LACK OF CHARACTER

[Worldwalker]

The tastes of the reading public change. For example, there was a time when authors' voice-overs were considered to be a good thing. Now, most of us wouldn't want a book where the author breaks the fourth wall and tells us what's going on -- and in fact if we read such a book, that generally dates it more quickly than anything short of the title page can do. One of the reasons that H.P. Lovecraft got away with so much telling instead of showing is that at the time he wrote, readers were more accepting of being told rather than shown. There is a constant shift in style.

But one thing that has remained constant is that the reader must be given a reason not to put the book down. Perhaps those readers were more tolerant in a time when there were fewer things competing for their leisure time and money, when you read the book you had or nothing at all, and when they didn't have the luxury of an excerpt online. But the reality is that there are other things for potential readers of any given book to do, and they need to have a reason to read the book instead of read some other book, or enjoy some other leisure activity. If the story, the situations, and the characters give me no reason to want to turn the page, there are plenty of other pages, attached to plenty of other books, for me to turn. And they're good books. There's no need to subject myself to boredom to read those books, so I'm going to pick one of them.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" is, in my opinion, one of the best opening lines every. It tells me right away what I'm going to be seeing: contrast, in particular, which is a big part of the theme of A Tale of Two Cities. It tells me there's something coming that's worth my time. And the book delivers. If you're not giving your readers a reason to keep reading, or not delivering, the problem is not in your stars, but in yourself.

[Music&Mayhem]

Originally Posted by sportourer1

Too true but the people can be re-educated. The revolution will start with the breaking of Simon Cowell on a gun carriage and then the world can move on

I'm thrilled and excited to report that I have no idea who Simon Cowell is.

Seriously, the problem is television. Vapid characters run around killing people. Lotsa blood spatter. Sirens. Flashing lights. Okay, I have to admit, I like Dexter, but he's deep.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Music&Mayhem

I'm thrilled and excited to report that I have no idea who Simon Cowell is.

Seriously, the problem is television. Vapid characters run around killing people. Lotsa blood spatter. Sirens. Flashing lights. Okay, I have to admit, I like Dexter, but he's deep.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

You should try Mad Men.

There's plenty of very deep and entertaining tv out there, you just have to wade through all the reality tv to get to it.

[Music&Mayhem]

Originally Posted by queentess

You should try Mad Men.

There's plenty of very deep and entertaining tv out there, you just have to wade through all the reality tv to get to it.

Thanks for the suggestion, I may try it. I'm into crime, though. Is it a crime show? Sorry. there must be a dark streak somewhere inside me, the bad-girl gene maybe?

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Music&Mayhem

Seriously, the problem is television. Vapid characters run around killing people. Lotsa blood spatter. Sirens. Flashing lights.

Originally Posted by Music&Mayhem

I'm into crime, though. Is it a crime show? Sorry. there must be a dark streak somewhere inside me, the bad-girl gene maybe?

Well now, that explains the "vapid characters run around killing people" part. I was wondering what tv you were watching that had you making a generalization like that.

Mad Men's about a 1960s ad agency, and the lives of all who work there. It's a pretty involved series, lots of drama, some comedy.

[Beyle]

Beyle, here:

The above corrects my initial error, signing in as “Sean” in that recent disastrous posting that so exercised at least a couple of you. So far, “a couple.” The truly vast number of misspellings, or typos, as Worldwalker appeared to understand, can be attributed to several factors, but is nevertheless inexcusable. I was in a hurry to make my first posting about something that I felt strongly about, the dumbing down of the American culture (I
have to confess to having played a considerable part in that myself in another medium).

Anyway, there was no one around to correct it and I’m such a technological incompetent it wasn’t until yesterday that I discovered the “spell check” in place, or that I could enlarge the print slightly. Finally, as we say nowadays, I have vision issues. My apologies.

However, and there is always a “however.” As to “logs and moats,” I don’t remember attacking anyone by name. Or knowing anyone vulnerable whom I would consider my m “neighbor.”And if one attempts to criticize any social or culture phenomenon there will surely be some who take it as a direct attack - on them, personally. What would be the alternative?

Then there is the question of punctuation. Bill Goldman said his novels are mostly dialogue because punctuation is too confused these days. Cormac McCarthy doesn’t use quotation marks, hate’s semi-colons. Most of the best writers in our era won’t use an apostrophe after dropping, say, the last letter in a word, mainly the “g” in gerunds (dialect, of course). If you’re a formalist I recommend the first gorgeous half-page sentence with two commas in McCarthy’s OUTER DARK.

