating from the original intent of the thread.
This makes it hard to navigate and stay on course. I only suggest opening a discussion thread to challenge or debate philosophy and/or semantics.
And i do not speak for Uncle Jim. My opinion only.
Stick around, you have very valuable input.
Mike
qatz
Re: Note On
You may go or you may stay as you wish, but please try to understand what we're about and what you're saying before you say it. And this is not only you, On, so please don't take it personal. I probably just used you as a handy target because you were a handy target.
Just lately, and I think it was only the normal end of year madness which descends, like Lear's ghost, on many of us this time of year, the path of this thread seemed to veer into swampland, and we suffered an unfortunate concatenation of muck on the boots, some of it self-inflicted by ourselves, and the rest due to camp robbers. These bluejays are figments of our own imaginations and. like Harpies, descend on us when we get sloppy or obtuse or let our manners wear thin. You and others were just playing the roles, I think, of these big annoying birds swooping in and stealing our crumbs.
Now we are trying to get out of the muck this new year's day and chase off the camp robbers and get back to the path this thread started out on. A person like Salve can come in with extremely harsh opinions about lime pie, maybe she had a bad slice of it once, and remain on task. That's okay. A person like whoever it was, not just you but others, can come in with very harsh, not-well-thought-out ideas about something off-topic and just end up sounding trivial and ad hominem, and deviate the discussion for days. Or just post things below third-grade level like "Nuh uh." That's not okay. The person, let's take you for example, is undoubtedly a worthy individual, and not a big noisy bird causing trouble. The role that person is playing, though, is that of the big noisy bird. People understandably tire of that, as well as of my tedious explanations.
Watch for my new thread, where you can try to beat me up and get beat up in return to your heart's content. :hat
You may go or you may stay as you wish, but please try to understand what we're about and what you're saying before you say it. And this is not only you, On, so please don't take it personal. I probably just used you as a handy target because you were a handy target.
Just lately, and I think it was only the normal end of year madness which descends, like Lear's ghost, on many of us this time of year, the path of this thread seemed to veer into swampland, and we suffered an unfortunate concatenation of muck on the boots, some of it self-inflicted by ourselves, and the rest due to camp robbers. These bluejays are figments of our own imaginations and. like Harpies, descend on us when we get sloppy or obtuse or let our manners wear thin. You and others were just playing the roles, I think, of these big annoying birds swooping in and stealing our crumbs.
Now we are trying to get out of the muck this new year's day and chase off the camp robbers and get back to the path this thread started out on. A person like Salve can come in with extremely harsh opinions about lime pie, maybe she had a bad slice of it once, and remain on task. That's okay. A person like whoever it was, not just you but others, can come in with very harsh, not-well-thought-out ideas about something off-topic and just end up sounding trivial and ad hominem, and deviate the discussion for days. Or just post things below third-grade level like "Nuh uh." That's not okay. The person, let's take you for example, is undoubtedly a worthy individual, and not a big noisy bird causing trouble. The role that person is playing, though, is that of the big noisy bird. People understandably tire of that, as well as of my tedious explanations.
Watch for my new thread, where you can try to beat me up and get beat up in return to your heart's content. :hat
HConn
Re: Note On
I would prefer Note sticks around.
I've been visiting family for the holidays, so I've had time to pop in and glance at short threads, but not keep up with this one. Now, having read the more than 100 posts that have appeared since I left, I don't see where James has complained about people who disagreed with him. Maybe I missed it.
Couple things:
The very early morning is a great time to work, especially if, like me, you are a night person. When I'm a little muzzy from sleep, my internal editor is still in a REM state. I get lots done at that hour. YMMV, but try it out. You may be a convert.
I don't mind "and then" too much, though I don't write it. My pet peeve is "and into" as in: "He jumped over the fence and into the garden."
"It's raining" isn't a passive construction. It's present progressive (or present participle, depending on who your teacher was).
And I will disagree with anyone who says something I disagree with, and I'll try to be polite about it. I have a lot of respect for Jim and his success, but I learn a lot by disagreeing with experts. How else will they correct me?
Besides, if our disagreements are in another thread, new arrivals will continually start new "Plotting as chess?" threads. Wouldn't it be easier and tidier for that to be here?
Jim, please let us know if something in the tone of this thread bothers you. You started it, so it's your playground.
