|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Oct 21st, 2003 04:00 PM | ||
| kellychaos | Proto made me lol and I almost peepee'd. Now, there's a funny word. | |
| Oct 20th, 2003 10:59 PM | ||
| Drew Katsikas | yes | |
| Oct 20th, 2003 08:40 PM | ||
| Protoclown | Oh, is it? Is it REALLY??? | |
| Oct 20th, 2003 07:20 PM | ||
| Drew Katsikas |
Becuase it's a silly term for a small quantity . 
|
|
| Oct 20th, 2003 07:11 PM | ||
| Protoclown | I still have no idea why "inkling" was funny, but whatever. | |
| Oct 20th, 2003 03:56 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Oct 18th, 2003 06:03 PM | ||
| Krythor | I don't get it. | |
| Oct 18th, 2003 05:09 PM | ||
| Drew Katsikas |
He's talking to me prof.  at inkling.
|
|
| Oct 18th, 2003 02:31 PM | ||
| Professor Cool |
Okay, that's good enough for me.
|
|
| Oct 18th, 2003 03:47 AM | ||
| Protoclown | When I first replied I had no inkling whatsoever about what you wanted to achieve with the piece, if anything. | |
| Oct 17th, 2003 07:54 PM | ||
| Professor Cool |
I wish people would give me hard hitting citique on mine, although ignoring it works too
|
|
| Oct 17th, 2003 05:27 PM | ||
| Drew Katsikas |
I'm not offended, I just think you're a shit, and you have no clue what you're talking about. Big sweeping landscapes wasn't his fucking point. And if you think "And I want to eat at a table with my own silver and I want candles. And I want it to be spring and I want to brush my hair out in front of a mirror and I want a kitty and I want some new clothes" is something a regular person would just casually say, I would ask you what's in the water in your town. I'm not saying that becuase you dislike my story you know nothing about Hemingway. You single-handedly proved you lack of understanding of the guy through what you said. And thanks Proto, I would have appreciated something remotley similar to that when you first replied. |
|
| Oct 17th, 2003 05:18 PM | ||
| glowbelly |
Perhaps I don't come close, but I question if you have an grip on anything the guy has ever written. His earlier work (In Our Time) was some of the most sparse stuff ever written. Completley void of description, solely based on character conversation. His dialouge was actually the most bizarre part of it, compared to your saying the dialouge needs to be real. "And I want to eat at a table with my own silver and I want candles. And I want it to be spring and I want to brush my hair out in front of a mirror and I want a kitty and I want some new clothes " i know hemingway's style. i've read hemingway. i understand that his stories are sparse in description and heavy in dialogue. i suppose i was misleading in my description of his prose. his writing is simple, yet elegant. i know his style most likely derived from writing for newspapers and it provided a way for the "common man" to identify with his characters. again, the dialogue that you rip out of a story to prove a point backfires on you. that is real dialogue right there. that sounds like something a real person would say (to me, anyways) and it fits with the character. the short story you have took that from, i have never read. doing a quick search i came up with the 'cat in the rain.' fine and good. now, before this piece of dialogue is given, there is a beautiful setting painted out for the reader. it is laid out like a movie. the reader moves through the setting like he is there, nevermind how many words he uses. lookie: There were only two Americans stopping at the hotel. They did not know any of the people they passed on the stairs on their way to and from their room. Their room was on the second floor facing the sea. It also faced the public garden and war monument. There were big palms and green benches in the public garden. In the good weather there was always an artist with his easel. Artists liked the way the palms grew and the bright colors of the hotels facing the sea. Italians came from a long way off to look up at the war monument. It was made of bronze and glistened in the rain. It was raining. The rain dripped from the palm trees. Water stood in pools on the gravel paths. The sea broke in a long line in the rain. The motor cars were gone from the square by the war monument. Across the square in the doorway of the cafe a waiter stood looking out at the empty square. The American wife stood at the window looking out. Outside right under their window a cat was crouched under one of the dripping green tables. The cat was trying to make herself so compact that she would not be dripped on. oh my. what do we have here? a description of a setting that starts as a sweeping landscape and moves into the main subject of the dialogue while paying attention to minute details that otherwise shouldn't matter, until you read the dialogue of the story. from large to small, details and all. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY WORDS HE USES. don't tell me i don't know what the fuck i'm talking about. you can call me anything you want, you can be offended by the way i've told you that i don't like your story, but don't assume that just because i don't like this piece that i don't know what hemingway was all about. k? k. |
|
| Oct 17th, 2003 04:05 PM | ||