On the other hand, maybe you’re right in that it would have been mannerly to use the formal style - letters, essays, papers, etc. – for that posting. I haven’t gone back and revisited the scene of the disaster, a practice, I believe, that is considerably overrated as a means of improvement. Yes, perhaps I should have applied the formal standard here although I’ve seldom found it useful and am far more inclined to write fiction on my own terms. I think I’ll stick with that. After all that, some of my best friends are curmudgeons.

I do have to say that I found Ms. Queentess’s ad hominem reference to my age a bit of a cheap shot. Not done, my dear, in the thinking classes, any more than you would use the pejorative words for various races, religious groups, gays... In fact, several older members of the WGA are now dividing seventy-two million dollars owed to them by the studios and various producers who have not only used that word but the implementation of it. Words, too, have consequences.

I believe you’re also very wrong about the times you’ve never experienced, either in print or life evidently. There has never been a ruling group in this country remotely as cerebral (excluding the sciences) as that which created the Constitution. The Old West and mining camps used to be full of men who could read the Bible or The Bard to their fellows around the fire. It was not unusual to find traveling Shakespearean companies or performers. Classical Greek was sometimes read within the legal fraternity of the Old South. Gold and silver miners greeted Oscar Wilde with enthusiasm. Homer and Shakespeare were taught in urban elementary schools. Okay, so I was a sprout during the early days of television but we watched “Art and the Gods,” “The Dave Garroway Show,” and at night live dramas about real people by America’s best playwrights, Horton Foote, Reginald Rose, Paddy Chayetsky, Tennessee Williams. Truman Capote.

Finally, and thank God, you say, the aforementioned Cormac McCarthy is seventy-eight or nine, , the great Peruvian writer, Llosa, who just won the Nobel Prize, is eighty, Patrick O’Brien didn’t start his wonderfully successful series about the Nelsonian navy until he was in his late seventies, and on and on....

Besides, I’m not a old geezer, merely a senesent attenuated superannuate.

I also want to say that despite our differences and my extreme antiquity I do admire Queentess’s Weimar look.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Beyle

The truly vast number of misspellings, or typos, as Worldwalker appeared to understand, can be attributed to several factors, but is nevertheless inexcusable.

No, it's not.

The standards for casual discussion on forums and professional writing are different. Which doesn't mean that typos and bad punctuation don't undermine your argument; they do, in showing that you're not immune to the appeal of instant gratification over quality, which takes longer. But that doesn't make your entire point null and void, and doesn't mean you've committed any great offense.

Anyway, there was no one around to correct it and I’m such a technological incompetent it wasn’t until yesterday that I discovered the “spell check” in place, or that I could enlarge the print slightly. Finally, as we say nowadays, I have vision issues. My apologies.

Firefox has spellcheck built into the browser, and ctrl-plus and ctrl-minus increase & decrease all the elements on a page, text and images.

Then there is the question of punctuation. Bill Goldman said his novels are mostly dialogue because punctuation is too confused these days. Cormac McCarthy doesn’t use quotation marks, hate’s semi-colons. Most of the best writers in our era won’t use an apostrophe after dropping, say, the last letter in a word, mainly the “g” in gerunds (dialect, of course). If you’re a formalist I recommend the first gorgeous half-page sentence with two commas in McCarthy’s OUTER DARK.

Your punctuation errors were not matters of style; they interfered with the message itself. Failing to put spaces around parentheses makes a sentence look cramped, and some browsers don't split the words if there's no space, so it can cause long white spaces at the ends of lines.

Also, authors who are writing 100,000 words of entertaining plot with fascinating characters can skip some of the punctuation requirements; many readers will not notice, and many who do notice won't care because they'll be thinking about the story. In a post of less than 1000 words, which isn't being read-and-absorbed but read-and-responded-to, punctuation is more important because minute sections of phrasing may be highlighted in the responses.

Yes, perhaps I should have applied the formal standard here although I’ve seldom found it useful and am far more inclined to write fiction on my own terms. I think I’ll stick with that. After all that, some of my best friends are curmudgeons.

Fiction style choices are irrelevant to textual conversation style choices.

