On Apr 24, 5:50 pm, Blue Sow <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
> > per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
> > like to do is have us set a texture which can be
> > worked with then crash in with something which
> > takes it one way while someone else is thra****ng
> > out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
> > and energy into and pull that rug from under them.
>
> I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be
nice if
> there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
> > to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
> > can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
> > new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.
>
> Indeed. At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.
>
> > Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
> > a pre-requisite to table turning...
>
> Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the
direction in
> which you led him was something of a surprise. However, his behaviour
since is
> not totally at odds with some elements!
> As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being
written.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.
I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.
My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.
Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.
Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.
In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.
Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.
As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--
|