I would prefer Note sticks around.
I've been visiting family for the holidays, so I've had time to pop in and glance at short threads, but not keep up with this one. Now, having read the more than 100 posts that have appeared since I left, I don't see where James has complained about people who disagreed with him. Maybe I missed it.
Couple things:
The very early morning is a great time to work, especially if, like me, you are a night person. When I'm a little muzzy from sleep, my internal editor is still in a REM state. I get lots done at that hour. YMMV, but try it out. You may be a convert.
I don't mind "and then" too much, though I don't write it. My pet peeve is "and into" as in: "He jumped over the fence and into the garden."
"It's raining" isn't a passive construction. It's present progressive (or present participle, depending on who your teacher was).
And I will disagree with anyone who says something I disagree with, and I'll try to be polite about it. I have a lot of respect for Jim and his success, but I learn a lot by disagreeing with experts. How else will they correct me?
Besides, if our disagreements are in another thread, new arrivals will continually start new "Plotting as chess?" threads. Wouldn't it be easier and tidier for that to be here?
Jim, please let us know if something in the tone of this thread bothers you. You started it, so it's your playground.
qatz
Re: Note On
I guess you had to be there, Conn. James mostly stayed out of the fray but not entirely. In fact, he caused part of it and was more argumentative -- and wronger -- than he needed to be on some parts. And at one point -- apparently you missed this -- he said something like "I hope this doesn't devolve into a huge shouting match over spelling or grammar.' And at another point he listed some of the many useful topics he wanted to address when the forum got back on track. His opinion was not unclear.
But there's enough fault to spread around. I think a lot of it was my own complex pontification concerning which, when people do not understand, they just get angry.
Even so, On and others seemed to start arguing more out of personal animus and whim than anything productive. You may prefer whatever you wish about their staying, but it is their choice whether to stay or leave. The more important thing is whether the discussion will remain mired in the muck where it was while you were gone, or not. You appear not to have much feel for that. I don't think any of us liked that, except maybe a camp robber or two.
I respect you, but I guess I can tell you what I think, and I think I am not pleased that you feel compelled to comment on what has been pretty much put behind us now by all. I would also ask you not to clutter up Jim's thread further with more useless re-hashing of dead horses -- how's that for a nasty mixed metaphor?!? Jim obviously has much more to offer us in his own words, without needless off-subject diatribe getting in the way, and I can advocate for my own interests in wanting to hear that, thank you. If you want to lend your belated voice to the ugly debate, there will be plenty of chances. But my friendly advice is, just say no to the impulse.
I guess you had to be there, Conn. James mostly stayed out of the fray but not entirely. In fact, he caused part of it and was more argumentative -- and wronger -- than he needed to be on some parts. And at one point -- apparently you missed this -- he said something like "I hope this doesn't devolve into a huge shouting match over spelling or grammar.' And at another point he listed some of the many useful topics he wanted to address when the forum got back on track. His opinion was not unclear.
But there's enough fault to spread around. I think a lot of it was my own complex pontification concerning which, when people do not understand, they just get angry.
Even so, On and others seemed to start arguing more out of personal animus and whim than anything productive. You may prefer whatever you wish about their staying, but it is their choice whether to stay or leave. The more important thing is whether the discussion will remain mired in the muck where it was while you were gone, or not. You appear not to have much feel for that. I don't think any of us liked that, except maybe a camp robber or two.
I respect you, but I guess I can tell you what I think, and I think I am not pleased that you feel compelled to comment on what has been pretty much put behind us now by all. I would also ask you not to clutter up Jim's thread further with more useless re-hashing of dead horses -- how's that for a nasty mixed metaphor?!? Jim obviously has much more to offer us in his own words, without needless off-subject diatribe getting in the way, and I can advocate for my own interests in wanting to hear that, thank you. If you want to lend your belated voice to the ugly debate, there will be plenty of chances. But my friendly advice is, just say no to the impulse.
johnbaern
HConn
One can disagree, but it makes more sense to pose the issue in the form of a question (which hasn't usually been the case).
There is also a difference between good questions and bad questions. Alot of people have been not even *attempting* to understand what Jim has *meant*, and just attacking his statements on the basis of semantics.
Really it all comes down to a question of intent. Are people driven by their desire to learn? Or are they just trying to prove that they can be as big and cool and smart as ol' Jimmyboy?
