On May 7, 11:19 am, Blue Sow <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this
experiment
> >> and decline to take further part.
>
> > Would you mind discussing your reasons?
>
> I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
> I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.
>
> We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it. It may then
stop
> playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing
with itself.
> Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can
indulge.
>
> --
> Blue Sow
I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?
And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
"troll"?
I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to - and you
may with note I never named him and nor was my reference particularly
top posted - suggests that actually he really does lap up every word
despite his pretences otherwise. I can understand James Follett relied
on a periodic self-googling, but where Mark is concerned I've got him
and hooked him, basically.
I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
Creative Writing who has sent anything in here. There is not one
writer-in-residence, or prisoner or anyone either attending an
occupational therapy session or ASBO-prescribed self-development
course who has written in.
There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
some of their students' work anonymously in order to *****s the
quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
assistants.
I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.
But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
Emmerdale is what people want. I'm disappointed that you feel the way
you say about how this has gone. But I know darn well that I'm far
less of a "bore" if, indeed, I am a bore at all, or a boor, boer,
booer or boar even, come to that, when there is a wider texture of
contributions such as one finds on a newsgroup which could be
described as "active".
But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.
I'm quite grateful to him in some ways as the tactics he's used have
actively paralleled some tactics other people i actually know in real
life have tried using at other times and spotting these parallels has
eased my mind of any concern where they're concerned.
Maybe I have actually completely misinterpreted him and where he's
coming from. But a recent favourable review of a book I may actually
buy starts to conclude: So is ending up "here" worth all this length?
Absolutely. Over all these hundreds of pages [Nicola] Barker's
linguistic energy never lets up. Not everything works equally well
[...] but there are no doldrums [...]. [...] It has been constructed
very carefully with artful clues and playful games, and though you may
have to dig to unravel the full implications of the ending the effort
is worth it. (Reviewer: Patrick Ness)
For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
nutshell.
Besides this, I saw no guidelines for length or complexity where
discussion around the fiction here is concerned. And I have yet to see
any criticism of the fiction itself. Or any evidence there's anyone
here but you and I who has truly grappled with mechanics of
composition.
I also really do not take kindly to be called a liar!
My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.
Perhaps we could try this again another time when annoyance thresholds
have ****fted. For the moment, I will match your contribution with
another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open. I was going in
the hope of more of a longer term give & take and was trying to
knuckle down and follow your lead on it from here.
I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
certain futility that
was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...
I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--
|