| kellychaos | Excellent critique Proto. Laying out the metaphors in such a subtle way that's it's not obvious and contrived ... i.e. the reader does not feel as though he's be GIVEN the idea. If it's well written, they form themselves. I DO take offense to Drew's taking Hemingway out of context to explain the author's influence on him. What author ... especially Hemingway with his clipped, blunt prose ... can be summed up and judged by a few sentences? Brevity and conciseness can be an asset when you consider the overall plot, structure, ect of the novels but this cannot be appreciated within the limited framework of an exerpt. | |
| Oct 17th, 2003 01:43 PM | ||
| Protoclown |
To be clear, I never said that your dialogue was stupid, I said it sounded childish. And right now it does. If you're trying to rewrite Genesis, why are there two guys involved and why is the woman the snake? What purpose do these changes serve exactly? You need to think about this, because if they don't serve a purpose that FITS into the story you want to write, you should eliminate them. If you're trying to write a story that reflects the story of Genesis, then you can't go making major changes to that story and expect us to know what you're doing unless you make those changes for a very clear and understandable reason. And if you're trying to connect the ideas in this story to Genesis and you do it well, you won't HAVE to clearly explain your intentions to the reader in a special introduction. We'll simply understand it from the reading. But right now you're not even close. The ideas just aren't meshing at all. Your metaphors could be good, but they're clumsy at the moment and they're unclear. If fire is free will and the sun is God, you need to show us. Don't TELL us, SHOW us. Because right now they're not even remotely identifiable as such. My advice? Figure out what metaphors you want to use and plan for them. Plan on how you want to execute them in the story, use symbolic action between the characters to illustrate this idea. Show us the part where they make the fire. And if both of these men are having an argument about whether they prefer free will or God, you need to SHOW us that they are different from one another. And if their deeds are identical (they both rape the woman) and we don't get into their heads and see what they are thinking about it afterward, then we're not going to see an appreciable difference between the two, and then they become "Fire Guy" and "Sun Guy" in a very contrived way because they have to fulfil those roles for your story to work the way you want it to. Don't force them into roles that they don't fit into. Slowly build them into the part you want them to play. Because based on your current descrption I don't think the reader will have any clue why one guy prefers God and one prefers free will except that you decided arbitrarily that it would be that way. I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm trying to encourage you to think more about this stuff before you really start getting it down in a narrative format. |
|
| Oct 17th, 2003 01:32 PM | ||
| Drew Katsikas |
Quote:
"And I want to eat at a table with my own silver and I want candles. And I want it to be spring and I want to brush my hair out in front of a mirror and I want a kitty and I want some new clothes " If someone said that in real life, you'd think they were retarded or insane. I tend to think the latter of Hem's work. I reccomend you read the mini-chapters between In Our Time. They're usually one short paragraph, little to no description, and strange conversations. If you're going to talk lengthily about an author, make sure you know what the fuck you're dealing with. |
|
| Oct 17th, 2003 01:20 PM | ||
| Drew Katsikas |
Thanks, FS. I appreciate constructive criticism alot. I only quoted Hemingway to show that unrealistic dialouge (Proto says too stupid to be believeable) can add a surrealistic sensation to a story. I used his example to show that it's not some bullshit that I came up with, but something I'm trying to imitate. I wasn't comparing myself, and I don't give any indication that I am. So Glowbelly, I don't really think you should claim that, as I'm just trying to express my influences to make my technique seem at least marginally credible. The whole story is a loosely based attempt to rewrite chapter whatever of Genesis, Adam and Eve. These two men sin: fornicate with the lady (she's supposed to be the snake, but with an element of lust added to the craftiness) and kill her. Just as in the story, the one man becames suddenly aware and ashamed of his nudity and deed, and puts on clothing. Then the two men start a fire. The fire is not needed if the sun was out. Man's passion and free will is not needed if there was no original sin. I tried to connect these ideas, but it's near impossible to know that unless you wrote it yourself, or I told you, which is why I'm going to add the said introduction. Hopefully I can try to emulate the Bible's story and add farmiliar elements of the story (the apple tree). So, the main argument between the men is whether they would prefer complete free will and passion (the fire) or the order and restraint of God (Sun) The man said you can't look at the sun or your eyes get burnt. As said in the Old Testament, if you see God, you die. The men come to the conclusion that it's too late,and there must be a mix, but each man still prefers one or the other. They decide there's nothing more to speak about, and they begin talking about casual life to abruptly end an ontological discussion. Perhaps I failed at communicating this properly, so I'm going to add the intro and rework what has already been written. |