People who pick semantic fights are NOT trying to learn. They are NO help to those of us who are.*
John
* (As long as they continue with the same disingenuous behavior.)
One can disagree, but it makes more sense to pose the issue in the form of a question (which hasn't usually been the case).
There is also a difference between good questions and bad questions. Alot of people have been not even *attempting* to understand what Jim has *meant*, and just attacking his statements on the basis of semantics.
Really it all comes down to a question of intent. Are people driven by their desire to learn? Or are they just trying to prove that they can be as big and cool and smart as ol' Jimmyboy?
People who pick semantic fights are NOT trying to learn. They are NO help to those of us who are.*
John
* (As long as they continue with the same disingenuous behavior.)
qatz
Re: the latest!
Thank you, John. You make some very good points. But I am uncomfortable personalizing this by further using particular people's names in the subject line. I should not have done so before. HConn certainly does not deserve being singled out. I hope you will bear with me.
I am happy and proud that Sunset Creator aka Laura, whom many of you know, has graciously given me permission to set up a new thread in her board on EZ called "Laura on Self Publishing." It will be about the English Language as told to Reph and me. I just told Reph and Lori about it -- they are in Reph's new thread "Learn Writing Without Uncle Jim" -- and hopefully they’ll approve. I am hoping that everyone who desires to follow this contro will take the effort to convene there. Laura needs the traffic, and James with the single most popular non-personals thread in EZdom does not.
Thus we can return to the preexisting understanding, sometimes contrary to fact, that everyone participating in Jim's thread knows the basics, and get on with the value of the lesson as students have been clamoring for eons.
Writing, the topic of Jim's course, is not itself the language. It is using the language. For those who wish to talk endlessly about the language, they now have the option. For those who wish to use the language, or at least talk about its use, they will again be able to get a word in sideways.
I will be setting up the thread forthwith. Donations to Laura's site will be most welcome. Those of us who remain interested in James' vastly interesting writing course, as I am, will find it here as always. (I hope this is acceptable to the powers that be, Em and Jenna.)
The standards over there will be the same as here. Respect for one another. And in view of the hostess’s sensibilities, be especially polite. You’ll have to remind me of that from time to time.
So, to anyone who's interested, see you over there. You can find it by clicking one of Sunset's recent signatures, or by following your own "recently visited sites" once you've been there. I am sure she may provide an easier way to get there if it's demanded. :hat
Thank you, John. You make some very good points. But I am uncomfortable personalizing this by further using particular people's names in the subject line. I should not have done so before. HConn certainly does not deserve being singled out. I hope you will bear with me.
I am happy and proud that Sunset Creator aka Laura, whom many of you know, has graciously given me permission to set up a new thread in her board on EZ called "Laura on Self Publishing." It will be about the English Language as told to Reph and me. I just told Reph and Lori about it -- they are in Reph's new thread "Learn Writing Without Uncle Jim" -- and hopefully they’ll approve. I am hoping that everyone who desires to follow this contro will take the effort to convene there. Laura needs the traffic, and James with the single most popular non-personals thread in EZdom does not.
Thus we can return to the preexisting understanding, sometimes contrary to fact, that everyone participating in Jim's thread knows the basics, and get on with the value of the lesson as students have been clamoring for eons.
Writing, the topic of Jim's course, is not itself the language. It is using the language. For those who wish to talk endlessly about the language, they now have the option. For those who wish to use the language, or at least talk about its use, they will again be able to get a word in sideways.
I will be setting up the thread forthwith. Donations to Laura's site will be most welcome. Those of us who remain interested in James' vastly interesting writing course, as I am, will find it here as always. (I hope this is acceptable to the powers that be, Em and Jenna.)
The standards over there will be the same as here. Respect for one another. And in view of the hostess’s sensibilities, be especially polite. You’ll have to remind me of that from time to time.
So, to anyone who's interested, see you over there. You can find it by clicking one of Sunset's recent signatures, or by following your own "recently visited sites" once you've been there. I am sure she may provide an easier way to get there if it's demanded. :hat
johnbaern
A Question for Uncle Jim:
If I start out a particular passage in preterite perfect (had done, had gone), is it acceptable for me to waffle and throw in a few preterite indefinites (did, went)?