I do have to say that I found Ms. Queentess’s ad hominem reference to my age a bit of a cheap shot. Not done, my dear, in the thinking classes,

Fascinating countershot, that, implying that she (and anyone who agrees with her assessment) are "unthinking."

What, exactly, are the "thinking classes?" Do they include a certain level of education, or a certain job set?

any more than you would use the pejorative words for various races, religious groups, gays... In fact, several older members of the WGA are now dividing seventy-two million dollars owed to them by the studios and various producers who have not only used that word but the implementation of it. Words, too, have consequences.

Oooh, we've achieved Hints Of Lawsuits. (Countdown to Godwin... 5... 4...)

Please, prove me wrong about this. Show that you can accept graciously that you ranted about low standards among readers while holding yourself to low standards as a writer, take your lumps, say oops, and move on.

I believe you’re also very wrong about the times you’ve never experienced, either in print or life evidently. There has never been a ruling group in this country remotely as cerebral (excluding the sciences) as that which created the Constitution.

There has never been a ruling group as limited to upper-class land-owning white males, wherein the definition of "cerebral" was defined as having a particular type of personal history, education, and philosophical outlook. People whose communication styles are drastically different from those are not necessarily "less cerebral."

<snip: waxing nostalgic about an era wherein US culture promoted an assumption that white European males had achieved the pinnacle of human literary talent.>

I don't believe that being able to quote Shakespeare or read Greek are indications of intelligence, artistic talent, or breadth of cultural understanding. I can deplore the mindless pap that entertains the masses without believing the foundations of that entertainment were somehow morally better than their application in pop culture.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Beyle

Beyle, here:
I do have to say that I found Ms. Queentess’s ad hominem reference to my age a bit of a cheap shot. Not done, my dear, in the thinking classes, any more than you would use the pejorative words for various races, religious groups, gays...

And I thought it was cheap the way you disregarded comic books as "shabby" simply because you don't enjoy them.

I based the "geezer" thing on the fact that you don't know who Simon Cowell is and I had never heard of Yogi Berra. We obviously have a very large age gap. And your rant sounded rather like a "get off my lawn" diatribe.

As for the "thinking class"... I think you rather underestimate the number of degrees I have. But they way you call me "my dear" in such a passive-aggressive way certainly speaks to your age and gender. Calling a female "my dear" like she's a moron is simply not done in the thinking classes. Age, however, has a lot to do with perspective and opinions about big explosions and comic books.

[bobavey]

Yeah, man.

[Beyle]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck;1300945(

No, it's not.

The standards for casual discussion on forums and professional writing are different. Which doesn't mean that typos and bad punctuation don't undermine your argument; they do, in showing that you're not immune to the appeal of instant gratification over quality, which takes longer. But that doesn't make your entire point null and void, and doesn't mean you've committed any great offense.



Firefox has spellcheck built into the browser, and ctrl-plus and ctrl-minus increase & decrease all the elements on a page, text and images.



Your punctuation errors were not matters of style; they interfered with the message itself. Failing to put spaces around parentheses makes a sentence look cramped, and some browsers don't split the words if there's no space, so it can cause long white spaces at the ends of lines.

Also, authors who are writing 100,000 words of entertaining plot with fascinating characters can skip some of the punctuation requirements; many readers will not notice, and many who do notice won't care because they'll be thinking about the story. In a post of less than 1000 words, which isn't being read-and-absorbed but read-and-responded-to, punctuation is more important because minute sections of phrasing may be highlighted in the responses.



Fiction style choices are irrelevant to textual conversation style choices.



Fascinating countershot, that, implying that she (and anyone who agrees with her assessment) are "unthinking."

What, exactly, are the "thinking classes?" Do they include a certain level of education, or a certain job set?



Oooh, we've achieved Hints Of Lawsuits. (Countdown to Godwin... 5... 4...)

Please, prove me wrong about this. Show that you can accept graciously that you ranted about low standards among readers while holding yourself to low standards as a writer, take your lumps, say oops, and move on.



There has never been a ruling group as limited to upper-class land-owning white males, wherein the definition of "cerebral" was defined as having a particular type of personal history, education, and philosophical outlook. People whose communication styles are drastically different from those are not necessarily "less cerebral."