|
| Oct 17th, 2003 11:51 AM | ||
| FS | I wouldn't immediately fob it off as stupid, but there's a few too many perhapses and mights to it. I know a lot of writers simply start writing and see where the story takes them, but writing a story from right to left sounds like an easy way to get entangled in your own plotlines. You might want to extrapolate things a little further before you start writing, or write a gross summary. That's what I do, anyway. | |
| Oct 17th, 2003 09:38 AM | ||
| Protoclown |
Quote:
|
|
| Oct 17th, 2003 08:03 AM | ||
| glowbelly |
taking a sentence of dialogue out of context to prove a point doesn't work, drew. we aren't comparing you to hemingway and to keep this conversation "civil," i suggest you stop comparing yourself to hemingway RIGHT THIS SECOND. the first comment i made, get this: was a little joke. if you're going to post your stories here, be prepared for people to not take them seriously right away. need i remind you where you are posting these things? now... Hemingway wrote that, I like to emulate his style. It's a stylistic thing, so if you don't like it fine. Granted I'm not even 1 millionth as good as him, but you should be able to recognize the things I'm trying to accomplish, even if I fail miserably, as I probably did. i'm not going to say anything about trying to develop your own style, because who knows? maybe you were writing this piece with something intentional in mind. however, if a writer self-admittedly "fail(s) miserably" at trying to emulate a style, how do you expect a reader to react? do you think a reader will say "gee, he certainly failed miserably at emulating hemingway's style" ? no. they are going to comment on your story, because it isn't apparent whose style you are trying to mimic. you yourself said you did it poorly. get it? I still need to write some sort of introductory element, where the two men first find the woman. again, you assume too much about the reader. here you originally posted a "story," a "something" you wrote. you asked for feedback. you got it. you didn't tell us that you weren't finished. you just gave us something to comment on. we did. mission accomplished. i can't really comment on something that you haven't yet written, but i can tell you that the story that you've kind of laid out for us here in your defense sounds a bit predictable. the first thing i thought of when the dead lady was mentioned was that she was probably sexually involved with one or both of the men, either by choice or force. I thought the dialouge was contrived and corny, and the descriptions and backround info were poorly written. The idea itself was intersting, but there's a 100 other ways the author could have written it without it sucking. compared to: “The sun, I think I really need it right now, this fire isn’t doing a hell of a lot.” “I don’t like it.” He said as he blocked it out with his thumb. “ I don’t like it and I hope it stays hidden in the trees.” and It was a cold winter day, and the fire burned brightly in the middle of the forest. The sun was very weak that day, hiding behind the trees. The two men sat around the fire, warming their hands. They were dressed with many layers, and took their gloves off in order to feel the fire. The woman lay dead, naked, but quite warm, right next to the fire. suggestion: if you are trying to emulate hemingway, you need to write as if you are walking through the setting. the dialogue needs to be real. hemingway strove to write the perfect sentence EVERY TIME HE SAT DOWN TO WRITE A SENTENCE. he had the ability to set a scene the way a movie sets a scene. he tends to give an overall impression like a big sweeping landscape and then moves in to minute, if not unimportant, detail of what is happening to and around the main characters. you don't do that. i'm sorry. you don't even come close. |
|
| Oct 17th, 2003 07:10 AM | ||
| FS |
I think this piece, on itself, might cross the line between 'detached' and 'hard to understand'. I very much like stories that make you feel slightly detached and alienated, where the characters know more than you do and aren't telling, and where things are slowly, subtly being explained to you. It's why I like Stephen King's first version of the Gunslinger so much. But you probably need to give your audience a little more. Maybe just by adding a part, maybe by re-writing bits to give more info. There's something wrong with these characters, as can be gained from not only the fact that they're with a dead body at the moment, but also because they have slightly unbalanced ideas about the fire and the sun (“No, because it won’t die out.” Tom said. “It won’t die out, and no one will put it out.”). The main thing is the alienation. Think of it as sitting in a train while people sitting next to you are having a conversation. When you can't at all glean what they're talking about, it just becomes annoying. If they occasionally mention something that gives you a foothold, something to let you understand what they're talking about and why they're talking about it, it becomes interesting. Quote:
|
|
| Oct 16th, 2003 09:49 PM | ||
| Drew Katsikas |
Yeah, it's not quite finished, and it's lacking some things. However, your dialoge argument is ridiculous. "I'm sleepy now. I never get into bed before three o'clock. He should have killed himself last week." Hemingway wrote that, I like to emulate his style. It's a stylistic thing, so if you don't like it fine. Granted I'm not even 1 millionth as good as him, but you should be able to recognize the things I'm trying to accomplish, even if I fail miserably, as I probably did. I still need to write some sort of introductory element, where the two men first find the woman. I plan on having them meet her inadvertantly, and she goes about seducing one of the men. The other is sort of horrified as they go at it, but his friend coerces him to do the same. Perhaps this will take place under an apple tree, but that might be beating a dead horse at this point. After he finishes, he suddenly realizes how cold out it is. He also realizes he's nude, and quickly dresses. The woman starts flipping out, they choke her or something, and then light a fire due to the cold. That's where it will come into the story. Does that make more sense now? Maybe it's a junk story, whatever. I have posted a one of a much different style in this forum. You may like it more. |
|
| Oct 16th, 2003 08:48 PM | ||
| Protoclown |
I don't know if I would consider what you wrote here to be a story so much as "a short piece". Honestly, I didn't like it. And here's why: I didn't see the point. We have two characters arguing over whether or not they like the sun, and there's a dead lady. There really isn't anything of interest happening here, the characters aren't appealing and rather than giving just enough information to wet my appetite and get me curious, you give away so little that I simply don't care. I don't know why there's a dead lady near the campfire, and I'm not particularly interested to learn why. One character likes the sun, one doesn't. Why does that matter? The dialogue was too similar between the characters, as Glowbelly pointed out, but it also seemed too childish. If the characters are supposed to be children, that's fine, but that wasn't my impression after reading the piece. I personally can't believe that dialogue such as "I wish she was alive. I wish someone would put out this goddamn fire, too. Then the sun would come out and we’d all be happy" could come out of anyone above the age of 11 or with an IQ greater than 80. It's not credible to me that a grown adult would be lamenting the fact that the sun may never come back out again. The names Bob and Tom...I mean, can it get any more generic? I realize that those are perfectly realistic and reasonable names, but compounded on top of everything else about this story I don't like, the names make it seem even more silly. I guess what bothers me is that I COMPLETELY fail to see any purpose behind this piece. I don't know why you wrote it or what the reader (or you yourself) is supposed to get out of it. It doesn't give me any conflict, it doesn't provide an interesting character sketch, I don't see any message hidden or otherwise. What was your intention when you wrote it? What were you trying to convey other than "SUN PRETTY!" "NO. FIRE PRETTIER!"? I apologize for my harshness, after being in a writing group with some english majors and been on the receiving end of some blistering criticism myself, I have come to see the value in having someone give their fully honest opinion, even if it isn't particularly pleasant to hear. I mean no offense, but I don't want to hold back and come at you with the kid gloves just because I don't want to hurt your feelings. |
|
| Oct 16th, 2003 07:32 PM | ||
| Drew Katsikas |
If I were Glowbelly: Shit, baby, are you in love, or like cynical Math is love x+y=z and love the end I personally didn't like that, but mind you I would have something more to say than the above. I thought the dialouge was contrived and corny, and the descriptions and backround info were poorly written. The idea itself was intersting, but there's a 100 other ways the author could have written it without it sucking. I have an addition to make to my story, but I have writer's block now. It'll explain where the woman came from, and hopefully the whole sun fire things. If you want to read something that is more intelligble, I have something new posted in recomended readings. |
|
| Oct 16th, 2003 06:57 PM | ||
| glowbelly |
it's repetitive, for one. you don't explain yourself, for another. metaphors are all fine and good, if the reader has any idea what they heck you are trying to convey. all i got from that was 2 men sitting around a fire with a dead lady arguing about whether or not they wanted the sun back. also, if you are going to tell a story based on a conversation between two people, those two people need to have separate voices that the reader can tell apart. i, personally, do not like stories based strictly in dialogue, unless the dialogue is extremely witty or compelling. here's an example of what *i* consider a good story based almost purely on dialogue |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