I realize that tense agreement is important, but all those helper verbs start to get in the way of the flow after a while. Obviously my purpose is to set off one chain of events (which occurred earlier) from the main flow without resorting to quote indentation or pagebreaks.
So what's "the deal" here? And if there's no "deal", what are your thoughts?
John
.
.
P.S. to Qatz: I'm sorry that you misunderstood my post. If you read it again, you may see that I was not singling HConn out for anything. He made a comment to which I was replying. I've reread my post and I don't believe there was any evident insinuation, but if you see something I don't please e-mail me at [email protected]
If I start out a particular passage in preterite perfect (had done, had gone), is it acceptable for me to waffle and throw in a few preterite indefinites (did, went)?
I realize that tense agreement is important, but all those helper verbs start to get in the way of the flow after a while. Obviously my purpose is to set off one chain of events (which occurred earlier) from the main flow without resorting to quote indentation or pagebreaks.
So what's "the deal" here? And if there's no "deal", what are your thoughts?
John
.
.
P.S. to Qatz: I'm sorry that you misunderstood my post. If you read it again, you may see that I was not singling HConn out for anything. He made a comment to which I was replying. I've reread my post and I don't believe there was any evident insinuation, but if you see something I don't please e-mail me at [email protected]
johnbaern
Re: A Question for Uncle Jim:
Another quick one: is there any problem with using "now" to refer to a past-tense action? "I now sat at the table", for instance? I've been avoiding this one on the assumption that it was an oxymoron, but substituting "then" doesn't always sound as good.
John
Another quick one: is there any problem with using "now" to refer to a past-tense action? "I now sat at the table", for instance? I've been avoiding this one on the assumption that it was an oxymoron, but substituting "then" doesn't always sound as good.
John
qatz
Re: A Question for Uncle Jim:
No, John, not at all. Did not mean to imply otherwise. Actually, I was not referring to your text but to why I changed my own subject header only.
We is ready for you now if you wish to join a new grammar thread, called The English Language and located in the General Discussion area of Laura on Self Publishing and All Aspects of Writing. Or you can just visit Reph's own thread here, Learn Without the Uncle... She and a few others have a friendly discussion going there.
Despite the overtly grammatical nature of your question, there is a legitimate tie-in to word choice. As with your followup. I guess I have no more to say, therefore.
Best to you. Sorry for the recents.
:hat
No, John, not at all. Did not mean to imply otherwise. Actually, I was not referring to your text but to why I changed my own subject header only.
We is ready for you now if you wish to join a new grammar thread, called The English Language and located in the General Discussion area of Laura on Self Publishing and All Aspects of Writing. Or you can just visit Reph's own thread here, Learn Without the Uncle... She and a few others have a friendly discussion going there.
Despite the overtly grammatical nature of your question, there is a legitimate tie-in to word choice. As with your followup. I guess I have no more to say, therefore.
Best to you. Sorry for the recents.
:hat
HConn
Re: A Question for Uncle Jim:
My original response was lost partway through when my browser crashed. Here's hoping I have better luck this time.
John, you can't limit people's disagreements to questions. You have to give them the freedom to disagree in whatever way seems best to them. If things get out of hand--and frankly, nothing I've seen in this thread qualifies--then it's something for the moderator to handle. You should contact the moderator if you think someone is misbehaving.
Qatz, reading your condescending posts, especially:
Makes me feel sorry for you. Good luck to you.
James, thanks for the pie recipe, although I'll admit I didn't understand the analogy until you spelled it out. No one ever accused me of being a genius. Is that a genuine recipe? Have you made it yourself?
My original response was lost partway through when my browser crashed. Here's hoping I have better luck this time.
John, you can't limit people's disagreements to questions. You have to give them the freedom to disagree in whatever way seems best to them. If things get out of hand--and frankly, nothing I've seen in this thread qualifies--then it's something for the moderator to handle. You should contact the moderator if you think someone is misbehaving.
Qatz, reading your condescending posts, especially:
I am sorry, however, that you misunderstood my post. Perhsaps if you read it you will understand it, or perhaps not.
Makes me feel sorry for you. Good luck to you.
James, thanks for the pie recipe, although I'll admit I didn't understand the analogy until you spelled it out. No one ever accused me of being a genius. Is that a genuine recipe? Have you made it yourself?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.