<snip: waxing nostalgic about an era wherein US culture promoted an assumption that white European males had achieved the pinnacle of human literary talent.>

I don't believe that being able to quote Shakespeare or read Greek are indications of intelligence, artistic talent, or breadth of cultural understanding. I can deplore the mindless pap that entertains the masses without believing the foundations of that entertainment were somehow morally better than their application in pop culture.

)

Dear Elfwreck:

Thank you for you efforts on my behalf and I don't doubt your high intent, but there are a few misinterpretations I wish to correct. Beginning with the last word in my first paragraph. It is "INexcusable." in which case you should be aqreeing with my content, no? I think I denounced myself and then you denounced the denunciation. :..not immune to the appeal of
instant gratification>" Or, am I seeing it wrong.

Brings up another oint. I've already copped to my poor eyesight and thecnological confusion - yes, I am trying to imporve but suspect it's on the double helix - so to keep referring to these particular issues, as example, where I place the parentheses, would seem to me to be a execise in futility.
What is a "firefox" or a "ctl-plus," anyway? "Beating a dead horse," to quote the first of several cliches, no doubt.

Let's skip thepunctution thing, read my first paragraphy again. But with th "thinking classes," I suppose it ws inapproropriate. It''s UK stuff but I have spent a lot of time over there, both Englahd where I once worked and Ireland, and fall into it even in my creative writing There's no dctionary for it
so I'll say it's simply thee difference betweem people who read and those who don't. Journalistically it can be a tad ironic; poor choice, I admit (and to Queensie), but never in my life have I ever been asccused of snobbishness.

Next, there is no hint of lawsuits and I believe that's uncalled for. I have never sued anyone and never will most likely. If I enjoyed them I would have gotten in on the WGA suit. A friend of mine got an incredible two million for the number of years of work that policy ("geezerism"" had cost him. I brought the whole thing up to lry to impress her that twelve thousand people who are assumedably literate would disapprove of her use of the geezer description and were willingto fight and spend for years to accomplish it.

Onward, I have not attacked any individuals, but have made cultural criticisms. If people refuse cultural criticism they will live in a static, vapid world. And I've talen more lumps than you'll ever know in my past and current life.

As far as the your endpiece, I didn't see that it requires a respons from mein that you have veered off the thraead into ideology and the social sciences s that aren't' really sciences anyway, in my view, just interesting (and cultural anthropologiy was my first major).

Hope you had a nice holliday and keep them coming. Beyle.

[Beyle]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck;1300945(

No, it's not.

The standards for casual discussion on forums and professional writing are different. Which doesn't mean that typos and bad punctuation don't undermine your argument; they do, in showing that you're not immune to the appeal of instant gratification over quality, which takes longer. But that doesn't make your entire point null and void, and doesn't mean you've committed any great offense.



Firefox has spellcheck built into the browser, and ctrl-plus and ctrl-minus increase & decrease all the elements on a page, text and images.



Your punctuation errors were not matters of style; they interfered with the message itself. Failing to put spaces around parentheses makes a sentence look cramped, and some browsers don't split the words if there's no space, so it can cause long white spaces at the ends of lines.

Also, authors who are writing 100,000 words of entertaining plot with fascinating characters can skip some of the punctuation requirements; many readers will not notice, and many who do notice won't care because they'll be thinking about the story. In a post of less than 1000 words, which isn't being read-and-absorbed but read-and-responded-to, punctuation is more important because minute sections of phrasing may be highlighted in the responses.



Fiction style choices are irrelevant to textual conversation style choices.



Fascinating countershot, that, implying that she (and anyone who agrees with her assessment) are "unthinking."

What, exactly, are the "thinking classes?" Do they include a certain level of education, or a certain job set?



Oooh, we've achieved Hints Of Lawsuits. (Countdown to Godwin... 5... 4...)

Please, prove me wrong about this. Show that you can accept graciously that you ranted about low standards among readers while holding yourself to low standards as a writer, take your lumps, say oops, and move on.



There has never been a ruling group as limited to upper-class land-owning white males, wherein the definition of "cerebral" was defined as having a particular type of personal history, education, and philosophical outlook. People whose communication styles are drastically different from those are not necessarily "less cerebral."

<snip: waxing nostalgic about an era wherein US culture promoted an assumption that white European males had achieved the pinnacle of human literary talent.>

I don't believe that being able to quote Shakespeare or read Greek are indications of intelligence, artistic talent, or breadth of cultural understanding. I can deplore the mindless pap that entertains the masses without believing the foundations of that entertainment were somehow morally better than their application in pop culture.

)

Dear Elfwreck:

Thank you for you efforts on my behalf and I don't doubt your high intent, but there are a few misinterpretations I wish to correct. Beginning with the last word in my first paragraph. It is "INexcusable." In which case you should be agreeing with my content, no? I think I denounced myself and then you denounced the denunciation. :..not immune to the appeal of
instant gratification?" Or, am I seeing it wrong?

Brings up another point. I've already copped to my poor eyesight and tecnnological confusion - yes, I am trying to imporve but suspect it's on the double helix - so to keep referring to these particular issues, as example, where I place the parentheses, would seem to me to be an execise in futility.
What is a "firefox" or a "ctl-plus," anyway? "Beating a dead horse," to quote the first of several cliches, no doubt.

Let's skip the punctution thing, read my first paragraph again. But with the "thinking classes," I suppose it ws inapprorpriate. It''s UK stuff but I have spent a lot of time over there, both in Englahd where I once worked and Ireland (even more), and fall into it often in my creative writing There's no dctionary for it so I'll say it's simply the difference between people who read and those who don't. Journalistically it can be a tad ironic; poor choice, I admit (and to Queensee), but I've never been asccused of snobbishness. Maybe this is a first.

aNext, there is no hint of lawsuits against anyone on here, and I believe that's uncalled for. I have never sued anyone and never will most likely. If I enjoyed them I would have gotten in on the WGA suit. A friend of mine got an incredible two million for the number of years of work that policy ("geezerism"") had theoretically cost him. I brought the whole thing up to lry to impress on Queensee that twelve thousand people who are assumedly literate would disapprove of her use of the geezer description and were willing to fight and spend for years to accomplish it.

Onward, I have not attacked any individuals, but have made cultural criticisms. If people refuse cultural criticism they will live in a static, vapid world. And I've talen more lumps than you'll ever know in my past and current life.

As far as your endgame, I didn't see that it requires a response from me, in that you have veered off the thread into ideology and the social sciences which aren't' really sciences anyway, in my view, just a useful but inexact tool (and cultural anthropolgy was my first major).

Hope you had a nice holliday and keep them coming. Beyle.

[Beyle]

Dear Queentess:

"What we have here is (I think) a failure to communicate (Cool Hand Luke)."
You will probably seen my riposte - not a rant - to Elfwreck. Let me preemmpt you and anyone else, there are several mispelled words aboard that I regret but cannot with this technology and my wounded brain amend.

Now, as to your concerns, I would never under any circumstances say or even think of any woman as a "moron." That may b e sexist to you but it's how I was raised. Men? I knew a pudgy guy with glasses who went arouind to various bars in order to get into fights. Something about wanting to know he was alive. Now that's a moron. Harlan Ellison, and I understand he's a big deal in that world, is very pugnacious but never has understood that being five-foot-three and six-feet-five are different in many ways.
Hospitals love him. Women are never that dumb. In John Ford movies, of all places, I learned that women are civilizaton.

I think I'm wandering. But I didn't want you to think that i thought you were less than intellligent. As for the "passive-aggressiive" turn, I don't deal well with pop-psych, but think of it this way, who wants a passsive writer? Wan't it Flaubert who said, "Be bourgeois in your personal life so you can be adventuresome in your art?" Or something like that. As far as degrees go, I don't doubt you at all; myself, I wa a lousy student in one high school and five colleges.

A couple more points. If I said that the predominent office building in America was a big cheesebox,would you say that I had offended hundreds of architects. I wish someone would.; our cities already look like Leggoland.
As far s comic books go, I still think they're for children who are less verbal. Turgenev is better for the soul. And the world "geezer"? is still a pejorative equivilent to any other racial , rellgous, gender slu r -I think you know them all - where I live.

As far as "my dear" goes, I never meant to hurt, I was simply exercising a little sellf-mockery, playing into your conception of me as an elderly gent. Perfectly undestood in England. Perhaps overly subtle, too playful, but the revolution is over and victory won, time to throw off the ancillary sensitivities. The women I know are acheiving like crazy and stilll wsnt the door opened when they go out for an evening. Vive la difference. I'm sure you'll agree that's enough and more. I've got to get back to writing now, God Knows. Have a good year.

[Beyle]

Queentess! Queentess! Queentess! Damn!